Propane As An Alternative To Water For Fracking

Surname 1

Name:

Professor:

Course:

Date:

PROPANE AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO WATER FOR FRACKING

Background

Fracking, also known as hydraulic fracturing is the process of mining natural gas by

breaking the shale rocks. Fracking with water is the commonly used technique where water is

used to fracture rocks. In the process, a mixture of large amounts of water and explosive

charges is used to create a rock-breaking effect that works a long way in gas production.

Water has been a commercially tenable method since the end of the Second World War.

Fracking is important to the America’s economy since it makes it easy to access

‘unattainable’ natural gases.

Drilling natural gas using water fracking technique does not only come with benefits,

the process is associated with a number of challenges that require redress in order in order to

come up with alternative methods of accessing the same resources. Some of the most

common challenges include (Birgit, Ewers and Frimmel): A lot of water goes into waste

during the process; at the same time serious spillages and flow-backs of natural gas have been

reported. The leaked gases such as methane gases run into other water channels, and therefore

causing side effects since such gases are not environmentally friendly.

Fracking in general has faced serious opposition from different quarters (Melissa and

Thompson). Some people argue that fracking using water leads to contamination of ground

water, wastage of large quantities of fresh water that could be used for production in other

Surname 2

sectors, pollution of both air and water through noise and emission of gases, and health

effects to the communities that reside around the drilling places. Indeed, countries like France

have administered bans on water fracking due to the risks that accompany it (Neha and

O’Sullivan). The United States has put stringent rules to guide the process of fracking

(Dowell and Miller). The regulatory powers are managed at the State level, but the

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is endowed with the responsibility to issue waste

disposal and drilling permits to Companies that deal with the extraction of natural gas and oil.

The problems posed by fracking affects everyone in the society. The governmental

agencies have the responsibility to ensure that citizens live in an environment that is free

from pollution and other environmental hazards. Any strategy meant to help curb these

challenges should always be aimed at developing a plan that considers the environmental

wellbeing of the people. In this respect, such plans should take a keen look at how the most

affected (plants, animals and people) can be protected from the adverse effects of cracking

(Rodriguez and Soeder).

Solutions to problems associated with fracking have not been fully exploited, and the

reasons as follows: Firstly, the technical problems associated with the water are very difficult

to manage (Birgit, Ewers and Frimmel). Some reported cases reveals that cement casing of

the drilling pipes have failed in most cases leading to the unwanted spillages. In fact, around

5% of the total number of oil and gas wells around the world do have this problem. This in

itself is a challenge since making corrections to such wells (which are erected underground)

once fracking processes have been initiated is not very easy. The research that was carried out

in the USA by the Duke University have revealed that about 40% of the water fracking wells

have experienced either short term, medium term or long-term spillages that go un-noticed

sometimes.

Surname 3

Secondly, economic benefits of water fracking seems to outweigh its negative impacts

to the companies that carryout the process of fracking (Foram, Chavan and Chhatre). It is a

common knowledge that every country in the World needs oil and gas for economic

prosperity. This has posed a major challenge in addressing the problems of fracking. Drilling

companies tend to lean more towards the commercial benefits of their activities rather than

taking measures to carry out proper disposal wastes. Failure to address proper disposal

procedures by such companies leaves the government as the only disposal regulatory agency.

Since the cost of regulation is also very enormous, government agencies may not find it very

easy to ensure that every sector relying on the products of cracking does the right thing in

terms of waste management.

Thirdly, according to (Michael and Cole) the problems of fracking using water have

not been solved because the reported cases of contamination lacks proper documentation.

Contamination of underground waters is an example of a reported case that requires a very

serious examination for appropriate measures to be taken (Birgit, Ewers and Frimmel). The

proper of filing such cases is lack of proper legal procedures to address the issues. The

underground water exists everywhere within the underground water table. It would very

difficult to know which drilling company has not carried out its procedures in the right

manner. In order to address the problems of contamination effectively, it would be a

requirement that the regulation agencies like EPA puts proper measures by even employing

technology to monitor what takes places within the underground drilling wells.

Fourthly, once the policies have been formulated, many people make an assumption

that best regulations around the world influence proper implementation of such policies.

Fracking has been in existence for over 60 years and therefore people tend to believe that if

they have been able to cope up with the challenges that are associated with it, then they

would even continue to survive with them (Birgit, Ewers and Frimmel). What is important to

Surname 4

note is that the problems of fracking are both short-term, medium term and long-term and

therefore nothing should be taken for granted.

