SPE-185441-MS

Propane Fracturing: A Waterless Approach, Safety Considerations and its

Prospects in India
Nitesh Kumar, Saunil Rajput & Gautham K G
Indian Institute of Technology (ISM) Dhanbad

Copyright 2017, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Oil and Gas India Conference and Exhibition held in Mumbai, India, 46 April 2017.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents
of the paper have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written
consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may
not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.

Abstract
The hydraulic fracturing industry is a fast-growing industry but the conventional hydraulic fracturing
technique uses a large amount of water and a lot of harmful chemicals in order to extract more
hydrocarbons from the formation which give rise to a large number of problems. Canada based GasFrac
Energy developed an innovative alternative to hydraulic fracturing which utilizes propane based gel or
gelled LPG as a fracturing fluid to fracture the formation. Propane is a very clean fluid, ecofriendly and
can be recovered almost 100% after the fracturing process is completed.
As compared to conventional hydraulic fracturing technique, LPG fracturing provides a better fracturing
length. A precursor to the poor fracturing performance is poor recovery of the fracturing fluid, often less
than 50% of the fracturing fluid is recovered. This unrecovered fluid occupies the pore spaces of the
reservoir matrix and becomes immobile resulting in blocking the passage for hydrocarbons. Therefore,
the recovery of hydrocarbons by conventional hydraulic fracturing job is much less than that of propane
fracturing, where the recovery of fracturing fluid is almost 100%.
This paper will discuss about various aspects of Propane Fracturing, safety aspects during field application
of this technology and its prospects in a country like India which is trying to revive its oil and gas
production and has a huge potential hydrocarbon reserves including much of its reserves still unexplored.

Introduction
LPG fracturing is one of those rare technology breakthroughs in the oil and gas industry that can deliver
both economic and environmental benefits for producers.
There is no use of costly materials like CO2 and N2 in LPG fracturing process, since it provides a consistent
viscosity when gelled with proprietary chemicals nor does it require any special cooldown or venting of
equipment. LPG is stored at ambient temperature and can be easily available as it is an abundant by-
product of natural gas industry.
Using LPG also reduces the need to flare production to clean up the traditional fracturing fluids, reducing
2 SPE-185441-MS

CO2 emissions. Because propane liquid is half the specific gravity of water, there is reduced trucking to
the site and no trucking to transport post stimulation which can reduce truck traffic by up to 90%.

Propane Fracturing/LPG Fracturing

LPG Fracturing is a technique in which a propane based gel is used in place of water to both fracture the
rock formation and deliver proppant. The propane based gel which is used as a fracturing fluid has low
viscosity and low surface tension as compared to water. It is pumped into the wellbore at low temperature
and high pressure in liquid state. This high pressure forces the fluid to fracture the formation and invade
into the reservoir matrix creating microfractures into the formation. After creating the sufficient fracture
length, because of the decrease in pressure and increase in temperature, the gel turn into a vapor, it moves
up to the surface, where it can be collected and sold down the line, since LPG is electrically neutral and
lacks much friction, it doesnt dissolve any salts, heavy metals or radioactive compounds - compared to
water, in which these things return to the surface and make a typically toxic mixture even more so. If
natural gas formations are present, then propane and methane will combine to create unique liquid vapour
saturation and returns to the surface at ambient conditions which can be separated easily.

LPGs high volatility, low weight, and high recovery potential make it a good fracturing agent. Use of
LPG as a hydraulic fracturing fluid also inhibits formation damage which can occur during hydraulic
fracturing with conventional fluids. Using propane not only minimizes formation damage, but also
eliminates the need to source water for hydraulic fracturing, recover flowback fluids to the surface and
dispose of the flowback fluids. As a result of the elimination of hydraulic fracturing source water, truck
traffic to and from the wellsite would be greatly reduced. In addition, since LPG is less reactive with the
formation matrix, it is therefore less likely to mobilize constituents which could increase NORM levels in
the flowback fluid.

Water Liquid Petroleum Gas

Viscosity = .66 cps (@105F) Viscosity = 0.08 cps (@105F)

Specific Gravity = 1.02 Specific Gravity = 0.51

Surface Tension = 72 dynes/cm Surface Tension = 7.6 dynes/cm

Gel Potentially Damaging Reactive with Non-Damaging Inert with the Formation
Formation Clays/Salts Clays/Salts

Table 1 Specific Properties of LPG and Water

During the stimulation operation, monitoring wells with micro-seismic detectors are used to record
seismic events generated and thus verify the final extension of the cracks. Other monitoring techniques
are also used, such as real-time monitoring of the bottom hole pressure and the quantity of fluid injected.

