Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by 2s72s0k9mm8gd on December 3, 2011 at 5:15am

I would think that even if the cost is higher it may be worth it versus the political ramifications of hydraulic fracturing which threaten the very existence of the industry.

We can all be sure that the Leftists cloaked as environmentalists aren't through with us yet. Technology to replace hydraulic fracturing should be embraced by the industry as it could ultimately be it's savior. I would make it Priority #1. Could result in CheckMate against the enviromaniacs and put our future in much better shape.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jack Straw on December 3, 2011 at 2:49pm

I must confess that I was a bit disturbed by some basic mistakes contained within the article: http://insideclimatenews.org/news/20111104/gasfrac-propane-natural-...

Most notably, the article gives an incorrect definition of LPG (their quote; “liquefied propane gas (LPG)” ) and they continue throughout the article to equate LPG with Propane.

LPG stands for Liquefied Petroleum Gas. LPG is a mixture of Propane, Butane, Propylene, Ethane, and some heaver hydrocarbons. Typically, LPG is primarily Propane; however, the terms LPG and Propane are not interchangeable.

Whenever I encounter such a basic error (and that error continues throughout the article), I tend to question the accuracy of subsequent statements.

I believe that the best explanation of GasFrac is contained within the GasFrac website: http://www.gasfrac.com/ 

Having detailed my criticisms of the article, I never the less think that GasFrac is an interesting technology – one worthy of study.

Within the public there seems to be a basic misunderstanding of hydrofracing.

When problems have occurred as a result of drilling and fracing a well, blame is placed on the fracing.When problems have occurred as a result of drilling and fracing a well, any contamination of shallow aquifers is not due to what happened 7000 feet below (where the frac occurred).When problems have occurred as a result of drilling and fracing a well, any contamination of shallow aquifers is due to a problem with the cement bond (at or near the shallow aquifer).

A poor cement bond can allow subsurface fluids to contaminate shallow aquifers.

If all aquifers are behind casing and protected by a good cement job, fracing will not and cannot cause problems within those aquifers.

Hydrofracing does not deserve to be painted with a black brush.

Concern should exist, but that concern should be directed where it truly belongs – assuring the presence of a good cement job.

 

There is one important similarity between typical hydrofracing and GasFrac.

In hydrofracing, a fluid (primarily water) is injected into the target formation under very high pressure.

In GasFrac, a fluid (primarily gelled LPG) is injected into the target formation under very high pressure.

 

In hydrofracing, if there is a problem with the cement bond, shallower horizons can be contaminated with the fracing fluid (primarily water).

In Gasfrac, if there is a problem with the cement bond, shallower horizons can be contaminated with the LPG.

 

Somehow, I think that the environmentalists will be just as upset with GasFrac as they are with conventional hydrofracing.

 

A negative associated with GasFrac is that you are dealing with a very flammable substance at the well site, and it will be present in massive quantities.

Another negative, you will have a lot of additional trucks on the road filled with large quantities of a very flammable substance.

 

There are many positives associated with GasFrac.

Water free, GasFrac does not squander large quantities of water.

Water free, GasFrac does not present us with a large quantity of polluted water requiring remediation.

 

There are several claims about GasFrac which confuse me: 

There is the claim that with GasFrac you do not have to deal with the “ancient” contaminated salt water (connate water is the correct technical term).

During the “clean up” of the well, I would expect that there will be a quantity of connate water similar to the amount that would be present with hydrofracing.

The difference being that the connate water would be easier to remove from the GasFrac return fluids. But, you will still need to dispose of this pollutant.

 

There is the claim that with GasFrac you do not have to deal with the radioactive trace minerals.

During the “clean up” of the well, I would expect that there will be a quantity of the radioactive trace minerals similar to the amount that would be present with hydrofracing.

The difference being that the radioactive trace minerals would be easier to remove from the GasFrac return fluids. But, you will still need to dispose of this pollutant.

 

I must confess that I would feel comfortable witnessing a hydrofracing job, close up.

I must confess that I would not at all feel comfortable witnessing a GasFrac job, close up – just too darn many tanks of  LPG and too many pumpers pumping that LPG under high pressure.

 

Again, I feel that GasFrac is an interesting technology that may well ultimately (and deservedly) replace hydrofracing.

But, it would naïve to expect that GasFrac does not potentially bring its own set of problems (problems that will inflame the radical wing of the environmental movement).

 

All in my humble opinion.

One size fits most.

 

JS

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by brian kulp on December 4, 2011 at 8:42am

there gonna go nuts becouse now its all bad stuff going into the grund not 99.5% water. the tree huger are gonna go ape s---. over gasfracking just my 2 cents

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jim Litwinowicz on December 4, 2011 at 11:42am

JS; You make some good points. The LPG/propane thing is typical of reporters.  They often screw up the details so that is why I usually try to read at least three articles on any important story.

And true that fracking is not a concern but well casing is the most critical component of gas drilling.

GasFrac discusses the flammability issue on their website.  They point out that both low concentrations and high concentrations are not flammable.  They did have one incident and now have many more monitors on site while fracking.  I am sure they have done a ton of work to ensure the safety of the system.

If the propane returns as a gas it would not pick up radioactive particles or even other contaminates.  Even as a liquid, it would be much lighter with less viscosity to support any solids.

One big advantage is that they say the wells produce better.  From what I understand, water causes the clay within the shale to expand, closing of some of the fractures.  That is one reason they flare a well until most water is out. Less expansion means less obstruction for the gas to flow better.

I have no idea how it will pan out but hopefully this or some other system is developed that is more acceptable to our wonderful tree huggers.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jack Straw on December 5, 2011 at 3:49am

RE: “If the propane returns as a gas it would not pick up radioactive particles or even other contaminates.  Even as a liquid, it would be much lighter with less viscosity to support any solids.”

