Presentation geert de cock kartuzy_fracking_english_final_long

11/5/12  

1  

The  American  experience    of  living  with  large-­‐scale    shale  gas  development.  

 Is  Poland  ready  for  this?  

   Geert  De  Cock,  Policy  officer    

EVENT  Title  

Kartuzy,  October  25,  2012     1  

Food  &  Water  Europe  

•  European  programme  of  Food  &  Water  Watch  –  Based  in  Washington,  DC  

•  Working  on  food,  water  …  and  shale  gas  •  12.000  individual  US  ciKzens  as  members  –  Financial  support  from  a  dozen  American  foundaKons  

•  No  corporate,  no  government  donaKons    

INDEPENDENCE  &  TRANSPARENCY  

hTp://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/about/annual-­‐report/    2  

11/5/12  

2  

Shale  gas  

•  Reduce  dependence  on  Russian  gas  •  Help  move  Poland  away  from  coal    

•  Can  natural  gas  –  and  domesKc  shale  gas  –  help  Poland  to  achieve  these  goals?  

3  

Overview  

•  What  is  fracking  for  shale  gas?  •  How  is  unconvenKonal  gas  different  •  Environmental  impacts  •  Health  impacts  •  Economic  and  employment  aspects  •  Conclusion  

4  

11/5/12  

3  

Fracking  for  shale  gas  

•  2  technologies  made  extracKng  gas  from  shale  rocks  technologically  possible:  – Hydraulic  fracturing  – Horizontal  drilling  (up  to  2  km)  

•  Water  pumped  in  at  high  pressure  – Mixed  with  sand  &  chemicals  

•  Proppant  (silica  sand)  keeps  cracks  open  •  Water  and  gas  return  to  surface  

5  

Source:  Propublica   6  

11/5/12  

4  

Source:  Prof.  Rien  Herber,  former  vice  president  of  ExploraNon  Europe  at  Shell.   7  

Source:  WorldOil.com    8  

11/5/12  

5  

Source:  Florency  Geny,  Oxford  IES  -­‐  currently  business  analyst  Statoil    9  

Shale  gas  =  spaKally  intense  

•  IEA:  “Be  ready  to  think  big”  – “larger  number  of  wells  required”  – For  example:  • BarneT  shale:  15.000  wells  • Marcellus  shale:  up  to  100.000  wells  

•  1000s  of  wells  required  in  the  next  decade  – IF  recoverable  reserve  esKmates  are  correct  

10  

11/5/12  

6  

Source:  Pennsylvania  Department  of  ConservaKon  of  Natural  Resources   11  

Source:  EIA  video  –  CumulaKve  drilling  in  Pennsylvania   12  

hTp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPfGoNvsqt0    

11/5/12  

7  

Source:  Pennsylvania  Department  of  ConservaKon  of  Natural  Resources   13  

Source:  InternaKonal  Energy  Agency   14  

11/5/12  

8  

Shale  gas  in  Poland?  

•  Twin  challenges  – Reducing  imports  of  Russian  gas  – Fuel  switch  from  coal  to  gas  

•  1000s  of  wells  required  in  the  next  decade  – IF  recoverable  reserve  esKmates  are  correct  

15  

For  example  •  To  replace  10%  of  Poland’s  total  coal-­‐fired  capacity  (141,6  TW)  – Need  for  635  wells  per  year  

•  To  cover  Poland’s  current  consumpKon  of  natural  gas  (2012:  17,16  billion  cubic  meters)  – Need  for  270  wells  per  year  –  If  gas  consumpKon  goes  up  by  another  30%,  then  need  for  351  

16  

11/5/12  

9  

Moving  to  environmental  impacts  

CumulaNve  impacts  

17  

Water  quanKty  

•  Water  usage  by  Polish  shale  gas  industry  only  amounts  to  0,06%  of  annual  usage  in  Poland  (based  on  200  wells)  

•  BUT:  all  water  is  sourced  locally.  –  In  Texas’  counKes,  fracking  industry’s  water  consumpKon  equal  to  households  

•  CompeKKon  between  water  users  •  Produced  water  used  cannot  be  used  for  other  purposes.  

18  

11/5/12  

10  

Water  quality  

•  Between  25  to  75%  of  injected  water  returns  to  surface  (flowback)  à  huge  wastestream  – One  well-­‐pad  of  8  wells:  100.000  liters  of  waste  

•  Ill-­‐equipped  water  treatment  plants  in  US  to  deal  with:  – NORM  –  Naturally  Occurring  RadioacKve  Materials  – Heavy  metals  – High  levels  of  bromides:  reacts  with  chlorine  to  form  carcinogenic  trihalomethanes  

– Fracking  chemicals,  including  BTEX  compounds  19  

Water  quality  

•  Lots  of  fracking  waste  water  in  US  is  disposed  in  deep  well  injecKon  sites.  – BUT  prohibited  in  the  EU  (Water  Framework  DirecKve)  