Once the stimulation has been achieved, the cracks created must be kept open after the pressure drops. To
this end, proppants (solid particles) are injected along with the liquid propane. If the particles are of a
density close to that of the fluid injected, then no chemical additives are needed (chemicals are added to
SPE-185441-MS 3

liquid propane to make it "gel").

Fig. 1. Conventional fracking vs Liquid propane fracking

It should be of utmost imporatnce that LPG must be maintained in liquid phase during all stages of
fracturing process, particularly at reservoir conditions so that it can be used as an efficient carrier of
proppant.
LPG Propane liquid and vapour phases are in the 100% Propane Liquid-Vapour Saturation diagram (Fig.
2). Propane exixts as a liquid above the saturation line; while below the saturation line propane is a vapour.
Propane is stored at ambient temperature, and in the case of ambient temperature of 70F, the minimum
storage pressure of 125 psi required to maintain propane as a liquid.

Fig.2. Propane Saturation Curve

4 SPE-185441-MS

Comparison of various physical properties of Propane with other frac fluids

Variation in critical pressure and temperature w.r.t composition
Critical temperature(Tc) is the maximum value of temperature at which a gas can be converted to a liquid
state and Critical pressure (Pc) is the minimum value of pressure at which a gas can be converted into a
liquid state.
The variation in the critical values of temperature and pressure of propane and butane with resect to
composition is shown in Fig. 3. As the composition of propane increases in the mixture of propane and
butane, the value of critcal temperature decreases becauses increase in propane composition will increase
the tendency of the mixture to go into gaseous phase.

Fig. 3. Pc and Tc Comparison

Viscosity
Viscosity of the base fluid of any fracturing fluid is important, as this is the lowest possibility viscosity
the fluid can achieve once the gellation system breaks. In Fig. 4, vicosities of typical base fluids are
compared to propane and butane.
All fluids show a trend of thinning as temperature increases. Comparing viscosities at 104F, water has a
viscosity of 0.657cP while propane has a viscosity of 0.087 cP which is about 7.5 times lesser than that of
water.
SPE-185441-MS 5

Fig.4. Viscosity Comparison

Based on Darcys law, an order of magnitude reduction in viscosity results in an order of magnitude
reduction in the pressure to move the same volume of fluid. Minimizing the needed differential pressure
for fluid movement into and along the fracture greatly assists post fracture fluid clean up. Further, once
propane and formation hydrocarbon mix, the viscosity of the mixture, especially if the mixture is in vapour
form, will result in a further reduction of required pressure.

Surface tension
Surface tension exhibited by the fracturing fluid greatly impacts capillary pressure effects in the reservoir.
Selecting a fluid with a low surface tension will reduce the pressure needed to mobilize fracturing fluid
forclean-up. Fig.5. compares the surface tension of common fracturing fluids to that of LPG products.

Fig. 5- Surface Tension Comparison

6 SPE-185441-MS

Capillary Pressure
When we select the fracturing fluid ,the significance of the capillary pressure is mostly overlooked. Pores
and fractures are blocked usually due to the high capillary pressure of the reservoir rock,which obstructs
the flow of hydrocarbon into the created fractures, there by significantly reducing productivity.
Unfortunately, once in place, these trapped are very hard to remove.

Each reservoir has its unique capillary pressure ased upon the formation and fluid. The capillary threshold
pressure, must be overcome before flow occurs, this defines the pressure differential needed to mobilize
the fracturing fluid.

Estimated capillary threshold pressures are displayed in Fig. 6 for a range of surface tension values at
various flow path dimensions. For example, water would be comparable to 70 dynes/cm, then surface
tension modified water such as a methanol-water at 40 dynes/m and a low surface tension liquid such as
a liquified petroleum gas at 7 dynes/cm. All contact angles are presumed at zero degrees.

Fig. 6. Capillary Pressure Comparison

SPE-185441-MS 7

LPG Fracturing Vs Hydraulic Fracturing

Fracture length comparison

Fig. 7 - fracture length comparison

In the above figure 7 it is shown that effective fracture length is more in propane fracturing compared to
that of hydaulic fracturing. In Hydraulic fracturing due to Clay swelling and blockage of water in the pores
results in shorter effective fracture length. In propane fracture effective fracture length is almost equal to
the propped fracture length.

