0
0
votes
Article Rating
Waterless Fracking promises more energy, less trouble
140 Comments
It’s actually commercially viable, if not yet profitable: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/construction-begins-on-new-carbon-capture-plant/
and from what I’ve seen there are gel coated membranes that can absorb and store CO2, but I’ve not yet seen how that CO2 can be removed and therefore reused, or if the membrane had to be stored with CO2 sequestered. Cost estimates were $20-$2000 per ton. Obviously in it’s infancy. They were pdf’s on google scholar so didn’t provide that link.
I looked into this very early into my sceptical journey, there are numerous ways to sequester CO2 from the atmosphere, there just aren’t any economical ways and there probably any that aren’t any that don’t generate more CO2 from power generation than they sequester. Power plant or Concrete kiln capture might get over that hurdle depending on capital cost variables, but I suspect even there, the “feel good” value for the greens is greater than any practical value ever will be.
Danny Thomas says:
It’s actually commercially viable…
Why would anyone want to reduce CO2? There is not enough of it. That’s like wanting to reduce the food supply in Africa or China.
CO2 is harmless, and it is beneficial. Instead of reducing it, reducing the tax money wasted on these pointless mitigation schemes would be far better.
And the ocean is not acidifying. Please use correct terms. The ocean is alkaline; it will never be acid. N.E.V.E.R.
DB,
Sigh. You just seem to dislike me personally.
First. Statement of fact. It is viable.
Re: “Why would anyone want to remove CO2. See above fact. If one can make money on it, why not, if it’s not verifiable as being detrimental? Some removal, to a point, is just fine. Too much not so good. Now, see next paragraph.
CO2 is beneficial until it reaches a level that it’s not. Scientifically provable, verifiable, and repeatable. To be specific, in no way did I say that I expect it to reach that level again, but as climate is changing, has changed and will always change and based on an early atmospheric content on this very planet resembling Venus at a point eons ago, it is possible, not necessarily likely that it COULD happen again.
Can we not move on?
The baking soda thing was a joke.
Relax!
“[W]hich replaces water with searing cold liquid nitrogen (or carbon dioxide). Used at temperatures below minus 321 Fahrenheit”
There’s a tectonically error in that statement.
While liquid nitrogen is approximately minus 321 Fahrenheit at atmospheric pressure, liquid CO2 is only about -100 Fahrenheit, and does not meet the definition of a cryogen.
November 7, 2014 4:18 pm
Hmmm. Nope. Already done. Pure CO2 and liquid propane fracture treatments have been done for decades. No water, but extremely expensive, and extremely dangerous. They are niche methods of fracturing.
Cryogenic fracturing would also require HUGE amounts of liquid CO2 or N2. Geological Heat transport would warm the liquid well before it gets to the target zone.
And cryogenic fracturing would pull most tubulars apart. Even with water at ambient temps, expansion joints are needed to compensate for temperature shrinkage.
In theory, practice and theory are the same. In practice, they aren’t.
They wouldn’t need “tankers and tankers of liquid nitrogen.” It could be produce on site or nearby. Extracting nitrogen from the atmosphere and liquifying it is an easy and relatively inexpensive process. If enough of it is going to be used for fracking it makes perfect sense to make it where it’s going to be used rather than trucking it in long distance. All that’s need is the electricity to run the compressors, cryocoolers, and pumps.
The academics just want money to stuff into their bank accounts, pay for the lights and feather their retirements. If they can promote their research. But, of course, it’s just for them since it will never be used without a tyrannical goverment mandate.
For example, in Canada it seems a company, Gasfrac, holds a patent on using LP. There web site ( http://www.gasfrac.com/ ) has their sales pitch regarding it. If my reading of their financials (see any financial site – ticker GFS on the Toronto market), they started up in 2010, had a small profit in 2010 and have been “bleeding” money every year since in greater amounts year by year.. The hope seems to be the anti-frackers will ban current fracking water based technology and switch to their patented process(es).
This means the “real world” has found it’s simply not economical to switch to something as readily available as LP to replace even cheaper water.
As noted in the comment, it’s just silly to consider using cryo-gases since even the LP technology that’s available isn’t used.
One should note – is there a trace odor of “CO2 sequestering”.