Failure to address fracking problems has negative consequences. One of the most

common global challenges is climate change (Dowell and Miller). Due to poor understanding

of shale rock fracking, and little regulatory measures, it is not very easy to establish the exact

amount of air pollution that results from fracking across the country (Rodriguez and Soeder).

The most disturbing aspect of fracking is the effects of the climate change. Global warming is

already a concern everywhere in the world.

Climate change is majorly as a result of emission of greenhouse gases into the

atmosphere. It is quite unfortunate that methane which is also one of the natural gases drilled

is also a potent greenhouse gas, just like carbon (IV) oxide. The gas brings about climate

change, hence global warming; the amount of methane gas that goes into the atmosphere

from fracking has not been established, but other studies have showed that its contribution

towards climate change could be more adverse than that of burning charcoal (Foram, Chavan

and Chhatre).

The other negative impact of failure to solve problems of fracking with water is

earthquakes. As the use of water fracking increases since early 1990’s, EPA has appreciated

the fact that cases of earthquakes have also increased to almost a proportionate level (Neha

and O’Sullivan). Between 1967 to around 2000, only an approximate number of 21 cases of

earthquakes were reported every, this is incomparable to 300 cases reported from 2010 when

the number of tracking wells constructed every year rose significantly (Michael and Cole).

Studies (Dowell and Miller) have showed that the increased number of earthquakes is as a

result of injection wells which are meant for disposal of water that has been contaminated.

Surname 5

Apart from the earthquakes and climate change which are basically environmental,

failure to address the problems of fracking pose very serious health problems (Foram, Chavan

and Chhatre). Cancer and birth defects are some of the consequences. Some of the chemicals

used to form a gel in fracking using water are actually dangerous and can be radio-active at

times. Those who work in such firms get exposed to harmful gases and chemicals. The

consequences may be long-term in such a way that, the effects are only realized on the

children of such people. One of the most significant effect is birth defects on the children. It

cannot go without mentioning that fracking has led to unconditional migrations due to

infringements in order to set up the drilling wells. People end up losing their lands (Michael

and Cole), leading to homelessness, while others are given very little compensations that are

not even enough to enable them acquire new residential homes.

Literature Review

The research carried out by the Duke University in 2013 revealed the adverse effects of

fracking using water on the domestic drinking water (Melissa and Thompson). A study on the

natural gas wells around the North Eastern parts of the US showed a strong correlation between

the well’s proximity and the domestic water contamination. Ethane concentration was over 20

times higher in water in areas that were situated less than a kilometer away from the drilling

wells, while propane could also be detected.

From the study, the conclusion was that the levels of contamination detected were not

as a result of gases that naturally occur in the atmosphere, but as a result of underground drilling

of shale gas wells (Neha and O’Sullivan). The most interesting result of the study was that the

gases could find their way into home through either leakages in the pipes due to improper

cement casing or through direct contamination between brought about by the large water trucks

Surname 6

as they transport water from the source to the drilling locations. The studies by Duke University

tends to clear the air on whether locating water fracking leads to contamination or not.

In addition, EPA released a comprehensive report (2014) on fracking and its negative

and positive impacts. The report covered a great deal of it, touching majorly on the importance,

together with the consequences on health and the environment. However there was a

deficiency, the report failed to give suggestions on the alternative to water fracking. A

collaboration with other international agencies like NIH or CDC can help exploit the available

alternative-propane fracking. Besides the government involvement to create a long-lasting

solution to water fracking, investigation through interviewing of people is still on-going to

come up with better ways of solving problems brought about by fracking.

Hypothesis: If water fracking continues then, people must be ready to cope up with

the numerous negative impacts or else, fracking using propane stands out to be the most

viable alternative.

The scope of study

The study intends to address the following issues:

 An evaluation of procedure that can be followed to minimize the negative

health and environmental effects of fracking

 A review of the already existing methods of fracking

 A critical examination of the available technology that provides an alternative

to fracking using water.

Proposal for a Solution

An emerging technology that uses propane instead water is on the rise. The

technology does not only, provide an alternative to curb the challenges posed by water

Surname 7

fracking but is also an efficient and effective method of harnessing natural gas. The technique

of propane fracking is the best alternative to water fracking when properly implemented.

In fracking using propane, the liquid state of propane is used. A gel is formed from a

mixture of propane, phosphoric acid, and butane. With the aid of other chemicals, non-

compressible hydraulic fluid is formed by integrating the gel with sand (Melissa and

Thompson). Intensive compression forces are initiated that force the gel into the rocks,

causing fracturing. Due to the magnitude of the forces, a mixture of methane gaseous propane

is flashed back, after which separation of the two gases is done. Methane is sold as a natural

gas while propane is recycled and used as raw material in the process.

