Research Papers: Energy Conversion/Systems

Exergy, Energy, and Gas Flow Analysis of Hydrofractured Shale Gas Extraction

[+] Author and Article Information
Noam Lior

Fellow ASME
Department of Mechanical Engineering
and Applied Mechanics,
University of Pennsylvania,
220 South 33rd Street,
Philadelphia, PA 19104-6315
e-mail: lior@seas.upenn.edu

Contributed by the Advanced Energy Systems Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF ENERGY RESOURCES TECHNOLOGY. Manuscript received November 3, 2015; final manuscript received November 10, 2015; published online February 1, 2016. Editor: Hameed Metghalchi.

J. Energy Resour. Technol 138(6), 061601 (Feb 01, 2016) (14 pages) Paper No: JERT-15-1425; doi: 10.1115/1.4032240 History: Received November 03, 2015; Revised November 10, 2015

The objectives of this study are to (a) evaluate the exergy and energy demand for constructing a hydrofractured shale gas well and determine its typical exergy and energy returns on investment (ExROI and EROI), and (b) compute the gas flow and intrinsic exergy analysis in the shale gas matrix and created fractures. An exergy system analysis of construction of a typical U.S. shale gas well, which includes the processes and materials exergies (embodied exergy) for drilling, casing and cementing, and hydrofracturing (“fracking”), was conducted. A gas flow and intrinsic exergy numerical simulation and analysis in a gas-containing hydrofractured shale reservoir with its formed fractures was then performed, resulting in the time- and two-dimensional (2D) space-dependent pressure, velocity, and exergy loss fields in the matrix and fractures. The key results of the system analysis show that the total exergy consumption for constructing the typical hydrofractured shale gas well is 35.8 TJ, 49% of which is used for all the drilling needed for the well and casings and further 48% are used for the hydrofracturing. The embodied exergy of all construction materials is about 9.8% of the total exergy consumption. The ExROI for the typical range of shale gas wells in the U.S. was found to be 7.3–87.8. The embodied energy of manufactured materials is significantly larger than their exergy, so the total energy consumption is about 8% higher than the exergy consumption. The intrinsic exergy analysis showed, as expected, very slow (order of 10−9 m/s) gas flow velocities through the matrix, and consequently very small flow exergy losses. It clearly points to the desirability of exploring fracking methods that increase the number and length of effective fractures, and they increase well productivity with a relatively small flow exergy penalty.

Copyright © 2016 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.