Comparision of Production
As we have seen that effective fracture length is more in LPG fracturing technique, we can say that from
the same fracture more amount of hydrocarbons can be recovered compared to conventional fracturing.
8 SPE-185441-MS

Fig. 8- production comparison

Figure 8 shows that production after fracturing is better in propane fracturing. In case of Ansell, Cardium
day wise initial production when comparing with conventional fracturing system, it turned out that the
production was almost double than conventional fracturing system. If the fracturing fluid is compatible
with the formation then the efficiency of the job is going to increase. Increased production also increases
the profit values per job done.

Clean up Efficiency
Fracturing fluid clean up from the formation depends upon the surface tension of fluids and from the
vertical length of tubing to wellhead it depends upon specific gravity of fluid. From formation to wellbore
low surface tension of LPG reduces the pressure needed to mobilize the fluid. Since the specific gravity
of LPG is .51 almost as half of water, so there is no issue of loading of well. So, better cleanup is achieved
in case of propane fracturing.

Flow Back Conditions

LPG flowback is desired for reuse of LPG in fracturing or economically useful for sale. When LPG is
recovered through pipeline then it is sent to separator for separation of LPG from water, oil or natural gas
mixture. When LPG is not desirable LPG is sent for flaring. Figure 9 shows faster recovery of LPG than
water.
SPE-185441-MS 9

Fig. 9- frac fluid recovery comparison

Proppant Settling

Fig. 10- proppant setting comparison

Figure 10 shows that in propane fracturing, proppant gets properly settled.

In propane fracturing the proppant gets properly settled , where as hydraulic fraturing, it takes longer time
for the propant to get settled and its is also not completely settled, only partail settling takes place. For
hydralic fracturinig Linear gel and crosslinked systems have been used to mitigate the proppant settling
and placement concerns, but the high viscosity that accomplishes this objective may significantly reduce
the desired fracture complexity. Also, the long fracture closure times and the lack of efficient gel delayed
breakers makes the proppant placement advantage of gel systems very limited as proppant settles while
gel is breaking up and fracture has not yet closed.
10 SPE-185441-MS

Equipment used in Propane fracturing

Fig. 11 Different equipment used during fracturing

Figure 11 shows the different equipment used during the propane fracturing process. Propane and nitrogen
tankers are used to store propane and nitrogen respectively. Boosters are used to increase the pressure of
fluids coming from the discharge of tankers upto 20 bar. Frac pumps are used to increase the pressure
more than 500 bar. For real time monitoring of surface treating pressure, bottomhole pressure and quantity
of proppants, fluids injected we use Control center van. Fire safety truck is used to control fire, when
occurs.
SPE-185441-MS 11

Fig.12 - Propane fracturing equipment setup

Figure 12 shows Propane fracturing equipment setup. The simplified operation of the area is very summarily
explained in the following section.
Area 1: liquid propane feed and injection line at medium pressure
The area for liquid propane injection at medium pressure is the upstream part of the production line. It is
made of four main parts:
Liquid propane tankers which are central and key to the module
A low- pressure pump (LP)
A silo under pressure used to mix proppant into the LPG
A nitrogen gas feed.
Area 2: liquid propane injection line at high pressure
Area 2, which is the high pressure injecion of propane, covers a larger surface area than area 1, but has
only two main elements:
A series of high pressure compressors (HP)
A high-pressure injection line that directs flows to either the well or the flare line
Area 3: "Flow back" (or recovery) line
The flow back line processes all of the fluids coming up out of the well after fracturing and separates the
different components (water, oil, gas) and manages each as most appropriate. This line can also serve as
a blowdown system, in which case, the fluid does not go through the different lines described here, but is
sent directly to the flare. The flow back module can be divided into a series of units that make up the
processing line:
Valves and manifold for upstream flow management,
Phase separation modules (heating, decanting, cooling),
Storage tanks
12 SPE-185441-MS

Cost advantage of LPG fracturing

Horizontal wells are more expensive than vertical wells but economic results have justified horizontal
wells as a better investment than vertical wells, similarly propane Fracturing is more expensive than
hydraulic fracturing but a better investment than hydraulic fracturing.

Average Well Cost Water Propane

$ Millions $ Millions
Leasehold Acquisition Costs 0.100 0.340
Exploration (G&G, exploratory 0.125 0.424
drilling)
Drilling & Casing (excl. stimulation) 3.800 3.800
Stimulation 1.400 1.970
Stimulation Fluids 0.210 0.945
Proppant 0.600 3.000
Water Treatment/Disposal 0.045 0
Propane Recovery 0 0.077
Total 6.280 10.55
Average EUR per well 5 17
F&D costs per unit 1.26 .62
Table 2 -Shale Gas Cost Comparison Water vs Propane Stimulation
Table 2 shows the total cost of hydraulic fracturing and propane fracturing job. We can say that doing
propane fracturing operation costs more, but funding and development cost (F&D cost) per unit is less for
propane fracturing since long effective length is achieved in this technique as result estimated ultimate
recovery is more than hydraulic fracturing, hence reducing the overall cost.