LPG would be a liquid at Marcellus depths; the high pressures at depth more than compensates for the elevated temperature at depth. The LPG would not revert to a gas until it approached atmospheric pressure. Note: For the Marcellus Shale at a depth of 7500 feet (sub surface) the hydrostatic pressure would be around 3500 psi. and the temperature would be around 164 deg. F.

The wells will produce (along with their natural gas) some connate water.

The connate water contains high concentrations of minerals, with the potential for the presence of dissolved radioactive metals – what started out as salty formation water 380 million years ago has had a lot of time (at elevated temperatures and highly elevated pressures) during which it can leach out minerals and metals. The minerals and any metals would not be present as solids, instead present in solution.

It is my argument that the connate water will be present in the clean up of the well, whether traditional hydrofracing or GasFrac.

I will freely concede that it would be much easier to sequester the polluted connate water from the GasFrac LPG returns than diluted in traditional frac fluid

Some connate water will continue to be produced (along with the natural gas) for the life of the well; and, this connate water will be collected at some stage of production – and dealt with.

 

RE: “One big advantage is that they say the wells produce better.  From what I understand, water causes the clay within the shale to expand, closing of some of the fractures.  That is one reason they flare a well until most water is out. Less expansion means less obstruction for the gas to flow better.”

Some clays are expansive (swelling) clays. If expansive clays are present they can react with frac fluid. Efforts are made to identify the presence of expansive clays (such as montmorillonite, smectite, bentonite and illite).  If expansive clays are deemed present, additives are introduced into the frac fluid to minimize formation damage.  I am not aware of expansive clays posing a particular problem in the Marcellus Shale. GasFrac might have advantages where swelling clays are present (such as Alberta, North Dakota, Montana and Wyoming); not sure whether there would be any GasFrac advantage vis à vis the Marcellus Shale.

I expect that they will flare gas during the cleanup – while recovering frac fluids (be they frac water or GasFrac LPG). Flaring is usually considered an integral part of production testing.

 

Re: “GasFrac discusses the flammability issue on their website.  They point out that both low concentrations and high concentrations are not flammable.”

Traditional water based frac fluids are not flammable in low concentrations and high concentrations (or anywhere in between).

 

All in my humble opinion.

One size fits most.

 

JS

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Nelson Roe on December 5, 2011 at 4:39am

Hi Jack,

I have read, learned from & enjoyed the information in many of your posts.  It is quite apparent you have a good deal of background in the field.  Would you be willing to say if you are a geologist, or what your credentials are?  I am not asking this as an attack in any way.  I am just curious as some of the terminology that you present seems to go rather in depth & I am sure it could go even further in depth given the opportunity.  The main reason I ask is that I am currently enrolled in college & I am just finishing a geology course this semester.  My professor used to do some work in the oil & gas field in the late 70's/early 80's, so we have discussed some of the processes in class & I see some similarities in what we have discussed with some of the information that you present.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jack Straw on December 6, 2011 at 6:02am

Nelson,

My interest in the Marcellus Shale is as a landowner.

I do have several degrees in the earth sciences, one of those degrees is in geological science.

I am retired, after a long career in the O & G sector, having worked with and alongside geologists, geophysicists, geochemists, petroleum engineers, drilling engineers, facility engineers, drillers, well log analysts, seismic data collection contractors, seismic data processing contractors, contract lawyers, etc.

Working closely with professionals engaged in many of the O & G disciplines has allowed me to gain a broad familiarity with the industry at large.

At my retirement, I severed my ties to the industry; however, I maintain an interest in the science and technology.

During my professional life, I never worked onshore east of the Mississippi; so, my presence on this forum is primarily to learn about what is happening in Pennsylvania that might affect me as a landowner (with O & G and Mineral rights).

As a Marcellus Shale landowner, I have strived to educate (re-educate) myself on the geology of Western Pennsylvania; particularly as it applies to O & G.

I do not as yet have a Marcellus Shale well on my property, I am watching and waiting.

As a Marcellus Shale landowner, my loyalties lie with other Marcellus Shale landowners. While listening and learning on this forum, I hope to occasionally post information that might allow others to better understand what is happening. While listening and learning on this forum, I expect to occasionally post opinions on issues that I consider important to myself and other Marcellus Shale landowners.

 

JS

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Nelson Roe on December 6, 2011 at 7:13am

Jack,

Thanks for confirming.  As I stated before, I thought some of your posts sounded very similar to some of the terminology that my professor has shared with me.  & it sounds like you & he may have shared a somewhat similar past.  Although his past I believe was mainly in & around Ohio where we are now dealing mainly with Utica (some Marcellus but rather limited).  From what I have gathered from him a lot of his experience was with the Clinton, Berea & Oriskany formations.  Even though I am in college majoring in Information Systems with a business minor, all this new information is highly intriguing to me.  I am one who likes to know a little bit about a lot of topics so that I may be able to (at least somewhat intelligently) engage in a conversation at any point regardless of topic.  Before this whole process started, I never found much interest in the earth sciences.  But now after beginning to research some of it (mainly for leasing purposes) my interest is picking up.  It is also somewhat odd that the timing of this geology class just happened to be right as all of this is going on & that the professor for the class has a background in it.  I am enjoying learning & discussing all this information.  Although not new, it is new to me. 

Thanks again for all of your posts & sharing what you have thus far.  I look forward to reading more as time goes on.

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dee on July 15, 2012 at 4:21pm

Has anyone heard which 2 wells in Ohio GasFrac has been hired to frack?

• ▶ Reply