Extraction of Natural Gas by Hydraulic Fracturing

EXTRACTION OF NATURAL GAS BY
HYDRAULIC FRACTURING
MICHAEL JOSEPH KNUDSEN
SUPERVISORY COMMITTEE:
DR. LOC VU-QUOC, MECHANICAL & AEROSPACE ENGINEERING
DR. WILLIAM E. LEAR, MECHANICAL & AEROSPACE ENGINEERING
DR. R. KEITH STANFILL, INDUSTRIAL & SYSTEMS ENGINEERING
A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING IN

PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
BACHELOR OF SCIENCE
MECHANICAL ENGINEERING
SUMMA CUM LAUDE
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
2012
Extraction of Natural Gas by Hydraulic Fracturing
Knudsen, Michael J. (2012)
2012 Michael Knudsen
Dedicated to
my parents for their undying love and support throughout my academic career and
my beautiful fianc for her patience and compassion
Acknowledgments
I would like to express my sincerest gratitude to Dr. Loc Vu-Quoc for his continuous guidance
throughout this year; his passion and excitement for engineering is inspiring, and I hope to have
that same fervor throughout my career.
I wish to thank Dr. R. Keith Stanfill for teaching me how to break down any given process in a
useful and informative way. The knowledge I have gained as one of his pupils will carry
forward into almost every aspect of my career as an engineer.
I would like to thank Dr. William E. Lear for his uncanny ability to explain many of the difficult
processes that engineers face every day. With influential mentors like Dr. Lear still in the
discipline, I am confident that I will be able to conquer anything with my engineering degrees.
Finally, I would like to thank the entire faculty and staff of the University of Floridas College of
Engineering for the education I have received. Without a doubt, I would not be the same person
today if I had never been a part of the Gator Nation.
Table of Contents
Acknowledgments........................................................................................................................... 4
Table of Figures .............................................................................................................................. 6
List of Tables .............................................................................................................................. 6
Abstract ........................................................................................................................................... 7
Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 8
Horizontal Drilling .......................................................................................................................... 9
Hydraulic Fracture Theory ............................................................................................................ 11
Fracture Simulation and Discussion ............................................................................................. 23
Fracturing Fluids and Additives.................................................................................................... 26
Gas Locations and Environmental Concerns ................................................................................ 28
Future Presence of Hydraulic Fracturing ...................................................................................... 31
Conclusion .................................................................................................................................... 32
Works Cited .................................................................................................................................. 33
Appendix ....................................................................................................................................... 37
Table of Figures
Figure 1: Horizontal Drilling ......................................................................................................... 9
Figure 2: Geosteering tool ........................................................................................................... 10
Figure 3: Crack propagation in an isotropic, linear elastic, impermeable body. ......................... 11
Figure 4: Fracture Modes I, II, and III ......................................................................................... 12
Figure 5: Tensile stress produced in a poroelastic material ......................................................... 13
Figure 6: PKN Model of Crack .................................................................................................... 16
Figure 7: KGD Model of a Crack ................................................................................................ 16
Figure 8: Radial Model of a Crack .............................................................................................. 16
Figure 9: In-Situ Stress vs. Depth ................................................................................................ 24
Figure 10: Minimum fracture extension pressure and maximum crack width as a function of
radius of fracture ........................................................................................................................... 25
Figure 10: US Shale Gas Resources ............................................................................................. 28
Figure 11: U.S. Natural Gas Production Projections, 1990-2035 ................................................ 31
List of Tables
Table 1: Constant Propagation Parameters .................................................................................. 23
Table 2: Components in Fracturing Fluids .................................................................................. 27
Abstract
Recent advancements in the controversial natural gas extraction method known as hydraulic
fracturing, or fracking, has been accompanied with an unparalleled wave of scrutiny over the
oil and gas industry. With the American energy industry shifting toward green initiatives,
environmental safety questions regarding fracking need to be answered quickly. Due to the
unconventional nature of this methodology, a sizeable amount of existing literature has
conflicting, overly technical views on the theory and dangers of hydraulic fracturing. The
purpose of this study is to familiarize scientists and engineers with the topic of hydraulic
fracturing at an introductory level by using a basic theoretical fracture model. For a PerkinsKern-Nordgren (PKN) fracture model, it was found that pressure drop controlled fracture width
and thus higher injection rates and more viscous fluids increased the maximum width of the
crack. Additionally, it was found that even with precautionary measures in place, ground water
pollution is not likely but possible if faulting of the rock formation occurs; this is a more
probable occurrence during horizontal rather than vertical drilling. Minor seismic activity was
discovered to be a consequence of fracking but the order of magnitude on the Richter scale made
this finding relatively insignificant.
Introduction
Nowhere is the promise of innovation greater than in American-made
energyBut with only 2% of the worlds oil reserves, oil isnt enough.
This country needs an all-out, all-of-the-above strategy that develops every
available source of American energy a strategy thats cleaner, cheaper,
and full of new jobs. We have a supply of natural gas that can last America
nearly 100 yearsAmerica will develop this resource without putting the
health and safety of our citizens at risk.
President Barack Obama, 2012 State of the Union Address
With the American energy crisis rapidly growing, it is critical that the energy industry
turns to cleaner and cheaper domestic fuel resources to stop dependence on foreign oil. In 2009,
87% of natural gas consumed in the U.S. was produced in the United States. By 2035, the U.S.
Energy Information Administration (EIA) projects that 46% of domestically produced natural
gas will be obtained from shale rock formations, a 32% growth rate from shale gas produced in
2010. If the U.S. energy industry is able to harvest the domestic natural gas resources of
approximately 2,543 trillion cubic feet, American energy companies could supply up to 100
years of natural gas at the 2010 U.S. consumption rate (U.S. Department of Energy, 2012).
Hydraulic fracturing, colloquially referred to as fracking, has become a controversial
method of extracting natural gas reserves due to environmental concerns of groundwater
contamination. Fracking involves pumping high pressure fluids underground in order to crack
rock formations that contain natural gas. The high pressure fluids expand into pre-existing
fractures and forces crack growth underneath the surface. As the cracks continue to expand,
natural gas is released into the pipeline and is transported to the surface (Timmer, 2011).
Horizontal Drilling
A new type of oil and gas drilling technique is known as horizontal or directional drilling.
The well bore reaches depths of up to 10,000 feet in the rock formation before gradually turning
horizontal and through the porous rock reservoir where the natural gas is trapped. Figure 1
depicts the process of hydraulic fracturing and horizontal well drilling at such depths (U.S.
Department of Energy, 2012). The corner at which this gradual turn begins to take place in the
well is known as the kickoff point. Horizontal wells can extend up to five miles away from the
initial drill rig on the ground which makes this new technique extremely advantageous. As
hydraulic fracturing continues along the horizontal well, several pockets of natural gas are able
to be extracted that would have previously required new wells to be drilled. This has become
advantageous for natural gas wells with lower porosity because of the ability to obtain gas in
lateral shale rock (Union Town Energy).
Figure 1: Horizontal Drilling
In horizontal drilling, the reservoirs length works to the drilling companys advantage, as
the well provides the ability to produce more natural gas from one well. However, horizontal
wells are nearly 300% more costly than a standard vertical well. Therefore, horizontal drilling is
only employed when it becomes economically feasible; this could include higher production
rates, or lower permeability in the horizontal direction (Helms, 2008).
A horizontal well is drilled by adding a hydraulic motor or geosteering tool above the
drill bit as shown in Figure 2. This allows the drilling engineer to have steering control over the
well without having to explicitly alter the orientation of the main drill.
Sensors on the
geosteering tool allow the user to find current position, as well as calculate the probable drill
path. These sensors also give the drilling engineer environmental information such as pressures,
temperatures, and forces that the bit is seeing. These readings are what drive the drilling fluid
and ultimately controls the hydraulic motor.
Figure 2: Geosteering tool (Helms, 2008)
Several improvements have been and will continue to be seen in the methodology used in
horizontal fracturing. Distances achieved in horizontal drilling have grown from 400 to 8,000
feet over the last 50 years. Further improvements continue to be made by casing the well into
the rock formation which allows the operators to use a lower density drilling mud. Once the
desired horizontal displacement is reached, fracking is completed in intervals from the end of the
well back toward the vertical borehole to extract natural gas from the reservoir (Helms, 2008).
10
Hydraulic Fracture Theory