Additional Costs Savings for LPG Fracs

No Water Wells/Ponds, Handling Facilities
No Disposal Cost One Way Hauling
Less Truck Traffic to Location
Reduced Flowback Costs Due to Quick Cleanup
No Well Intervention to Kick Off Well

Additional Cost Benefit of LPG Fracs

Minimal Gas Lost Due to Flaring During Cleanup
Frac Fluid can be Recovered and with the Proper Equipment/Infrastructure it can be Sold with the Gas
Stream or as Natural Gas Liquids or Used on a Future Job

Risks analysis in Propane Fracturing

Major risks involved during the fracturing job are mainly due to leakage in pressure lines. There are
various scenarios where there are chances of leakage, which are discussed below.
Leakage in tankers
LPG may leak as a gas or a liquid. If the liquid leaks it will quickly evaporate and form a relatively large
cloud of gas which will drop to the ground, as it is heavier than air. LPG vapours can run for long distances
along the ground and can collect in drains or basements. When the gas meets a source of ignition it can
burn or explode.
LPG can cause cold burns to the skin and it can act as an asphyxiant at high concentrations. The jet fire
(immediate ignition), vapour cloud fire (flash fire), pool fire (delayed ignition), vapour cloud explosion
SPE-185441-MS 13

(delayed ignition-explosion), toxic cloud (no-ignition), safe dispersion are the outcome cases of any leak
of hazardous material leakage.
Leakage in Medium Pressure lines (area 1)
Medium pressure lines leakages occur at the discharge of the tanks or in the flowlines. Each outflow valves
of tanks contribute to the pressure in the flow lines. Reducing the flow rate decreases the pressure and can
prevent the leakage.

Leakage in High Pressure lines (area 2)

High pressure lines are the flowlines from discharge of pumper to the wellhead. Pressure in these lines are
more than 500 bar. Any leakage in the lines can do severe damage. Horizontal projection of the debris
will be more than leakage in medium pressure lines once ignition takes place.

Leakage in Flow back lines (area 3)

This leakage can occur during the flow back operation of propane from wellbore. There are two
consequences that might be expected: the potential blow out of the wellbore under pressure from flow
back and the formation of an explosive cloud of gas.

Risk scenarios PREVENTIVE MEASURES

Tanker design can be modified to prevent leakage

Leakage in tankers
Leakage in medium
pressure lines (area 1)
Leakage in high pressure
lines (area 2)
Leakage in flow back lines
(area 3)
Table 3- risk identification and preventive measures
Automated individual sprinklers can be installed in
tanks.
Propane detection equipment near to tankers
Use of Thermal cameras for detection of leakage (vapor
cloud) or any fire ignition.
Reinforcements of casing in the flowlines
Reducing the flow rate
Continuous flaring for maintaining the pressure
inside the flowlines
Thermal camera for remote monitoring
Additional Closed Circuit Cameras placed on Suction
and Discharge sides of vessel
A casing of larger diameter surrounding the high-
pressure lines can contain the leak.
Continuous flaring for maintaining the pressure
inside the flowlines
Thermal camera for remote monitoring of High
Pressure area
Additional Closed Circuit Cameras placed on Suction
and Discharge sides
Continuous flaring for maintaining the pressure
inside the flowlines
Thermal camera for remote monitoring

Table 3 shows different risk identification and preventive measures for each risk.
14 SPE-185441-MS

Safety precautions on human aspects

No one should be allowed enter in the "hot zone" (high pressure zone) during fracturing operation except
highly trained worker for the required operation. Use of ignition sources around the tankers and associated
areas must be prevented. Protective measures for workers should be optimised.

Use of nitrogen to check leakage

Before actual fracturing begins, a pressure test should be done. This procedure leads to a first phase of
pressurizing nitrogen on all of the line, up to 20 bars, to ensure there are no leaks. Then the circuit is blown
down with propane before pressure in the circuit is increased to 550 bars in order to further assure that
there are no leaks in the system. Tanks are coated with a pressurized nitrogen blanket as a safety measure.

