IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/rensus/v77y2017icp1-11.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Chemicals usage in stimulation processes for shale gas and deep geothermal systems: A comprehensive review and comparison

Author

Listed:
  • Sutra, Emilie
  • Spada, Matteo
  • Burgherr, Peter

Abstract

With the economic establishment of the shale gas exploitation, horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing have become nowadays common procedures, but not without any controversy. In parallel, the emergent case of deep geothermal energy systems is claimed to not have much to do with the fracking process. Through an intensive review of the available literature and data, we aim to lift the veil on the differences and similarities between shale gas and deep geothermal energy regarding the chemical substances used during the stimulation phase, as far as possible. Such a comparison appears finally not so obvious. In a general way, the effective used quantity of each chemical should not be neglected, even if advertised as being an extremely small percentage of the total stimulation fluids composition. Although some of these substances are considered purely environment/human health friendly, the diversity of potential risks associated with the hazardous chemicals can lead to severe consequences. However, the multitude of possible pathways for these risks tends to show that the main hazards are not especially or exclusively linked to the fluids injection process itself.

Suggested Citation

  • Sutra, Emilie & Spada, Matteo & Burgherr, Peter, 2017. "Chemicals usage in stimulation processes for shale gas and deep geothermal systems: A comprehensive review and comparison," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 1-11.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:rensus:v:77:y:2017:i:c:p:1-11
    DOI: 10.1016/j.rser.2017.03.108
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364032117304380
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.rser.2017.03.108?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Wang, Qiang & Chen, Xi & Jha, Awadhesh N. & Rogers, Howard, 2014. "Natural gas from shale formation – The evolution, evidences and challenges of shale gas revolution in United States," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 30(C), pages 1-28.
    2. Thorsten Agemar & Josef Weber & Rüdiger Schulz, 2014. "Deep Geothermal Energy Production in Germany," Energies, MDPI, vol. 7(7), pages 1-20, July.
    3. Boudet, Hilary & Clarke, Christopher & Bugden, Dylan & Maibach, Edward & Roser-Renouf, Connie & Leiserowitz, Anthony, 2014. "“Fracking” controversy and communication: Using national survey data to understand public perceptions of hydraulic fracturing," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 57-67.
    4. Bayer, Peter & Rybach, Ladislaus & Blum, Philipp & Brauchler, Ralf, 2013. "Review on life cycle environmental effects of geothermal power generation," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 26(C), pages 446-463.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Wang, Qiang & Zhan, Lina, 2019. "Assessing the sustainability of the shale gas industry by combining DPSIRM model and RAGA-PP techniques: An empirical analysis of Sichuan and Chongqing, China," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 176(C), pages 353-364.
    2. Wang, Hui & Chen, Li & Qu, Zhiguo & Yin, Ying & Kang, Qinjun & Yu, Bo & Tao, Wen-Quan, 2020. "Modeling of multi-scale transport phenomena in shale gas production — A critical review," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 262(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Anna Wachowicz-Pyzik & Anna Sowiżdżał & Leszek Pająk & Paweł Ziółkowski & Janusz Badur, 2020. "Assessment of the Effective Variants Leading to Higher Efficiency for the Geothermal Doublet, Using Numerical Analysis‒Case Study from Poland (Szczecin Trough)," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(9), pages 1-20, May.
    2. Yao, Liuyang & Sui, Bo, 2020. "Heterogeneous preferences for shale water management: Evidence from a choice experiment in Fuling shale gas field, southwest China," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 147(C).
    3. Joel Gehman & Dara Y. Thompson & Daniel S. Alessi & Diana M. Allen & Greg G. Goss, 2016. "Comparative Analysis of Hydraulic Fracturing Wastewater Practices in Unconventional Shale Development: Newspaper Coverage of Stakeholder Concerns and Social License to Operate," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(9), pages 1-23, September.
    4. Andrew Chapman & Timothy Fraser & Melanie Dennis, 2019. "Investigating Ties between Energy Policy and Social Equity Research: A Citation Network Analysis," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 8(5), pages 1-18, April.
    5. Sharafian, Amir & Talebian, Hoda & Blomerus, Paul & Herrera, Omar & Mérida, Walter, 2017. "A review of liquefied natural gas refueling station designs," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 503-513.
    6. Tanya Heikkila & Christopher M. Weible, 2017. "Unpacking the intensity of policy conflict: a study of Colorado’s oil and gas subsystem," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 50(2), pages 179-193, June.
    7. Sofia Dahlgren & Jonas Ammenberg, 2021. "Sustainability Assessment of Public Transport, Part II—Applying a Multi-Criteria Assessment Method to Compare Different Bus Technologies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(3), pages 1-30, January.
    8. Hua Dong & Kun Yang & Guoqing Bai, 2022. "Evaluation of TPGU using entropy - improved TOPSIS - GRA method in China," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(1), pages 1-24, January.
    9. Gürbüz, Emine Yağız & Güler, Onur Vahip & Keçebaş, Ali, 2022. "Environmental impact assessment of a real geothermal driven power plant with two-stage ORC using enhanced exergo-environmental analysis," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 185(C), pages 1110-1123.
    10. Katherine Ball & Kirk Jalbert & Lisa Test, 2021. "Making the board: participatory game design for environmental action," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 11(1), pages 12-22, March.
    11. Trumpy, Eugenio & Bertani, Ruggero & Manzella, Adele & Sander, Marietta, 2015. "The web-oriented framework of the world geothermal production database: A business intelligence platform for wide data distribution and analysis," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 379-389.
    12. Majorowicz, Jacek & Grasby, Stephen E., 2019. "Deep geothermal energy in Canadian sedimentary basins VS. Fossils based energy we try to replace – Exergy [KJ/KG] compared," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 259-277.
    13. Knoblauch, Theresa A.K. & Trutnevyte, Evelina & Stauffacher, Michael, 2019. "Siting deep geothermal energy: Acceptance of various risk and benefit scenarios in a Swiss-German cross-national study," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 807-816.
    14. Wang, Qiang & Li, Rongrong, 2016. "Journey to burning half of global coal: Trajectory and drivers of China׳s coal use," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 341-346.
    15. Auping, Willem L. & Pruyt, Erik & de Jong, Sijbren & Kwakkel, Jan H., 2016. "The geopolitical impact of the shale revolution: Exploring consequences on energy prices and rentier states," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 390-399.
    16. Clarke, Christopher E. & Evensen, Darrick T.N., 2023. "Attention to news media coverage of unconventional oil/gas development impacts: Exploring psychological antecedents and effects on issue support," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 173(C).
    17. Kuchler, Magdalena & Höök, Mikael, 2020. "Fractured visions: Anticipating (un)conventional natural gas in Poland," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 68(C).
    18. Wang, Qiang & Jiang, Feng, 2019. "Integrating linear and nonlinear forecasting techniques based on grey theory and artificial intelligence to forecast shale gas monthly production in Pennsylvania and Texas of the United States," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 178(C), pages 781-803.
    19. Ikonnikova, Svetlana & Gülen, Gürcan & Browning, John & Tinker, Scott W., 2015. "Profitability of shale gas drilling: A case study of the Fayetteville shale play," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 382-393.
    20. Arnold, Gwen & Farrer, Benjamin & Holahan, Robert, 2018. "How do landowners learn about high-volume hydraulic fracturing? A survey of Eastern Ohio landowners in active or proposed drilling units," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 455-464.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:rensus:v:77:y:2017:i:c:p:1-11. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/600126/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.