The theory behind fracking is simply that natural gas can be extracted through porous
rock mass by creating enough pressure to stimulate crack growth. This crack growth is created
by sending pressurized pumping fluid through the well to average depths of 3000 meters at high
flow rates to expand into existing fractures (J. Daniel Arthur, 2008). When the drilling fluid
pressure is greater than the in-situ stress of the rock mass, fracture occurs which allows the fluid
to continue expanding further into the material.
Some simplifying assumptions are necessary in order to create a solvable model of the
hydraulic fracturing theory. As exemplified in Figure 3, the material in which the steady-state
crack growth is assumed to occur in an isotropic, homogeneous, linear elastic, impermeable
body. The pressurized fluid is assumed to be an incompressible fluid acting with power-law
shear thinning flow.
Figure 3: Crack propagation in an isotropic, linear elastic, impermeable body.
11
As the pressure from the fluid rises above the combination of the lowest principal stress
and the tensile strength of the soil material, tensile failure occurs. While this can happen
naturally, human-controlled fractures are caused by continual pumping of the fluid into the
borehole of the well. As the fluid is pumped, the pressure increases and will first fracture normal
to the location and direction of smallest resistance.
In general, a fracture typically comprises of some form of mechanical discontinuity in or
on a material. In crack growth, materials can experience three different modes of fracture during
failure which can occur on an individual or combined basis as shown in Figure 4. Mode I
fracture occurs when the walls of a crack propagate in a normal direction away from one another.
Mode II fracture occurs in shear where the crack walls propagate in a sliding away from one
another. Mode III fracture occurs in shear where the crack walls propagate in a tearing direction
away from one another (Lacazette, 2000). Any of these three modes of fracture may occur
during hydraulic fracturing depending on the orientation of existing cracks in relation to the well
borehole that has been drilled. Mode I fracture is the most common type of fracture mode that
occurs in hydraulic fracturing and will be assumed through the remainder of this investigation.
Figure 4: Fracture Modes I, II, and III
12
Figure 5: Tensile stress produced in a poroelastic material (Fjar, Holt, Horsrud, Raaen, & Risnes, 2008)
The pressure required to propagate the fracture is the result of three different
components: the pressure that maintains the crack opening in the direction of the smallest
principal stress, the pressure seen while pumping fracking fluid into the wellbore, and the
pressure required to overcome the tensile strength at the actual fracture tip (Fjar, Holt, Horsrud,
Raaen, & Risnes, 2008). Figure 5 represents a poroelastic structure in which pressure that occurs
between the pores is controlled at the valve, and the overall effective stress is the difference
between the in-situ stress and the pore pressure as in (1).
(1)
The in-situ vertical stress will change with depth due in large part to changes in density of
the rock formations along with the effects of the gravitational force. Assuming a constant
gravitational acceleration and a depth, h, the vertical stress can be found in (2) where the z is
13
along the zenith axis which points radially inward to the center of the earth and z = 0 lies at the
start of the well.
( )
(2)
Assuming a constant density gradient, this reduces to (3).
Note that this is an
oversimplification, as rock layers are bound to have varying rock densities. For the purpose of
roughly estimating the vertical in-situ stress,
, the constant density gradient approximation is
appropriate.
(3)
The in-situ stresses
and
are taken to be the three principal stresses acting in the
rock material and therefore are the eigenvalues of the stress tensor at that location. The vertical
stress,
, is represented by (3) while the horizontal stresses
and
represent the maximum
and minimum horizontal stresses respectively. The maximum horizontal stress is orthogonal to
the minimum horizontal stress and is larger due to additional external tectonic stresses that exist
in the rock. The minimum horizontal stress can be related to the vertical in-situ stress by (4)
(Environmental Protection Agency, 2011).
(4)
14