Environmental Impact
Impact on Water Resources
No portable water is used in this process.
Pure propane stimulation does not need chemical additives. Unlike water, propane does not change
the geochemical balance of the natural source rock and does not dissolve any mineral or organic
elements that are normally found in solid form.
The main item for attention concerning the preservation of water resources is the possibility of
uncontrolled hydrocarbon contamination underground (discontinuity underground due to faults or
leaks). Whilst propane is not toxic in and of itself, it can transport hydrocarbons (liquid or gas) and
other substances (oil, H2S, metals etc.), often in small amounts, but that may have toxic/ecotoxic
potential specific to each site. Special attention should be paid to the detection and of sizable faults
in the area of the planned operation.
Impact on Air resources
The possibility of propane leaks or environmental release (pressure relief valves) from the flow
back or injection line (propane itself is not a greenhouse gas, but it can react with other components
in the atmosphere and contribute in a secondary manner to greenhouse gas).
The presence of potentially toxic gas associated with propane when the large tank is emptied (H2S,
benzene, etc.).
The flare contributes to CO2 production which is primary greenhouse gas.
Impact of Soil quality
The absence of chemical additives limits the risk of accidental spills on the surface, and the fact
that wastewater holding ponds are not used is also a favourable point. Liquid propane is not a
pollutant in itself and it vaporizes in contact with the atmosphere.
The main items for attention are those intrinsic to all types of oil exploration: Risks linked to
accidental spills of the tanks of wastewater and oil produced.
Impact on Health
The fact that chemicals are not used considerably limits any health impacts that might result from
the implementation of the operational sector
The release of potentially toxic gases that are present in the large tank and drained by propane
associated with propane when the large tank is emptied (H2S, benzene, etc.) can be matter of
attention.
SPE-185441-MS 15

Impacts due to heavy trucking

Due to the large volume of these LPG, a number of trucking and transportation costs are often
required to supply well sites.
The number of trucks required to supply just one well site is associated with road wear and tear,
as well as noise and air pollution.
The cargo load of these trucks are often dangerous chemicals that pose great environmental risks
if the content of the cargo were to ever become exposed to organisms or the environment.
Residents who reside in the areas of heavy traffic for these trucks are at disadvantages.
Seismic Impact
Fracking causes extremely small earthquakes, but they are almost always too small to be a safety
concern.

Prospects of LPG fracturing in India

Summary of Indian Oil and Gas Sector
635 million metric Tonnes (MMT) of proven oil reserves (2P).
54 trillion cubic Feet of proven natural gas reserves and 96 trillion cubic Feet of estimated Shale
gas reserves.
Third largest consumer of crude oil and petroleum products in the world and second largest refiner
in Asia.
60% of the prognosticated reserves of 28,000 MMT are yet to be harnessed
Regasified Liquefied Natural Gas (RLNG) regasification facility is likely to increase from 47.5
MMTPA* by 2022 from a current level of 22 MMTPA.
*million metric tonnes per annum

Challenges in India
The challenges faced by India in its efforts to revive upstream activity are informed by a set of
characteristics which can be summed up as follows:
India is a net oil importing/oil dependent country.
The country has a high concentration of acreage with a small number of players (such as the main
NOCs).
There is declining upstream activity.
Oil production (usually from NOCs) is stagnating
By 2040, India's dependence on imported oil will rise to 90 percent, says a report released by International
Energy Agency at the end of November 2015.
Indias dependency on imported oil is likely to grow as it tries to achieve double-digit economic growth
and its consumption increases. Currently, per capita, Indias energy use is only a third of the global
average. That means, its got a lot of room to grow. According to International Energy Agency, between
2013 and 2040, the growth of demand for oil in India will be the highest in the world.
On the gas side of things, in 2014-2015, India imported about 36 percent of its gas needs. But its going
up. From April-October of 2015, India imported 37 percent of its gas needs. For the same period in 2016,
it imported 39 percent.
16 SPE-185441-MS

Status of LPG in India

Production vs Consumption
India has become the second-largest domestic LPG (liquefied petroleum gas) consumer in the world due
to the Central government's rapid rollout of clean fuel plan for poor households and fuel subsidy reforms.
The following graph (fig. 13) shows the increasing trend of consumption of LPG in each successive year
from 2009-10 to 2015-16 while the trend of production is nearly constant. In 2015-16, it can be observed
that the consumption is almost double to that of production.

25000

20000

15000

10000

5000

0
2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16

Production Consumption

Fig 13 Production and Consumption of LPG (Financial Year Wise) in 000 Tonnes

Import/Export of LPG

10000

9000

8000

7000

6000

5000

4000

3000

2000

1000

0
2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16

Import Export

Fig.14 Production and Consumption of LPG (Financial Year Wise) in 000 Tonnes
SPE-185441-MS 17

The graph (fig. 14) shows the imports and export of LPG in each successive year from 2009-10 to 2015-
16. As it is very clear from the graph that India is an importer of LPG to meet its domestic and industrial
needs. India imports LPG based on long term contracts from major Middle Eastern producers: Saudi
Aramco, Qatars Tasweeq, Abu Dhabi Oil Co. and Kuwait Petroleum Corp.
However, according to Indian oil ministrys research arm, Indias LPG demand 60% butane and 40%
propane had been expected to increase 3.5% to 18 million mt in fiscal year 2015/16. With this estimates,
the industry predicts to grow around 5% to 6%, in same year.
Note: On an average a propane fracturing job requires 180 tonnes of LPG.