Hu, Y. , 2013, “ Exergy Analysis in Shale Gas Extraction Processes,” M.S. thesis, Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering Department, University of Pennsylvania, Phhiladelphia, PA.
Ozkan, E. , Raghavan, R. S. , and Apaydin, O. G. , 2010, “ Modeling of Fluid Transfer From Shale Matrix to Fracture Network,” SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Florence, Italy, Sept. 19–22, Paper No. SPE 134830.
Javadpour, F. , 2009, “ Nanopores and Apparent Permeability of Gas Flow in Mudrocks (Shales and Siltstone),” J. Can. Pet. Technol., 48(8), pp. 16–21. [CrossRef]
U.S. Energy Information Administration, 2013, “ Technically Recoverable Shale Oil and Shale Gas Resources: An Assessment of 137 Shale Formations in 41 Countries Outside the United States,” U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, DC, accessed Oct. 25, 2015, http://www.eia.gov/analysis/studies/worldshalegas/pdf/fullreport.pdf
U.S. Energy Information Administration, 2012, “ U.S. Crude Oil and Natural Gas Proved Reserves,” U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, DC, http://www.eia.gov/naturalgas/crudeoilreserves/index.cfm
EPA, “ Hydraulic Fracturing Water Cycle,” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, accessed Feb. 28, 2015, http://www2.epa.gov/hfstudy/hydraulic-fracturing-water-cycle
Hughes, J. D. , 2015, “ Drilling Deeper—Part 3: Shale Gas,” The Post Carbon Institute, Santa Rosa, CA, p. 153, accessed Oct. 25, 2015, http://www.postcarbon.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Drilling-Deeper_PART-3-Shale-Gas.pdf
Yost, A. B. , Overbey, W. K. , and Carden, R. S. , 1987, “ Drilling a 2,000-ft Horizontal Well in the Devonian Shale,” 62nd SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, TX, Sept. 27–30; available at: http://www.netl.doe.gov/kmd/cds/disk7/disk1/EGS%5CDrilling%20a%202,000-ft%20Horizontal%20Well%20in%20the%20Devonian%20Shale.pdf
Maurer, W. , 1995, “ Recent Advances in Horizontal Drilling,” J. Can. Pet. Technol., 34(9), p. PETSOC-95-09-02.
Maidla, E. , Haci, M. , and Wright, D. , 2009, “ Case History Summary: Horizontal Drilling Performance Improvement Due to Torque Rocking on 800 Horizontal Land Wells Drilled for Unconventional Gas Resources,” SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, LA, Oct. 4–7, Paper No. SPE-123161-MS.
Harper, J. A. , 2008, “ The Marcellus Shale—An Old ‘New’ Gas Reservoir in Pennsylvania,” PA Geol., 38(1), pp. 2–13.
Marcellus Center for Outreach and Research (MCOR), 2015, “ Cross Section of a Typical Horizontal Marcellus Well,” Pennsylvania State University, Earth-Engineering Sciences Building, University Park, PA, accessed Oct. 25, 2015, http://www.marcellus.psu.edu/images/horizontal_well.gif
Marcellus Shale Coalition, 2015, “ Well Casing,” Marcellus Shale Coalition, Pittsburgh, PA, accessed Oct. 25, 2015, http://marcelluscoalition.org/marcellus-shale/production-processes/casing-the-well
Chong, K. K. , Grieser, W. , Passman, A. , Tamayo, H. , Modeland, N. , and Burke, B. , 2010, “ A Completions Guide Book to Shale-Play Development: A Review of Successful Approaches Toward Shale-Play Stimulation in the Last Two Decades,” Canadian Unconventional Resources and International Petroleum Conference, Calgary, Canada, Oct. 19–21.
Agrawal, A. , Wei, Y. , Cheng, K. , and Holditch, S. , 2010, “ A Technical and Economic Study of Completion Techniques in Five Emerging U.S. Gas Shales,” SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Florence, Italy, Sept. 20–22, Paper No. SPE-135396-MS.
Lior, N. , 2002, “ Thoughts About Future Power Generation Systems and the Role of Exergy Analysis in Their Development,” Energy Convers. Manag. J., 43(9–12), pp. 1187–1198. [CrossRef]
Lior, N. , Sarmiento-Darkin, W. , and Al-Sharqawi, H. S. , 2006, “ The Exergy Fields in Transport Processes: Their Calculation and Use,” Energy, 31(5), pp. 553–578. [CrossRef]
Shale Reporter, “ How Deep in the Ground is the Shale Layer?,” Calkins Media, Levittown, PA, accessed Feb. 28, 2015, http://www.shalereporter.com/resources/faq/geology/article_2f36d46a-340c-11e2-9928-001a4bcf6878.html
PetroWiki, 2015, “ Horizontal Wells,” Society of Petroleum Engineers, Richardson, TX, accessed Oct. 25, 2015, http://petrowiki.org/Horizontal_wells
Polsky, Y. , Capuano, L. , Finger, J. , Huh, M. , Knudsen, S. , Mansure, A. , Raymond, D. , and Swanson, R. , 2008, “ Enhanced Geothermal Systems (EGS) Well Construction Technology Evaluation Report,” Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, NM, Report No. SAND2008-7866, accessed Oct. 25, 2015, http://www1.eere.energy.gov/geothermal/pdfs/egs_well_contruction.pdf
Hermann, W. A. , 2006, “ Quantifying Global Exergy Resources,” Energy, 31(12), pp. 1685–1702. [CrossRef]
Rudzinski, W. E. , Aminabhavi, T. M. , Sassman, S. , and Watkins, L. M. , 2000, “ Isolation and Characterization of the Saturate and Aromatic Fractions of a Maya Crude Oil,” Energy Fuels, 14(4), pp. 839–844. [CrossRef]
Office of Fossil Energy and National Energy Technology Laboratory, 2009,“ Modern Shale Gas Development in the United States: A Primer,” U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, DC, accessed Oct. 25, 2015, http://energy.gov/fe/downloads/modern-shale-gas-development-united-states-primer
API, 2011, “ Specification ISO 11960:2011 Petroleum and Natural Gas Industries—Steel Pipes for Use as Casing or Tubing for Wells,” 5CT, 9th ed., Specification for Casing and Tubing, American Petroleum Institute, Washington, DC, accessed Oct. 25, 2015, http://www.api.org/certification-programs/api-monogram-program-and-apiqr/purchasing-guidelines-handbook-updates
Szargut, J. , 2005, Exergy Method: Technical and Ecological Applications, WIT Press, Ashurst, UK.
Koroneos, C. , Roumbas, G. , and Moussiopoulos, N. , 2005, “ Exergy Analysis of Cement Production,” Int. J. Exergy, 2(1), pp. 55–68. [CrossRef]
Hammond, G. , and Jones, C. , 2011, “ Inventory of Carbon & Energy (ICE) Version 2.0,” University of Bath, Bath, UK, http://www.circularecology.com/embodied-energy-and-carbon-footprint-database.html#.Vji2Dis2aXc