There could be the unpleasant smell of unnecessary money being spent, but CO2 is a trace odourless gas that is heavier than air. It is dangerous in the sense that it can sink and collect at low points with limited air circulation (such as in pits and sewers) endangering maintenance personnel who must access these locations periodically.
Perhaps. But this isn’t some nutcase environmental proposal. The Colorado School of Mines is one of the premier (probably the premier) educational institutions that works on issues of mining, energy and related areas. I’d be inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt and hear them out in most cases.
Of course, there is always the huge gap that exists between early research and actual commercial viability. Then there is the tendency of press releases to go beyond what has actually been demonstrated or to conveniently skip over the devil in the details . . .
Indeed, the completion string would disintegrate and such large volumes of liquid N2 would not be easily available. What the “scientists” refer to is thermal fraccing. Have done this with water disposal welsl in high temperature rock, the cold (ambient) water continuously crack the rock, but the cracks will close again when the water flow is stopped. For that reason is proppant pumped during “normal” fracced wells, to keep the cracks open after initiation. But again, agreeing with Les, would not be possible with cryogenic fluids. These fluids have too high viscosity (being too thin) to exert any force against he formation, they will just disappear in the natural permeability of the rock, unless pump rates exceed flow rates of hydrocarbons, but even then, very inefficient .So mixing up two technologies; thermal fraccing and fraccing with low vis fluids (cross linked gel) and not feasibly due to the temp effects on the well and the vast amount of liquids needed.
November 7, 2014 4:19 pm
Brilliant idea. But hydraulic fracturing also requires what we Texas old timers call “propus”, a material that props up or keeps the fissures open after the blast charge shatters the strata. It’s a material more or less like sand that is injected into the cracks with the water to stabilize the fissure. I wonder what material the liquid N2 can carry? Maybe the same stuff being used now?
November 7, 2014 4:19 pm
Whether this is a viable alternative will be determined by the big frak outfits like Halliburton. Liquid nitrogen! Remember, the frac interval is as long as a mile, horizontally. The logistics of having enough water on hand are problematic. Imagine needing to provide ten thousand cubic feet of liquid NITROGEN.
I did cold box design for more than a few years for Air Liquide; they have smaller onsite LN2 generation plants called APSAs. They’re somewhat modular and typically used by clients that need largish quantities (more than can be provided by onsite membrane gaseous N2 or a couple of 13,000USG storage tanks but less than that produced by a “normal”-sized air separation unit.
November 7, 2014 4:27 pm
I own a truck/trailer hauling frac sand, been at it about 4 years. I am currently in the Eagle Ford in south Texas, but spent over two years in the Bakken in Nirth Dakota/Montana.
About two years ago we hauled sand to a frac job NW of Stanley, ND that was experimenting with nitrogen. They had quite a few problems with the nitrogen equipment as I remember. Never saw another one while i was up there. Good to see they stuck with it.
This is a good reminder…..for all the Negative Nellies out there who like pointing out the poor EROEI and fast decline rates on frac wells, these shale plays are really nothing more than huge laboratories. I have talked to dozens of engineers and production personnel, and they’re constantly trying new methods and formulas.
Science and engineering……without the climate crisis heartburn…….a wonderful thing.
Steve you should add “in America” after “Science and engineering” (I’m Australian, by the way). Hopefully, all that wonderful experimentation that is being carried out in the Bakken and in the Eagle Ford Shale, as well as other places, will start spreading to other parts of the world. Of course, your Canadian neighbours are probably going at it already.
Good stuff, mate!
Hmmmmm…..CO2 liquid? Not so much.
http://www.co2info.com/co2.html
If the pressure is not right, it flashes into solid form.
Additionally, CO2 is corrosive in the presence of moisture.
N2 is a very cheap industrial liquid. It doesn’t react to form corrosive compounds as easily as CO2. But you still have the explosive phase change risk that takes place when cryogenics hit relatively hot things like rocks. And they are doing so in an enclosed space. How much expensive downhole equipment will be at risk from this?
Carbonated water from your kitchen tap (facet) sell Sodastream
http://www.sodastream.co.uk/sale/machines/pure-grey?gclid=CPzggark6cECFbDLtAodCnAAYQ
PiperPaul: It’s a very large reusable cartridge. You pay $30 for a new one. Trading for refills is $15. I bought two so I always have a spare. It’s more convenient and environment friendly than money saving, BTW. And I can get diet flavors like orange-mango and cranberry-raspberry. The lime cola diet is as good as anybodies and a big favorite in the U.S. No, I have no connection with the company. I just enjoy a great product.