where
is the Poissons ratio of the rock material,
is the pore pressure,
Biots parameters for the vertical and horizontal directions, and
and
are
is the external tectonic
stress. For simplification purposes, the Biots parameters are taken to be
and
Thus, the minimum horizontal in-situ stress reduces to (5).
(5)
There are many models that have been employed in the study of hydraulic fracturing
mechanics.
In this study, a simplified linear elastic hydraulic fracture (LEHF) model is
developed to determine how fracturing fluid viscosity and injection flow rate affect the overall
growth of fractures. The Perkins-Kern-Nordgren (PKN) fracture model is shown in Figure 6 and
is typically accepted for fractures where
where H/2 is the semi-major axis of an ellipse
and L is the length of the crack which propagates in the direction of L. The PKN model assumes
plane strain in the vertical plane with a constant elastic modulus. Similarly, the KhristianovicGeertsma-de Klerk (KGD) fracture model is represented in Figure 7 and is applicable for short
fractures. The KGD model assumes a plane-strain condition in the horizontal plane and thus the
fracture propagation is independent of height. The radial fracture model is shown in Figure 8
and assumes the crack propagation is radially outward from the well borehole (Valencia, 2005).
15
Figure 6: PKN Model of Crack (J. Adachi, 2007)
Figure 7: KGD Model of a Crack (J. Adachi, 2007)
Figure 8: Radial Model of a Crack (J. Adachi, 2007)
16
The following analysis of a hydraulic fracture implements the PKN fracture model for
crack widths resulting from Newtonian fluids in laminar flow for vertical fractures (Perkins,
1961). The fluid dynamics of the fracking fluid that occurs inside a crack is governed by
Poiseuille flow (Yuan, 1997). In general, fracture mechanics follow three governing equations:
the elasticity equation, the lubrication equation, and the continuity equation. For the purposes of
this study, the following assumptions were made (Perkins, 1961):
Assumptions:
2-Dimensional
Laminar flow
Vertical fracture
Elliptical crack
Brittle, elastic rock material
Isotropic
Constant rock material properties
Incompressible Newtonian fluid
No leak-off in the fracking fluid
Constant fluid injection rate, Q (implies negligible leak-off and accumulation)
Constant fluid viscosity,
Thin film lubrication theory, h/L<< 1
Maximum width at the borehole is proportional to the effective stress at that