Arthur, J. D. , Bohm, B. , and Layne, M. , 2008, “ Hydraulic Fracturing Considerations for Natural Gas Wells of the Marcellus Shale,” GWPC Annual Forum, Cincinnati, OH, Sept. 21–24, accessed Oct. 25, 2015, http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/materials_minerals_pdf/GWPCMarcellus.pdf
Rees, S. , 2009, “ Creating Value in the Marcellus Under the New SEC Rules,” Hart Developing Unconventional Gas—Making the Marcellus Pay Pittsburgh, PA, Oct. 19.
Bullin, K. , and Krouskop, P. , 2009, “ Composition Variety Complicates Processing Plans for U.S. Shale Gas,” Oil Gas J., 107(10), pp. 50–55.
Mu, S. R. , and Zhang, S. C. , 2012, “ Numerical Simulation of Shale Gas Production,” Adv. Mat. Res., 402, pp. 804–807. [CrossRef]
Zhou, D. , Zheng, P. , Peng, J. , and He, P. , 2015, “ Induced Stress and Interaction of Fractures During Hydraulic Fracturing in Shale Formation,” ASME J. Energy Resour. Technol., 137(6), p. 062902. [CrossRef]
Du, C. M. , Zhang, X. , Zhan, L. , Gu, H. , Hay, B. , Tushingham, K. , and Ma, Y. , 2010, “ Modeling Hydraulic Fracturing Induced Fracture Networks in Shale Gas Reservoirs as a Dual Porosity System,” CPS/SPE International Oil & Gas Conference and Exhibition, Beijing, China, June 8–10.
Kalantari-Dahaghi, A. , 2011, “ Systematic Approach to Numerical Simulation and Modelling of Shale Gas Reservoirs,” Int. J. Oil, Gas Coal Technol., 4(3), pp. 209–243. [CrossRef]
Silin, D. , and Kneafsey, T. , 2012, “ Shale Gas: Nanometer-Scale Observations and Well Modelling,” J. Can. Pet. Technol., 51(6), pp. 464–475. [CrossRef]
Freeman, C. M. , Moridis, G. , Ilk, D. , and Blasingame, T. A. , 2013, “ A Numerical Study of Performance for Tight Gas and Shale Gas Reservoir Systems,” J. Pet. Sci. Eng., 108, pp. 22–39. [CrossRef]
Shabro, V. , Torres-Verdin, C. , and Sepehrnoori, K. , 2012, “ Forecasting Gas Production in Organic Shale With the Combined Numerical Simulation of Gas Diffusion in Kerogen, Langmuir Desorption From Kerogen Surfaces, and Advection in Nanopores,” SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, TX, Oct. 8–10, Paper No. SPE-159250-MS.
Brohi, I. , Pooladi-Darvish, M. , and Aguilera, R. , 2011, “ Modeling Fractured Horizontal Wells as Dual Porosity Composite Reservoirs—Application to Tight Gas, Shale Gas and Tight Oil Cases,” SPE Western North American Regional Meeting, Anchorage, AK, May 7–11, Paper No. SPE-144057-MS.
Du, C. M. , Zhan, L. , Li, J. , Zhang, X. , Church, S. , Tushingham, K. , and Hay, B. , 2011, “ Generalization of Dual-Porosity-System Representation and Reservoir Simulation of Hydraulic Fracturing-Stimulated Shale Gas Reservoirs,” SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,” Denver, CO, Oct. 30–Nov 2, Paper No. SPE-146534-MS.
Abdulal, H. J. , Samandarli, O. , and Wattenbarger, B. A. , 2011, “ New Type Curves for Shale Gas Wells With Dual Porosity Model,” Canadian Unconventional Resources Conference Alberta, Canada, Nov. 15–17, Paper No. SPE-149367-MS.
Azom, P. , and Javadpour, F. , 2012, “ Dual-Continuum Modeling of Shale and Tight Gas Reservoirs,” SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, TX, Oct. 8–10, Paper No. SPE-159584-MS.
Dehghanpour, H. , and Shirdel, M. , 2011, “ A Triple Porosity Model for Shale Gas Reservoirs,” Canadian Unconventional Resources Conference, Alberta, Canada, Nov. 15–17, Paper No. SPE-149501-MS.
Shabro, V. , Torres-Verdin, C. , and Javadpour, F. , 2011, “ Numerical Simulation of Shale-Gas Production: From Pore-Scale Modeling of Slip-Flow, Knudsen Diffusion, and Langmuir Desorption to Reservoir Modeling of Compressible Fluid,” North American Unconventional Gas Conference and Exhibition, Woodlands, TX, June 14–16, Paper No. SPE-144355-MS.
Li, J. , Guo, B. , and Feng, Y. , 2013, “ An Analytical Solution of Fracture-Induced Stress and Its Application in Shale Gas Exploitation,” ASME J. Energy Resour. Technol., 136(2), p. 023102. [CrossRef]
Dokhani, V. , Yu, M. , Miska, S. Z. , and Bloys, J. , 2015, “ The Effects of Anisotropic Transport Coefficients on Pore Pressure in Shale Formations,” ASME J. Energy Resour. Technol., 137(3), p. 032905 [CrossRef]
Osholake, T. , Wang, J. Y. , and Ertekin, T. , 2012, “ Factors Affecting Hydraulically Fractured Well Performance in the Marcellus Shale Gas Reservoirs,” ASME J. Energy Resour. Technol., 135(1), p. 013402. [CrossRef]
Dunbar, W. R. , Lior, N. , and Gaggioli, R. A. , 1992, “ The Component Equations of Energy and Exergy,” ASME J. Energy Resour, 114(1), pp. 75–83. [CrossRef]
Wischnewski, B. , 2015, “ Calculation of Thermodynamic State Variables of Methane,” Peace Software, Berlin, accessed Oct. 25, 2015, http://www.peacesoftware.de/einigewerte/methan_e.html
COMSOL, 2015, “ Multiphysics® Software,” COMSOL Inc., Burlington, MA, accessed Oct. 25, 2015, http://www.comsol.com/products
King, G. E. , 2010, “ Thirty Years of Gas Shale Fracturing: What Have We Learned?,” SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Florence, Italy, Sept. 19–22, Paper No. SPE-133456-MS.
Vartit, V. , 2012, “ Alternative Interpretations of Shale Gas/Oil Rate Behavior Using a Triple Porosity Model,” SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, TX, Oct. 8–10, Paper No. SPE 159703.
Samandarli, O. , Al Ahmadi, H. A. , and Wattenbarger, R. A. , 2011, “ A New Method for History Matching and Forecasting Shale Gas Reservoir Production Performance With a Dual Porosity Model,” North American Unconventional Gas Conference and Exhibition, Woodlands, TX, June 14–16, Paper No. SPE-144335-MS.
Walton, I . C. , and Erkal, A. , 2009, “ Evaluation of Shale Gas Productivity Using a New Asymptotic Model. SPE Production and Operations Symposium,” Oklahoma City, OK, Apr. 4–9, pp. 420–434.
Esmaili, S. , Kalantari Dahaghi, A. , and Mohaghegh, S. D. , 2012, “ Modeling and History Matching of Hydrocarbon Production From Marcellus Shale Using Data Mining and Pattern Recognition Technologies,” SPE Eastern Regional Meeting, Lexington, KY, Oct. 3–5, Paper No. SPE-161184-MS.
Cipolla, C. L. , Lolon, E. P. , Erdle, J. C. , and Tathed, V. , 2009, “ Modeling Well Performance in Shale-Gas Reservoirs,” SPE/EAGE Reservoir Characterization & Simulation Conference, Abu Dhabi, UAE, Oct. 19–21, Paper No. SPE-125532-MS.


Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Typical hydrofracturing for shale gas and the associated water cycle, from Ref. [6]

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Typical casing (using three casings) and cementing between the casings, dimensions specific to sources on Marcellus Shale [12,13]

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Hydrofracturing exergy use shares in making a gas well

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Exergy use shares in overall making of a hydrofractured gas well

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Model diagram. The gas moves down the pressure gradient (left to right and up) from the undisturbed low-porosity reservoir matrix to the formed fractures, which then transport it to the horizontal well. Lines of symmetry are shown dashed and arrows show the direction of gas flows.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Distributions in the hydraulic fracture of: (a) gas pressure (the scale is in MPa), (b) gas velocity (the scale is in m/s), and (c) exergy loss (the scale is in kJ/kg)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Distributions in the matrix after 1 day of: (a) gas pressure (the scale is in MPa), (b) gas velocity (the scale is in 10−10 m/s), and (c) exergy loss (the scale is in kJ/kg)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Distributions in the matrix after 3 days of: (a) gas pressure (the scale is in MPa), (b) gas velocity (the scale is in 10−10 m/s), and (c) exergy loss (the scale is in kJ/kg)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Distributions in the matrix after 5 days of: (a) gas pressure (the scale is in MPa), (b) gas velocity (the scale is in 10−10 m/s), and (c) exergy loss (the scale is in kJ/kg)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Distributions in the matrix after 15 days of: (a) gas pressure (the scale is in MPa), (b) gas velocity (the scale is in 10−10 m/s), and (c) exergy loss (the scale is in kJ/kg)




Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In