November 7, 2014 4:37 pm
From a fracturing price book:
CO2 is 1.40 per scm
N2 is 2.24 per scm
scm is one standard cubic meter. One meter of gas at one atmosphere at 16 deg C
It takes about 1000 scm of gas to make one m3 of liquid.
The cost of water is pennies per m3.
So liquid gas is at least 3 orders of magnitude more expensive than water. Specialized pumping equipment increases that cost yet again.
In hot weather, you also have 25% losses per day, of cryo fluids. Some of the fluid needs to evaporate off, in order to cool the remaining fluid.
So, you can pay 1000 of times the cost of water, to get about the same results as water.
How will that play out in a free market?
If using the N2 method, increases production by 50% over water, as an example, then the higher cost would be worth it. The same thing was said about the shale plays a few years back. Way to expensive to frack it out and extract oil, then lateral drilling was improved making the expensive fracking worthwhile.
I don’t recall anything about 25% per day losses due to boil-off. Where does that figure come from? I also don’t know what is meant about “fluid evaporating and cooling the remaining fluid” – that actually makes no sense. What DOES happen often is that liquid is drawn off the storage tank and sent to a ambient (sometimes water-bath or other) vaporizer. This pressurizes the tank to push the liquid out and through the piping.
Well, first, it’s obvious you don’t live in the northern Midwest. Water is EXPENSIVE in Montana, North and South Dakota, Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, Arizona and New Mexico, and parts of Nebraska. Secondly, I doubt the fracking crews will be buying liquid nitrogen. It’s far easier to compress it on site, as needed. That not only eliminates the cost of shipping, it also eliminates most of the cost of storing the stuff. Thirdly, the entire expense of recycling/cleaning fracking fluid will be eliminated, cutting expenses far more than manufacturing liquid nitrogen would raise it.
Oh, I thought N2 at minus 300 something making contact with several hundred degrees warmer surroundings would expand the gas. Maybe Im wrong.
There are lots of youtube videos of exploding nitrogen.
http://youtu.be/_kkcvjRBqLI
“Nitrogen is inert.” Umm, no. I don’t think that’s what you meant to say. However it is not explosive, as you have stated.
Argon is inert. I don’t know what it would take to liquify argon since I do not know it’s boiling point off hand. However it does make up a wee bit under 1% of the atmospheric gases (not counting water vapor), which means it is present in air at a higher concentration than CO2. Would it be useful for fracking? No idea.
November 7, 2014 4:44 pm
The volume and pressures are impressive with a typical well fracking…. Connecting up to 16 tractor trailer sized pumps and piping to a well head that delivers 300 gpm @ur momisugly 20,000 to 30,000 psi and up to a million gallons of water is flat out impressive.
Does the compressibility of liquid N2, match water?
A million gallons of liquid N2 would be need to be made and stored in some huge cryo tanks . not to mention the boil-off would be going on all over the site and down the well.
Crude oil prices are down to 78 bucks at the moment…. (won’t stay there for long)
November 7, 2014 4:50 pm
So many old and new alternatives with human initiatives. Just one old one using the largest natural CO2 reservoir in the world! Please don’t tell anybody how much pure CO2 we have in the USA and what we can use it for.
http://www.drillingcontractor.org/co2-used-as-alternative-fracturing-agent-in-low-pressure-formations-14180
November 7, 2014 6:01 pm
I’m in the biz. Nitrogen fracking is expensive. CO2 fracking introduces a corrosive issue with standard iron pipes.
Another eco-green plan that increases energy costs and stimulates by comparison the Islamic middle East.
Gotta love Al Gore. He knows the value in keeping the Islamist states profitable.
Doug, I think it´s a frac cost and a water disposal reduction technique. The idea sounds a bit goofy, they don´t mention how they will be propping the thermal fractures, which I suspect will tend to close once the rocks warm up again. Since they are trying exotic techniques maybe they´ll want to try using cryogenic methane, I think it has a higher heat capacity and they´ll be able to sell it when they flow back.
When I think about it the whole idea seems crazy, but maybe it´ll work in places with hostile natives, like in the UK.