Major Challenges in Shale Gas Exploitation in India

Exploitation of shale gas poses bigger challenge than other sources of gas. Even technologically,
producing this source is very challenging. Due to the tightness of the reservoirs, these require hydraulic
fracturing horizontally to cover a large part of the reservoir and sometimes require multi-stage fracturing
and frequent stimulation.
The biggest apprehension in exploitation of shale gas is the hydraulic fracturing job where large amount
of water mixed with fracturing fluids/proppants is injected at high pressure into the reservoirs. A mixture
of chemical is also used to give such properties to the fluid that are needed for fracturing. It is these sands
and fractures which are apprehended from the point of view of contamination of aquifers which support
life. If these fractures were to take place along a fault, they could result in shallower levels being affected,
with resultant mixing of chemicals. Even the fear of gas escaping through these fractures and
contaminating the ground water has been a cause of concern.
Apart from the main concern of water contamination, there are other multiple challenges while exploring
and producing shale gas. A large amount of water, millions of gallons of water per well is required for
hydraulic fracturing. Local environmental challenges and issue of water availability and water disposal
after fracturing jobs pose serious threats to the environment.
The big issue of diversity of shale and key is finding the correct fracturing technique. Shale gas reservoirs
are referred to as statistical plays, as many wells are needed to understand the play and assess the
recoverable resource. Moreover, as unconventional gas has a higher cost of production per unit (due to
lower overall recovery rate of less than 35-40% and high cost of well, some of the wells in US have
recovery rates varying from 8% to 19%), the economic size of reserves is also an exercise of both
technology and pricing.
The typical flow rates of a shale gas well is very high in the first 1-2 years, and then tapers to a much slow
rate extended over many years. This requires drilling of a large number of wells leading to greater interface
with the communities, environment and effort.
These challenges in tight shale reservoirs and the limitations of hydraulic fracturing in shale reservoirs
can be mitigated by propane fracturing technique as it is not only a waterless approach but it also provides
longer fracture length, better recovery and long time benefits from these wells in tight shale oil/gas
reservoirs.

Drilling Intensity
The following table depicts examples of drilling intensity (as indicative of upstream activity) from
countries within regions which have ratios of less than 1, but focusing on basins with some of the highest
exploration investments. A very basic comparison of similarly sized basins in India suggests that upstream
activity in India is underperforming. For example, the Vindhyan (162,000 km2) and Ganga (186,000 km2)
basins are comparable in size of acreage to the Pearl River Mouth basin in China. However, drilling
intensity for the Vindhyan is 1 well per 17,364 km2 and for the Ganga basin it is 1 well per 23,992 km2,
compared with a much more efficient 1 per 1,190 km2 for the Pearl River Mouth basin.
18 SPE-185441-MS

Country Production/Consumption Basin Acreage(km^2) Drilling

Ratio(oil) Intensity
(km^2 per
well)
Australia 0.42 Canarvon 500,000 2,347
China 0.43 Pearl River 175,000 1,190
Mouth
Malaysia 0.93 Sarawak-East 8,028 69
Natuna
Brazil 0.71 Santos 365,260 5,775
Campos 100,000 901
USA 0.48 Alaska North 240,000 1,600
Slope
Table 3 Drilling Intensity Comparable International Experience
Therefore, to increase the production of hydrocarbons from such basins and to explore them at a faster
rate, then, along with the drilling intensity to be increased, new technologies like propane fracturing have
to be adopted, so that hydrocarbons may be recovered from these basins at faster rate.