point; therefore, Sneddons equation applies.
Fluid pressure at the crack tip is equal to the total earth stress perpendicular to the
plane of the fracture
17
Perkins and Kern have found that the propagation of a crack is completely driven by the fluid
pressure drop through the aperture. Beginning with the Fanning equation yields (6):
(6)
where f is the friction factor, v is the velocity of the fluid,
is the density of the fluid, and De is
the equivalent diameter. For laminar flow, the friction factor is defined as in (7):
(7)
According to Perry, for an ellipse with an eccentricity of approximately zero (Perry, 1950),
(
(8)
where RH is the hydraulic radius (which can be computed as the area divided by the wetted
perimeter), and
is a proportionality constant. The velocity of the fluid in the fracture can be
expressed as the flow rate per unit area in the elliptical crack as shown in (9) for laminar flow:
(9)
Using laminar flow on the same ellipse, the pressure gradient can be written as in (10):
(10)
By equating (6) and (10) and substituting (7), (8) and (9), one can solve for the proportionality
constant
as in (11)-(16).
18
)(

(11)
(12)
(13)
(14)
[ (
)]
(15)
As
, the proportionality constant can be solved for and is assumed to remain constant
throughout the crack propagation.
(16)
The Reynolds number for laminar flows (Re < 2500) is defined in (17). By substituting (8) and
(9), and expressing the fluid density in terms of the specific gravity, (17) can be simplified into
(20) as shown below. A condition exists for laminar flow,
so that the Reynolds
number does not exceed 2500; these equations are only valid for this criterion (Perkins, 1961).
(17)
(
)(
(
)
)
(18)
(19)
)
(20)
19
Substituting (7), (8) and (9) into (6), we see that:

(21)
(
)(
)
(
)
(
This crack width is a function of the pressure, so a separation of variables is performed in

equation (21) to solve for the effective pressure distribution by substituting the Sneddon equation
in (23); the Sneddon equation is used to solve for the crack width at any point along the fracture.
Assuming Qx is a constant, in other words there is no leakoff and no accumulation that takes
place, equations (22) and (23) are combined with known initial conditions and integrated to yield
the pressure distribution in (29).
(
)
(
)
)(
(25)
)
)|
(26)
(
(
(23)
(24)
)(
(
(22)
(27)
(
20

(
(28)
(
(29)
Plugging (29) back into (23) yields the following:

(
(30)
(31)
Assuming a constant Poissons ratio of v = 0.15, equation (31) becomes:

[
Where Q is expressed in (bbl/min),
(32)
is expressed in (cP), L is expressed in (ft), and E is
expressed in (psi). By applying the dimensional analysis in (33), the width equation becomes
equation (34) as derived by Perkins and Kern.
(33)
(
)(
)(
)(
)(
(34)
R.A. Sack derived Eq. (35) by means of an energy balance. This is the minimum pressure that is
required to overcome the pressure difference due to the in-situ stress and extend the fracture
(Perkins, 1961).
(
(35)
21

Where
is the specific surface energy of the rock and C is the fracture radius. Equation (35)
yields that the minimum pressure required to extend the fracture varies inversely as in the square
root of fracture radius given a constant specific surface energy, modulus of elasticity, and
Poissons ratio (Perkins, 1961). The total crack width for a uniform pressure acting over the
surface of the crack in a plane perpendicular to total earth stress yields (36):
(
)(
(36)
( )
where C is the maximum fracture radius and r is a variable along the direction of C. The
maximum crack width occurs when r = 0 (Perkins, 1961).
(
)(
(37)
22
Fracture Simulation and Discussion

In this study, a MATLAB model for hydraulic fracturing crack growth was developed
using the Perkins-Kern-Nordgren (PKN) model geometry and the hydraulic fracture theory
previously described. The model was meant to show how minimum fracture pressure and
maximum aperture width varied with radius of fracture. A set of parameters displayed in Table 1
were used as constants throughout the fracture simulation.
These values were taken from
averages found in the literature (Hydraulic Fracturing Analysis). The simulation was performed
for up to a fracture radius of 200 ft away from the wellbore. The MATLAB code for this
simulation can be found in the Appendix.
Table 1: Constant Propagation Parameters
Constant Propagation Parameters