Oxygen for breathing and industrial uses is very often produced via cryogenic distillation (liquid air is produced and then separated). Since the raw product, air, is 78% nitrogen and 21% oxygen, over 3/4 of the feed stream is vented back as a gas in huge volumes to the atmosphere (we called it waste N2 and actually some of it is used to regenerate the front end adsorbers. The adsorbers are where CO2 – yes, that nasty molecule and water are removed).
Totally off topic, but maybe you can tell me something I’ve long wondered about. How “scarce” are the various inert gases? Is there plenty of oxygen production to get all the xenon we need from a plant here and there, or is an effort made to collect every molecule of it from all of the liquid air plants, or is oxygen actually a byproduct of of inert gas production? Argon? Neon? Krypton?
Bell Phillips,
The only scarce/depleting noble gas is helium. It is extracted from oil wells as a byproduct, and once it’s gone, it’s gone for good. It is too light to be held by earth’s gravity.
The others are extracted from air. Some are more scarece than others; argon, for example, is ≈1% of the atmosphere, so it is very plentiful. Radon is unstable and radioactive, but it is found only in limited areas, and it is considered a nuisance.
Oxygen and other atmospheric gases are all collected together, by companies that specialize in their production. They use fractional distillation, and cooling the air provides many different elements and compounds. As the temperature of the liquid is allowed to rise it causes each element/compound to boil, and they are collected for sale.
dbstealy,
Thanks for the reply, but that’s not really what I’m asking. Let me try to clarify. There is a certain amount of oxygen distilled from air, and the demand for it dictates the total capacity of all the air plants operated.
There is also a certain demand for, say, neon. My question is, how difficult is it to meet the neon demand. If the neon demand is low, most liquid air plants wouldn’t even bother with it. If the neon demand is high, nearly every plant would incur the extra expense required to separate it from their oxygen stream. In the extreme case, oxygen would be vented back to the atmosphere in order to recover enough neon.
November 7, 2014 7:16 pm
“Once it comes into contact with the heated, pressurized shale, a reaction occurs”
It’s important to be clear on these things for the uninitiated, Mr. Watts. A reaction does not occur. A phase change occurs (the liquid simply turns into a gas). The word ‘reaction’ might scare a climate alarmist.
November 7, 2014 7:30 pm
Error in the first sentence from the article, which includes “trapped in shale with using any water at all”
It should be changed to: “trapped in shale withOUT using any water at all” (unless the article itself was in error, in which case an “sic” should be added to indicate that).
November 7, 2014 7:33 pm
Many things can be used to replace water for frac’ing. The economics are always the question. It would need to be used many times to optimize the frac even before it can be evaluated.
Also, no two frac’s are ever the same. What works in one area might not work 10 miles away.
Researchers at the Colorado School of Mines claim they have developed a method to unlock hydrocarbons trapped in shale with using any water at all. They are seeking to perfect Cryogenic fracturing, which replaces water with searing cold liquid nitrogen (or carbon dioxide). Used at temperatures below minus 321 Fahrenheit, it is pumped underground at high pressure. Once it comes into contact with the heated, pressurized shale, a reaction occurs which caused the shale to crack open and creates fissures through which the hydrocarbons can gush out. They liken it to pouring hot water onto a frozen car windshield, with the sharp and sudden temperature change causing the glass to crack.
There are several positive results from using this technique. First, the liquid nitrogen will evaporate underground eliminating the need for costly recovery and retreatment. Further, they claim it will form bigger fissures or canals through which hydrocarbons can be extracted, boosting oil and gas production. In theory, the below-freezing liquid should actually be more rather than less effective than water based methods.
Second, it may well solve problems with water-sensitive formations or those with an unwanted amount of clay. Slickwater fracking often causes water saturation around the fracture and clay swelling, hindering the ability to transport hydrocarbons from the fracture to the well bore. Some shale absorbs water very quickly and the entire formation may swell in size and hinder transport through the fissures we have created. Even in a best case scenario, using hydraulic fracturing results in a low recovery factor, caused largely by water trapping.
h/t to WUWT reader Ben in WUWT Tips and Notes
Source:
http://shaleforum.com/profiles/blogs/too-much-clay-chill-out-why-cryogenic-fracturing-may-be-the?xg_source=msg_mes_network