Environmental Challenges
India is home to an extraordinary variety of climatic regions, ranging from tropical in the south to
temperate and alpine in the Himalayan north, where elevated regions receive sustained winter snowfall.
The nation's climate is strongly influenced by the Himalayas and the Thar Desert. Such variable climatic
conditions reduce the efficiency of the equipment and makes the job difficult and sometimes, even
uneconomically viable.
For example, Cairn India, one of the largest oil and gas exploration and production company in India has
its key assets in Rajasthan, the state whose major part is covered with desert. Even, Mangala field, which
is considered to be the largest onshore oil discovery in India in the last two decades is located in Rajasthan.
In summer season when the temperature of these regions crosses 50 degree celsius, the operations like
hydraulic fracturing, which require millions of gallons of water become very challenging due to extremely
low availability of water. In these cases, it will be better to go for a operation/job which will require either
less or no amount of water.
A lot of exploration is going on by companies like ONGC, OIL India, etc in north-eastern part of India
which has a huge potential for hydrocarbon reserves but this part of the country is not so developed and
major part of it is covered with forests and mountains. Due to poor transportation facilities in such regions,
the jobs like hydraulic fracturing which involves a large amount of water to be transported from the source
to the field become a challenging task.
In such challenges, the technique like propane fracturing provides the best solution as it requires less
amount of water so less number of trucks will be required for transportation purposes. Because of these
merits of this technology, it is best suited to both of the above discussed regions.

Government Initiatives
In a major drive to enhance the petroleum and hydrocarbon sector, Government of India has
introduced initiatives like the Hydrocarbon Exploration Licensing Policy (HELP), Marketing and
Pricing freedom for new gas production, grant of extension to the Production Sharing Contracts
and assigning the Ratna offshore field award to Oil and Natural Gas Corporation (ONGC) for
development.
SPE-185441-MS 19

The Union Cabinet has allowed state-owned oil firms to evolve their own crude oil import policies
which involve freedom to choose source companies as well as pricing for their crude oil imports,
thus allowing them to compete in the market effectively.
Mr Dharmendra Pradhan, Minister of State (Independent Charge) for Petroleum and Natural Gas
has released the Hydrocarbon Vision 2030 for North East India, with the objective of leveraging
the north-eastern regions hydrocarbon potential; enhance access to clean fuels, improve
availability of petroleum products, and facilitate economic development and to involve local
population in the economic activities in this sector.
The Government of India plans to incentivise gas production from deep-water, ultra deep-water
and high pressure-high temperature areas which are presently not exploited on account of higher
cost and risk, and also to augment the investment in nuclear power generation in the next 15 to 20
years.
The government of India proposed a plan to merge of the state- controlled oil companies, both
upstream and downstream to reduce inefficiencies and improve competitiveness globally. A
merger can create an entity that is better placed to compete globally for resources, less vulnerable
to shifts in oil prices and it would also have opportunities to save on costs and improve operational
efficiency.
Benefits: These policies of government encourage the companies present here to take risk and invest big
on new technology such as propane fracturing, without the fear of losing the investment completely. As
water is a scarce resource in India its is good to invest in technology like propane fracturing which
requires almost no water, provide long term benefits and also prevent the wastage of resource such as
water. Because of all these policies of government the companies prefer to invest on innovative ideas
which will give a long-term benefit to them and which is eco friendly in nature.

Conclusions
Propane fracturing is a better way of stimulation compared to hydraulic fracturing and CO2 fracturing. It
results in more effective fracture length, more production, better cleanup efficiency and faster frac fluid
recovery. Initial cost of doing the fracturing job is more but overall cost considering more recovery is less
in propane fracturing. Most importantly, it does not use fresh water as a frac fluid. But it also has some
limitations. High flammability of LPG is major risk in the fracturing operation. There are chances of LPG
leakage which can detected by using thermal cameras.
There are many possibilities of development and improvement in propane fracturing since it is in the early
stages of industrial application. It should be included in research programs for techno economic
performance analysis. It should be introduced in India considering the energy demand of the nation.

Acknowledgement
Authors of this paper wish to thank Society of Petroleum Engineers for giving the opportunity to present
this paper in Oil and India Conference 2017. They also want to thank Gas Frac for developing this
revolutionary technology. They also wish to thank various companies like ONGC, RIL, Schlumberger,
Cairn India, Shell for keeping them updated about the lastest technology of the industry. At last they want
to thank Department of Petroleum Engineering, Indian Institute of technology (Indian School of Mines),
Dhanbad for their continuous support and guidance.
20 SPE-185441-MS