Poissons Ratio
Crack Height
Youngs Modulus
Specific Surface Energy
Specific Gravity
Max Radius of Fracture
23
In-Situ Stress vs. Depth

0
v
h
500
Depth (h [m])
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
10
20
30
Stress ( [MPa])
40
50
60
Figure 9: In-Situ Stress vs. Depth
Figure 9 shows how the in-situ stress varies as a function of depth in the horizontal and
vertical directions. As natural gas well depths are reached, the vertical in-situ stress begins to
greatly out-weigh the minimum-horizontal stress. This means when pressurized fluid is pumped
into the wellbore, the pressure will cause fracture in the horizontal direction since the horizontal
in-situ stress will be overcome more easily. If the tectonic stresses are high enough however, the
horizontal stress can be larger than the vertical in-situ stress. In this scenario, the fracture would
propagate in the vertical direction.
24
0.03
Min Fracture Extension Pressure
Max Crack Width
120
0.025
100
0.02
80
0.015
60
0.01
40
0.005
20
Max Crack Width at Well Bore (in)
(P- ), min fracture extension pressure (psi)
140
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
c, radius of fracture (ft)
160
180
0
200
Figure 10: Minimum fracture extension pressure and maximum crack width as a function of radius of fracture
Figure 11 shows the plots of minimum fracture extension pressure (35) and maximum
crack width at the wellbore (37) as a function of radius fracture. It can be seen that crack widths
are controlled by the pressure drop in the fluid for static conditions with no fluid leak-off. For
very small fracture radii, extremely high injection pressures are necessary to fracture the walls.
The higher pressures, however, would widen the crack faster, allowing the injection pressure
required to drop even further. The fluid pressure at the crack tip asymptotically decreases toward
the in-situ stresses in the ground due to tectonic stress. As seen here, the pressure drop in the
fluid drives the crack width propagation; the larger the pressure drop, the larger the crack width.
By association, high fluid injection rates, Q, and fluids with larger viscosities (more proppant
slurry), , tend to produce larger crack widths while low Q and will result in slender cracks
(Perkins, 1961).
25
Fracturing Fluids and Additives

Hydraulic fracturing can be performed using a multitude of various fracking fluids.
These fracking fluids may be selected depending on the type of rock and depths at which
fracturing is desired. A typical fracture process involves four stages in which the following types
of fracking fluids are used: a prepad, a pad, a proppant, and a flush. A prepad is a low-viscosity
saline solution pumped down into the borehole to prevent rock formation damage and typically
contains some form of fluid loss prevention additives and surfactants. Subsequently, a viscous
pad fluid is initially pumped into the borehole and pressurized to actually produce the fractures.
Proppants are particles that are then added to lower viscosity fracking fluids to sustain fractures
because closure can occur pretty quickly due to the high underground pressures. Finally, flush
fluids are used to clean out the fracture fluid from underground (Fink, 2003).
Fracking fluids are often considered to be a water-based, oil-based, multiphase, or
surfactant-based gel that may or may not contain a proppant pack. In the majority of cases,
water-based gels are used but are becoming more controversial due to the residue they leave in
rock formations after fracking is completed (Hydraulic Gel Fracturing, 2005). These waterbased solutions contain additives that precipitate proppant delivery and stimulate crack growth.
There are certainly pros and cons to each type of fracking fluid. Oil-based fluids tend to have a
higher risk of explosion or fire than do water-based fluids. Multiphase fluids are fracturing
fluids that contain a second phase and are typically categorized as foams and emulsions. These
fluids can be obtained by adding various gases or hydrocarbons to change fluid properties such
as viscosity and temperature sensitivity. Foams tend to be lower pressure while emulsions tend
to be higher pressure and both are low temperature fluids that lose viscosity with increasing
26
temperature. Due to the additional phase that is added to the fracturing gels, multiphase fluids
are often more expensive than water-based and oil-based fluids. Surfactant-based fluids are
newly developed fluids that significantly improve leak-off control and proppant delivery. Other
surfactant-based fracking gels are currently being developed to reduce the damage seen in
individual fractures which will ultimately diminish the overall reservoir damage.
Table 2,
reproduced from Oil Field Chemicals, displays various components and functions of additives
and fracturing fluids (Fink, 2003).
Table 2: Components in Fracturing Fluids
27
Gas Locations and Environmental Concerns