From the procedure outlined above, it is noticed that use of propane as opposed to

water for fracking maximizes use of propane. In the process, wastage is avoided at all costs.

Exposure of the harmful proprietary chemical into the environment is also avoided by

ensuring that such chemicals remain buried deep underground.

The budget

Even though fracking using propane provides a solution to most of the hydraulic

fracturing problems, the costs are relatively higher. However, it is also important to note that

the problems related to poor fracking techniques are also costly, hence it would be much

better to consolidate the solutions by applying better fracking techniques. The costs in this

regard refer to the total budget of initiating the research, plus the propane fracking

procedures. For the research, a budget of $25- $30 would be required for consultation for a

duration of one month, working 8 hours per day. An additional $1000 is necessary for data

collection and analysis; 12 dollars every hour for interviewers (a total of 5 interviewers,

working 8 hours a day). A copy of ArcGIS from EPA priced at $1200 would also be

Surname 8

necessary. The estimate total cost of initiating a water fracking firm is 360 dollars, but the

cost of putting up a propane fracking site is slightly above this (Neha and O’Sullivan).

Justification

Those who are against the idea of fracking using the propane claim that the materials

that are flashed back (majorly a mixture of butane and propane) produce irritating smells and

gases that are quite hazardous (Rodriguez and Soeder). However, these are problems that can

be managed easily by simply maximizing the use of high density compressors to condense

the butane-propane mixture for recycling and use in other drilling firms. The use of propane

gel instead water provides an outstanding solution to the problem of water contamination, and

reduces the waste disposal issues to a greater extent.

Fracking of with propane instead of water was first used in Canada. The technique has

turned out to be one of the best ways of drilling. The gel formed unlike water, when exposed

to an intensive underground heat and pressure turns into vapor, and is then get returned into

the surface. This process provides an environmentally friendly system that minimizes natural

gas extraction costs while maximizing the production output. The use of propane also reduces

destruction of local roads and trucking costs, as the number of trucks that would otherwise be

used to transport large amounts of water are reduced significantly. Extracting involving use

of propane also require highly trained personnel and monitoring equipment (Foram, Chavan

and Chhatre). Employment of well-trained personnel helps in ensuring that risks are

minimized, while monitoring machines are used to detect any minor spillages of gases before

they can result into any significant harm.

Surname 9

Work Cited

Birgit, Gordalla, Ulrich Ewers and Fritz H. Frimmel. “Hydraulic fracturing: a toxicological threat for

groundwater and drinking-water?” Environmental earth sciences 70.8 (2013): 3875-3893.

Web.

Dowell, Lashmet Tiffany and Amber Miller. “Texas Exempt Wells: Where Does Fracking Fit.” Natural

resources journal 55 (2014): 239. Web.

Foram, Prajapati, et al. “Shale Gas: The future fuel: A Review on its Practicality and Viability.”

Bombay Technologist 65.1 (2015). Print.

Melissa, Stark and Peter Thompson. “Water Use in Shale Gas Developments.” Disruptive Science and

Technology 1.4 (2013): 164-168.

Michael, Arthur A. and David R. Cole. “Unconventional hydrocarbon resources: prospects and

problems.” Elements 10.4 (2014): 257-264. Web.

Neha, Mehta and Francis O’Sullivan. “Water Management in Unconventional Oil and Gas

Development—The Issues and Their Optimization.” Food, Energy, and Water: The Chemistry

Connection (2015): 217. Print.

Rodriguez, Rebecca and Daniel Soeder. “Evolving water management practices in shale oil & gas

development.” Journal of Unconventional Oil and Gas Resources 10 (2015): 18-24. web.

Place new order. It's free, fast and safe

Paper type

Deadline

Page count

550 words

Total price: $ 15.00

Our customers say

Jeff Curtis

USA, Student

"I'm fully satisfied with the essay I've just received. When I read it, I felt like it was exactly what I wanted to say, but couldn’t find the necessary words. Thank you!"

Ian McGregor

UK, Student

"I don’t know what I would do without your assistance! With your help, I met my deadline just in time and the work was very professional. I will be back in several days with another assignment!"

Shannon Williams

Canada, Student

"It was the perfect experience! I enjoyed working with my writer, he delivered my work on time and followed all the guidelines about the referencing and contents."

Propane as an alternative to water for fracking

Place new order. It's free, fast and safe

Our customers say

Jeff Curtis

Ian McGregor

Shannon Williams