From an article on new advances in fracking (link below)
In short, the use of water is the aspect of fracking that worries citizens and drives activism against the technique.
Luckily, there may be a technical fix that addresses these water worries and does an end run around drilling opponents: gas-fracking. Developed by GasFrac Energy Services in Alberta, Canada, gas-fracking uses liquefied petroleum gas (LPG), which consists mostly of propane, instead of water to crack open shale formations to release oil and natural gas. Robert Lestz, GasFrac’s chief technology officer, and his colleague Audis Byrd spent 10 years developing the technique. Lestz explains that the company produces a LPG gel using phosphate esters, iron sulfate activator, and magnesium oxide. None are seriously toxic or are thought to be carcinogenic. The injected LPG gel combined with sand fractures shale formations to release trapped oil and/or natural gas.
As a hydrocarbon, propane easily mixes with natural gas and returns to the surface where it can be recovered and reused or flared. Since essentially no water is used and the gelling chemicals are relatively benign, there is no possibility that well wastewater can contaminate wells or streams.
Gas-fracking is also more efficient than hydrofracking. In conventional hydrofracking, injected water tends to block the pores and cracks through which natural gas would otherwise flow into the well. This does not happen with gas-fracking. As a consequence, Lestz claims that gas-fracked wells often produce 20 to 30 percent more natural gas than do hydrofracked wells. One more advantage: hydrofracked wells often need to be flared for a couple of weeks to purge fracking fluids. This wastes saleable product and emits extra greenhouse gases. Gas-fracked wells, which need far less flaring, save gas and can go into production sooner.
There are, however, additional safety concerns when dealing with large quantities of propane. Unlike water, LPG is flammable. In January 2008, a well site in Alberta suffered a blast as a result of a propane leak. Three workers suffered non-life-threatening burns and GasFrac suspended its operations to devise techniques aimed at preventing future accidents. Lestz claims that insurers give the company the same risk rating as conventional hydrofrackers. So far the company has fractured 300 oil and gas wells in both Canada and the United States.
From this link: http://reason.com/archives/2011/05/17/a-better-way-to-frack
If this process really works. It should quell most complaints. Fix the propane issue and cheap and affordable energy, without protest, could be the norm.
Tom- Thanks for this! I'm open to hearing all sides in order to know the subject better- The next fracking post I do, I will be sure to cite your post on this different process. The challenges are great- we need energy, all green may be unviable in the immediate future- but we need to exploit natural resources safely without rush to profit or to beat competition at the expense of our public health, safety and environment. We want assurances that it will be done responsibly and honestly. I saw your previous post on Frack-o-Phobia- and one of your questions regarded an agenda to end natural gas exploration- There are certainly hardline groups advocating an end to all fossil fuel exploitation, but I believe that the Safe Fracking Coalition here in Laredo seeks to gain research, education and assurances that the process is safe, the equipment is sound and the chemicals (and their quantities) are disclosed. I can't speak for the group, of course- but these are the reasons I feel safe endorsing their efforts on my own blog-
ReplyDelete