References
1. Tamil Selvan.R, Siddqui N.A, Research Scholar, Associate Professor, University of Petroleum
and Energy Studies Dehradun, India, Risk Assessment LPG Storage and Handling of Heat
Treatment Plant.
2. Tanmay M Soni, Pandit Deendayal Petroleum University, LPG-Based Fracturing: An Alternate
Fracturing Technique in Shale Reservoirs
3. Pure Propane (PPS) and Non-Flammable Propane (NFP) Stimulation of Shale, John Francis
Thrash, CEO Gasfrac, October 9th 2014 Paris, France
4. WaterLess Fracturing Technology Making the Most of Your Reservoir Robert Lestz -
GasFrac Chief Technology Officer Calgary SPE Chapter - Back to Basics Special Interest
Group Luncheon 15 Feb 2012
5. Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) Storage, (accessed on Feb 11, 2017),
http://www.hsa.ie/eng/Topics/Liquid_Petroleum_Gas_LPG_/
6. Eric Tudor, P.Eng, Waterless Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) Gel-Hydraulic Fracturing
Technology, SPE Liquid-Rich Basin Conference: New Technology for Old Plays, Session 8:
Stimulation, September 19-20, 2012, Midland Convention Center, Midland Tx, USA
https://www.google.de/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&cad=rja&uact=8&ved
=0ahUKEwjIlbvTz4jSAhUT24MKHUWcAB8QFggwMAM&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wtgs
.org%2Ffiles%2F308%2Fdownload%2F&usg=AFQjCNFUiI73zcn-
sC8BL5XR5zEWqIYIdQ&sig2=RF0Jh58NklbTsy8s0pq7LQ
7. Jeffrey M. Reynolds James Chip Northrup-Frack Truck Impacts On New York Villages and
Towns-
https://www.google.co.in/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&v
ed=0ahUKEwiSpN6ezojSAhVBuZQKHUfBC9sQFggfMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.otse
go2000.org%2Fdocuments%2FFrackingShaleTrucks.pdf&usg=AFQjCNFDShUySBi5SUMdU1
iLkuJ4s2jSAQ&sig2=RvDsY9fTrsFIzJQNOOCvYw
8. Environmental analysis of propane fracturing as a possible solution, (accessed on Feb 12,
2017), https://sites.google.com/a/cornell.edu/water-resources-used-in-hydrofracking/propane-
fracking
9. Aaron Herridge, Teresa Kerwin, Tricia Lestarjette, Mat Schmidt,Lana Wohlgemuth- The
Consequences of Hydraulic Fracturing https://shalegasespana.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/the-
consequences-of-hf.pdf
10. Montebourg report, (accessed on Feb 12, 2017), http://www.ecorpstim.com/press/montebourg-
report/
11. Indian Petroleum and Natural Gas Statistics 2015-16, (Accessed on Feb 11,2017),
http://www.india environmentportal.org.in /files/file/pngstat%202014-15.pdf
12. India Brand Equity Foundation (IBEF), (Accessed on Feb 11,2017),
http://www.ibef.org/news/at-19-million-tonnesyear-india-2ndlargest-lpg-user-in-world
SPE-185441-MS 21

13. Intelligent Sensing Anywhere, (Accessed on Feb 11,2017), http://www.isasensing.com/india-

state-firms-to-import-up-to-8-9-mil-mt-lpg-in-fiscal-2015-16/
14. KPMG, (Accessed on Feb 12,2017) https://www.kpmg.com/Global/en/IssuesAndInsights/Ar
ticlesPublications/Documents/shale-gas-global-perspective.pdf
15. Golden Rules for Golden Age of Gas- IEA, 2012
16. Shale Gas Resources: An Assessment of 137 Shale Formations in 41 Countries Outside the
United States- EIA-2013
17. Evaluating production potential of mature US oil, gas shale plays, (accessed on Feb 12, 2017),
(Oil & Gas Journals)
http://www.shale-gas-information-platform.org/areas/basics-of-shalegas.html
18. Wintershall: Shale gas controversy blocking conventional production (Oil & Gas Journals)
19. Director General of Hydrocarbons 8. BP Statistical Review, 2016
20. Healy, J. (Sep 5, 2012), For farms in the west, oil wells are thirsty rivals. New York Times
21. Lestz, R. (Nov14, 2011). Interview by A Brino, Q&a: Inventor of waterless fracking on why his
method will be a game-changer.
22. Nearing, B. & Brino, A. (Nov 6, 2011), New waterless fracking method avoids pollution problems,
but drillers slow to embrace it. Inside Climate News
23. Rassenfoss, S. (2013), Journal of Petroleum Technology In search of the waterless fracture
24. Smith, M., & Montgomery, C. (2010), Hydraulic fracturing: History of an enduring technology.
Journal of Petroleum Technology.
25. Tudor, E., & et al, (2009), Journal of Petroleum Technology, Case study of a novel hydraulic
fracturing method that maximizes effective hydraulic fracture length
26. The BlobThe Prospects For LPG/Propane Gel Fracturing, (Accessed on Sep 26, 2016),
https://rbnenergy.com/the-blob-the-prospects-for-lpg-propane-gel-fracturing