Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by tc on June 6, 2013 at 5:55

The below link. also available on Goodrich's home page under RBC panel webcast, is a panel discussion mainly about the Bakken, Wilcox and TMS, but during the Q&A at the 43:36 mark there is a question about Gas Frac.  Goodrich is currently not a fan because it is a good bit more expensive than gel or water.  Also you have to use sliding sleeves instead of plug & perf and GDP sees benefits of cementing your linear in place in the Eagle Ford & TMS.  However in places where you have "dead oil" and not enough energy to lift the liquids the gas frac makes sense to keep the frac fluid off the formation and use NGL because the liquids coming upfront will be your oil instead of producing off your frac fluid.  In theory the practice make sense but it needs to become more economical or see better returns from it.

John Crum from Midstates Petroleum, used Gas Frac when he was with Apache in Canada, but sees limited applications.  He says that a big frac job with a lot of sand it is hard to beat water or gel.  He sees recycling water from natural production as a better option, but some issues remain with the salt water accepting the friction reducers.

http://www.veracast.com/rbc/energy2013/main/player.cfm?eventName=20...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Hopeful About Natural Gas on June 6, 2013 at 7:02

I am trying to follow these developments for water(less) fracking. There are many areas in the West where gas/oil may be plentiful but water is in short supply.

I've heard of using propane and even vegetable wastes. There are a lot of smart, creative people working on this right now. Within a few years there will be several excellent solutions.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Two Dogs, Pirate on June 6, 2013 at 13:23

There have been several post on Gas Frac here on GHS  in the past couple of years. One comment was from someone who works in  the fracing biz and he stated that it may work best in the areas of the shale that  has high clay content.

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Hopeful About Natural Gas on June 7, 2013 at 17:19

It may be in the future we will see a variety of frack fluids and methods. What may work best in one area may not be the best in another area thousands of miles away.

It seems like shale gas is almost everywhere under the earth - no matter what the top landscape is like - swamp, desert or mountains. It may be that different methods will be best in different locations.

I wish I were younger .... but if I were then I would not have seen the gas lines of the 1970's and I would not feel the same urgency.

Shale gas and oil (done responsibly) is the big game changer many of us have hoped to see for a long, long time.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by tc on June 8, 2013 at 0:27

You would have still seen the gas lines of the 1970's, because shale oil only works at $90+ per barrel and shale NG only really works at $5 mcfe and during the 70/80/90s NG was around $2-3/mcfe.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Robin Watts on June 12, 2013 at 5:41

Interesting title...waterless fracturing has been around for decades utlizing inert materials.  Pure nitrogen is stilled used in the Lower Huron.  Nitrogen is pumped as a gas and there is no proppant.  Pure CO2 with proppant, pumpled as a liquid slurry has been used in the same region as well in the past. 

Across the country there have been and still are various qualities of N2 and CO2 foams or energized fluids (ranging from 30 to 70%) utilized for hydraulic fracturing.  It not only reduces water usage by volume displacement but also can lower the total volume of fluid pumped.  Where water is costly to acquire, manage, and dispose, there can be an economic benefit to displacing water.  In addition, energized fluids are noted for their self cleaning, flexibility in formulations, and help prevent damage and blockage from water. 

• ▶ Reply