According to the United States Energy Information Administration (EIA), shale gas
makes up 60.64 trillion cubic feet (tcf) of total natural gas production each year which is nearly a
quarter of annual U.S. natural gas production. Figure 11 shows the shale gas map of the U.S. as
of 2011, with the largest reservoirs, the Marcellus, Haynesville, and Barnett shale formations
comprising of over 500 trillion cubic feet of natural gas resources. Another notable player is the
Bakken formation in North Dakota, which is primarily a shale oil reservoir (U.S. Energy
Information Administration, 2011).
Figure 11: US Shale Gas Resources (U.S. Energy Information Administration, 2011)
28
With the American energy industry trending toward green energy, profitable natural gas
production is becoming a critical source of revenue for successful oil and gas companies.
Natural gas is considered a cleaner form of energy due to its lower levels of carbon emissions
during combustion when compared to other natural resources.
With new approaches like
hydraulic fracturing making its way into industry, catastrophic events such as the 2010
Deepwater Horizon oil spill have caused environmental concerns regarding oil and gas
technology to be at an all-time high. Among other concerns, environmentalists are worried about
the effect hydraulic fracturing is having on contaminating drinking water, causing earthquakes or
other seismic activity, and ruining the land by introducing foreign chemicals into the soil (U.S.
Department of Energy, 2012).
With water-based fracking fluids constantly being used, some environmentalists are not
only concerned about contaminating groundwater but also with the amount of water used to
perform hydraulic fracturing. For a typical natural gas well, approximately 4.5 million gallons of
water are used during the hydraulic fracturing process; this number is only expected to increase
with the growing production of natural gas. However, many companies currently drilling for
natural gas use resources other than fresh drinking water to achieve these amounts including
municipal wastewater, groundwater, and reusing fracking water (Chesapeake Energy). Another
concern is the contamination of the ground water in aquifers surrounding gas wells. Several laws
have been implemented into industry by the Ground Water Protection Council (GWPC) in order
to regulate the environmental consequences of hydraulic fracturing on groundwater sustainability
and quality. According to the GWPC, the potential for hydraulic fracturing to adversely affect
ground water aquifers is as low as one in 200 million (Chesapeake Energy). This is because
29
most underground aquifers are less than 1,000 feet deep, while hydraulic fracturing occurs up to
10,000 feet deep, i.e., significantly below the water table (Baker Hughes, 2011).
However, since most fracking fluids are water-based, other oily chemical additives tend
to have lower densities than water and at high pressures underground can start to separate out of
the fracking water. This separation ultimately allows for the fracking chemicals to become
pollutants in naturally occurring groundwater formations by making their way through the shale
rock. More often than not, pollution due to hydraulic fracturing is caused by a failure in the well
casing or by geological faulting due to high fracking pressures. According to a study done by
Otsego 2000, from a pressure standpoint, the horizontal hydrofracturing of shale is effectively
the explosion of a massive pipe bomb underground (Northrup, 2010). During these effective
explosions, faulting may occur that creates a path for natural gas or fracking fluid to escape to
the underwater aquifers. The Environmental Protection Agency has not released an official
statement regarding the effects hydraulic fracturing has on drinking water and is currently
investigating in a 3-year study (United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2012).
Another growing concern of environmentalists is seismic activity induced by hydraulic
fracturing. In multiple studies, it has been found that hydraulic fracturing does cause an increase
in seismic activity, however, on the Richter scale, these minor tremors typically rank somewhere
between -4.5 to -1 which are not felt above ground. According to Oklahoma seismologist Austin
Holland, the seismic activity caused by hydraulic fracturing is really quite inconsequential
(America's Natural Gas Alliance). In accordance with Holland, the U.S. Department of Energy
officially stated that hydrofracturing to intentionally create permeability rarely creates unwanted
induced seismicity large enough to be detected on the surface even with very sensitive sensors,
let alone be a hazard or an annoyance (Colorado Oil & Gas Association, 2012).
30
Future Presence of Hydraulic Fracturing

