Waterless Fracking may increase access to more energy, without the need to deal with the waste water.From the article:
Posted on 11/07/2014 6:40:39 PM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach
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:
No comment coz it`s too close for discomfort.
The enviro-wackos will be certain to find something to object to.
Ping.
Next the left will be decrying the release of nitrogen into the environment, even though it makes up about three-quarters of the atmosphere.
The other problem I see is proppant mixing and transport with a -70 liquid. You need to keep the fractures open, too.
“Its New and Scarey!”
“smash the printing presses”
That would be so cool. Imagine the heads exploding over giving carbon credits to oil companies.
Just creating fractures cannot be the answer as they have to be propped.
For some idle reading, see what was done in the 70’s by Project Rulison and Gas Buggy. Hint: they used a low-yield atomic bomb to create fractures.
Libs are all saying, “What the Frack.”
waterless fracking-
does that mean it`s a dry frack?
Pumping carbon dioxide into the ground is one method of sequestration.
That's what I was wondering. Ya gotta have sand or rubber balls or something to move into the fractures. And something for them to flow in.
Only if they're humping it....
Can anything other than water carry the sand?
“They are seeking to perfect Cryogenic fracturing, which replaces water with searing cold liquid nitrogen (or CARBON DIOXIDE) “
Think I just heard a liberal’s head explode.
Definitely - the fact that it produces more and cheaper energy will be at the top of their objections.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.