With regard to fracking, the main objection appears to be the concern that forcing liquids into bedrock will cause that bedrock to shift, leading to temblors and even minor earthquakes. A second concern is based on proven effects upon groundwater, which is used for drinking, as in the reports of people setting fire to tap-water, and high amounts of chemical residue – arsenic in particular – being found.
I want to make a suggestion, and to have it properly examined by qualified experts please.
If, instead of using chemical-laden water to pressurise the gas in shale deposits and force it upwards for collection, heat was used, the whole fracking process would become much safer as well as cheaper. Fracking companies would not need to purchase great quantities of chemicals, or use great amounts of energy to force liquids below the surface. That latter part, especially, has always struck me as counter-productive – using massive amounts of energy to force the water downwards in order to bring lesser amounts of energy up. A definite break in the joined-up thinking happened there, methinks.
By lowering heating units into a sufficient number of bore-holes, the whole of a shale bed could be heated. This would cause the resident gas to rise, whereupon that gas could be collected and pumped away to storage. The number of bore-holes would have to increase, but that is all they would be – inert, inoffensive bore-holes.
If the degree of heat applied to the shale-bed was sufficient, it could also serve to vaporise the shale-oil that creates the gas, thereby enabling the easy harvest of that fluid as well. There would likely be some ground settling as the voids were drained, but nowhere near as much as will be – and has already been – caused by the injection of fluids into the ground. There would also be no ground-water contamination.
Additionally there could be a huge saving in policing costs, as the current protectors who are encamped for the duration would be able to be satisfied as to the ongoing safety of their homes, public buildings, schools, and their drinking water.
Heating the oil and gas below the ground would, after initial equipment costs, carry no additional financial burden. Both solar PV and wind turbines could provide all the power required for heating the shale bed. These would not need to be large units. All that would be required would be a sufficient current to heat water into steam, to drive motors to rotate alternators that would supply electricity to elements within the heating units. Water, we have in abundance and it has the advantage of being re-usable once condensed, which is not difficult to do.
This method could also be used to extract the deep-level methane hydrate that is waiting to be exploited at the bottom of the Irish Sea. (https://uk.news.yahoo.com/reserves-present-extraction-problem-230113177.html)
I would appreciate your views and comments please.
Sincerely,
Darren Lynch