According to the EIA as of 2012, the United States has approximately 2,214 tcf of
technically recoverable gas. With lower drilling costs and a shift toward green energy, it is
plausible that natural gas production will significantly increase over the next twenty years.
Figure 12 shows the EIAs natural gas projections through 2035. President Obamas 2012 State
of the Union Address statement that the U.S. has enough natural gas to provide power over the
next 100 years is true based only on the 2010 production rate. With the growth projections seen
in Figure 12 comes higher demand, and thus higher production rates would be required for
natural gas drilling agencies. Although natural gas production is still in its early stages of
economic feasibility, natural gas certainly appears to be quickly making its way to the global
energy market.
Figure 12: U.S. Natural Gas Production Projections, 1990-2035 (U.S. Energy Information Administration, 2011)
31
Conclusion
In conclusion, the controversial method of hydraulic fracturing is going to be a critical
component of the oil and gas industry over the next 30 years. There are many tools available to
engineers today that can be help model hydraulic fracturing, but the fundamental models stem
from crack propagation governed by the elasticity, lubrication, and continuity equations. As
outlined by Perkins and Kern, it was found that crack widths are controlled by the pressure drop
in the fluid for static conditions in laminar flow. In general, high fluid injection rates and highly
viscous fluids are more advantageous in expanding an aperture. Some of these highly viscous
fluids begin to behave like a non-Newtonian fluid which changes the analysis quite a bit.
Fracking fluids are delivered in three main stages: a prepad (surface protection and preparation),
a frac pack (which includes a pad such as water and proppant such as sand), and a flush which
cleans out the fracture fluid after the natural gas has been extracted. Proppants are necessary
additives to fluids because the particles are used to prevent closure in the fractures due to the
highly compressive stresses seen underground. Although no official statement has been released
by the EPA regarding the safety of fracking, there have been some observations where fracking
has caused an increase in pollutants in the groundwater around drilling sites as well as an
increase in seismic activity. However, fracking has been performed for well over 50 years and is
often employed in natural gas and oil wells today. With the surge in green initiatives in the
American energy industry, the U.S. will more than likely experience a large growth as predicted
by the EIA. This recent boom in natural gas means perfecting the understanding of this
technology is pertinent to the future profitability of the energy industry as well as the safety of
the environment.
32
Works Cited
America's Natural Gas Alliance. (n.d.). Critical Issues > Seismic Activity. Retrieved April 18,
2012, from http://anga.us/critical-issues/seismic-activity
Baker Hughes. (2011). Hydraulic Fracturing: Stimulating Reservoirs to Increase Natural Gas
Production. Retrieved April 18, 2012, from
http://public.bakerhughes.com/shalegas/fracturing.html
Barree, R. (2009). Modeling Fracture Geometry. Barree & Associates LLC.
Castro Dantas, T. N., Santanna, V. C., Dantas Neto, A. A., & Alencar Moura, M. C. (2005).
Hydraulic Gel Fracturing. Journal of Dispersion Science and technology, 26, 1-4.
Chekhonin, E., & Levonyan, K. (2012). Hydraulic fracture propagation in highly permeable
formations, with applications to tip screenout. International Journal of Rock Mechanics
& Mining Sciences, 19-28.
Chemtotal Pty Ltd. (n.d.). D.Col-CMHPG. Retrieved April 15, 2012, from Chemtotal:
http://www.chemtotal.com/Carboxymethyl%20Hydroxypropyl%20Guar%20%28CMHP
G%29.pdf
Chemtotal Pty Ltd. (n.d.). HPG / Hydroxypropyl Guar / HP Gum / Modified Guar. Retrieved
April 15, 2012, from Chemtotal:
http://www.chemtotal.com/Hydroxypropyl%20Guar%28HPG%29.pdf
Chesapeake Energy. (n.d.). Hydraulic Fracturing Facts. Retrieved April 18, 2012, from
http://www.hydraulicfracturing.com/Water-Usage/Pages/Information.aspx
Colorado Oil & Gas Association. (2012). Retrieved April 18, 2012, from
http://www.coga.org/pdfs_facts/SeismicActivity.pdf
33
Environmental Protection Agency. (2011). Evaluating Hydraulic Fracture Propagation in a

Shallow Sandstone Interval, South Texas. EPA Hydraulic Fracturing Technical
Workshop Well Construction and Operations.
Fink, J. K. (2003). Hydraulic Fracturing Fluids. In Oil Field Chemicals (pp. 233-275). Elsevier.
Online version available at:
http://www.knovel.com/web/portal/browse/display?_EXT_KNOVEL_DISPLAY_bookid
=1271&VerticalID=0.
Fjar, E., Holt, R., Horsrud, P., Raaen, A., & Risnes, R. (2008). Petroleum Related Rock
Mechanics (2nd Edition). Elsevier.
Helms, L. (2008, January). Horizontal Drilling. North Dakota Department of Mineral Resources
Newsletter. Bismarck, North Dakota, United States of America.
Hydraulic Fracturing Analysis. (n.d.). Retrieved April 15, 2012, from
http://www.ohiodnr.com/Portals/11/bainbridge/DMRM%202%20Chapter%202%20%20Hydraulic%20Fracturing%20Analysis.pdf
J. Adachi, E. S. (2007). Computer simulation of hydraulic fractures. International Journal of
Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences.
J. Daniel Arthur, P. B. (2008). Hydraulic Fracturing Considerations for Natural Gas Wells of the
Marcellus Shale. The Ground Water Protection Council 2008 Annual Forum. Cincinnati,
OH: ALL Consulting.
Lacazette, A. (2000). Natural Fracture Types. Retrieved March 3, 2012, from Al Lacazette's
NaturalFractures.com: http://www.naturalfractures.com/1.1.1.htm
Lenoach, B. (1995). The Crack tip Solution for Hydraulic Fracturing in a Permeable Solid. J.
mech. Phs. Solids, Vol. 43, No. 7, 1025-1043.
34
Liberty Pressure Pumping. (n.d.). WG-111L Water Gelling Agent. Retrieved April 15, 2012,
from Trican: http://www.trican.us/pdf/FluidTechnology/FracturingFluid/Liberty%20%20WG-111L.pdf
Northrup, J. L. (2010, August 18). Retrieved April 18, 2012, from Fracking Free Ireland:
http://frackingfreeireland.org/wpcontent/uploads/2011/08/10aug19_NorthrupEPAcommentsFracking2010.pdf
Perkins, T. K. (1961). Widths of Hydraulic Fractures. Journal of Petroleum Technology, 937949.
Perry, J. (1950). Chemical Engineers' Handbook, Third Ed. New York, N.Y.: McGraw Hill
Book Co.
The SCR Geomechanics Group. (1993). On the Modelling of Near Tip Processes in Hydraulic
Fractures. International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences, 1127-1134.
Timmer, J. (2011, November). Fracking and faulting: how a gas extraction method produced
tremors in UK. Retrieved March 3, 2012, from ars technica:
http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2011/11/fracking-and-faulting-how-a-gas-extractionmethod-produced-tremors-in-uk.ars
U.S. Department of Energy. (2012, February 14). Energy in Brief - What is shale gas and why is
it important? Retrieved March 3, 2012, from U.S. Energy Information Administration
(EIA): http://www.eia.gov/energy_in_brief/about_shale_gas.cfm
U.S. Energy Information Administration. (2011, July 8). Review of Emerging Resources: U.S.
Shale Gas and Shale Oil Plays. Retrieved April 18, 2012, from EIA Analysis and
Projections: http://www.eia.gov/analysis/studies/usshalegas/
35
Union Town Energy. (n.d.). Technology >> Horizontal Drilling. Retrieved April 15, 2012, from
Union Town Energy Web site: http://www.uniontownenergy.com/technology/horizontaldrilling/
United States Environmental Protection Agency. (2012, April 13). EPA's Study of Hydraulic
Fracturing and Its Potential Impact on Drinking Water Resources. Retrieved April 18,
2012, from EPA: http://www.epa.gov/hfstudy/index.html
Valencia, K. J. (2005, September). Optimising Hydraulic Fracture Treatments in Reservoirs
Under Complex Conditions. The University of New South Wales School of Petroleum
Engineering. Sydney, Australia.
Yew, C. H. (1997). Mechanics of Hydraulic Fracturing. Houston, TX: Gulf Publishing
Company.
Yuan, Y. (1997). Simulation of Penny-Shaped Hydraulic Fracturing in Porous Media. The
University of Oklahoma Graduate College. Norman, Oklahoma, United States of
America.
36
Appendix
MATLAB CODE:
%This MATLAB simulation is based on the PKN crack model
%Perkins, T.K., Kern (1961). Widths of Hydraulic Fractures.
%Journal of Petroleum Technology, 937-949.
%Constant parameters
H = 40;
%ft
Q = 30;
%bbl/min
mu = 4;
%cP
SpGr = 0.9;
%dimensionless parameter
E = 4e6;
%psi
nu = 0.15;
c = 0:1:200;
%fracture radius, ft
alpha = 0.01;
%specific surface energy
Pm_sig = sqrt(pi*alpha*E./(2*(1-nu^2).*c));
W = 8.*(Pm_sig).*c*12/(pi*E);
[ax,h1,h2] = plotyy(c,Pm_sig,c,W)
%minimum pressure difference

%max crack width
%double plot
%figure properties
axis(ax(1),[0 200 0 140])
set(ax(1),'YTick',[0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140])
set(get(ax(1),'Ylabel'),'String','(P-\sigma), min fracture extension pressure
(psi)')
axis(ax(2),[0 200 0 0.03])
set(ax(2),'YTick',0:.03/6:.03)
set(get(ax(2),'Ylabel'),'String','Max Crack Width at Well Bore (in)')
set(h1,'LineStyle','-','linewidth',1.5)
set(h2,'LineStyle','--','linewidth',1.5)
xlabel('c, radius of fracture (ft)')
legend('Min Fracture Extension Pressure','Max Crack Width')
37

Extraction of Natural Gas by Hydraulic Fracturing

Încărcat de

Informații document

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Extraction of Natural Gas by Hydraulic Fracturing

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

EXTRACTION OF NATURAL GAS BY

MICHAEL JOSEPH KNUDSEN

A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING IN