•  Problems  with  well  integrity  can  lead  to  methane  contaminaKon  of  water  wells  – Flaming  tap  phenomenon  –  Industry  denies:  lack  of  baseline  data  

20  

11/5/12  

11  

Fracking  chemicals  

•  Only  1  to  2%  of  millions  of  liters,  BUT:  – Despite  relaKve  low  concentraKons,  absolute  volumes  are  huge  à  thousands  of  kilos  

– Some  chemicals  are  dangerous  “even  at  concentraKons  near  or  below  their  chemical  detecKon  limits”  (Bishop,2011)  

21  

Fracking  chemicals  

•  Examples:  – 2-­‐Butoxyethanol  -­‐  high  doses  reproducKve  problems,  birth  defects,  red  blood  cells,  high  mobility,  low  degradaKon,  contaminate  aquifers  

– Ethylene  Glycol  -­‐  irritate  eyes,  nose  &  throat,  respiratory  toxicant,  increased  risks  of  spontaneous  aborKon,  animal  teratogen  

– Methanol  –  affects  nervous  system  – Aroma6c  hydrocarbons  like  benzene  -­‐  carcinogenic  – Glutaraldehyde  –  respiratory  toxin,  mutagenic  

22  

11/5/12  

12  

Air  quality  

•  Wyoming  does  not  meet  Clean  Air  Act  Standards  in  areas  with  gas  drilling:  – Air  pollutants  linked  to  drilling  mix  with  other  emissions    

– This  can  lead  to  high  ozone  levels  and  smog.  

23  

Source:  Food  &  Water  Watch  24  

11/5/12  

13  

Health  impacts  

•  Peer  reviewed  arKcle  concludes:  –  Residents  living  ≤  [800  m]  from  wells  are  at  greater  risk  for  health  effects  from  [unconvenKonal  natural  gas  development]  than  are  residents  living  >[800  m]  from  wells.    

•  Recent  report  Earthworks’  Oil  &  Gas  Accountability  Project    –  “contaminants  that  are  associated  with  oil  and  gas  development  are  present  in  air  and  water  in  areas  where  residents  are  experiencing  health  symptoms  consistent  with  such  exposures”  

25  

Employment    

•  PotenKal  job  numbers  are  typically  exaggerated  –  “1150  full  Kme  equivalent  local  jobs  per  100  wells  will  go  to  drilling  crews  coming  from  outside  the  region”  (Rumbach,  2012)  

–  E.g.  PKN  Orlen  Gas  510.000  jobs    •  Risky  industry:  – Work  with  toxic  chemicals  –  Crystalline  Silica  Exposures  à  Silicosis  or  Stonemason’s  disease  

26  

11/5/12  

14  

Employment                Source:    PoliKcal  Economy  Research  InsKtute  of  the  University  of  MassachuseTs    

27  

Economic  impacts  

•  Lower  gas  prices    – Unlikely,  as  extracKon  will  be  much  more  expensive  than  in  the  US.  

•  Boom  and  bust  cycle  – Boom  in  the  US  has  lasted  about  5-­‐7  years,  but  now  bust.  •  Too  much  drilling  and  weak  demand  led  to  a  collapse  in  gas  prices.  

– Shale  gas  is  a  ‘nomadic’  industry  

 28  

11/5/12  

15  

Impact  on  real  estate  

•  Fracking  has  negaKve  impact  on  real  estate  values  – Catskills  region  in  New  York:  drop  in  prices  for  holiday  homes  

•  NaKonWide  insurance  does  not  cover  fracking-­‐related  damage  to  homes:  – “the  exposures  presented  by  hydraulic  fracturing  are  too  great  to  ignore”  

29  

Tourism  •  “[…]  many  tourism  related  businesses  are  locally  owned  and  operated,  and  are  thus  part  of  a  long-­‐term  economic  development  trajectory  for  the  region,  the  employment  ‘boom’  in  gas  drilling  will  be  relaKvely  short-­‐term  and  non-­‐local”  (Rumbach,  2012)  

 •  “wide-­‐spread  drilling  could  do  substanKal  damage  to  the  region’s  ‘brand’,  threatening  the    long-­‐term  growth  of  tourism  here”  (Rumbach,  2012)  

30  

11/5/12  

16  

Land  use:    IndustrialisaNon  of  rural  areas  

•  About  3.6  hectares  for  mulK-­‐well  pad  installaKon  (AEA  report,  2012)  

•  Pipeline  infrastructure:  2.5  km  /  well  pad  (Nature  conservancy,  2011)  

•  Plus  other  gas  infrastructure:  –   Compressor  staKons,  gas  storage,  water  extracKon  sites  

31  

Source:  Rumbach  (2012)  32  

11/5/12  

17  

Source:  Food  &  Water  Watch  33  

Source:  Nature  Conservancy  (2011)  34  

11/5/12  

18  

Source:  Nature  Conservancy  35  

Source:  Rumbach  (2012)  36  

11/5/12  

19  

Farming  

•  Natural  gas  development  uses  a  lot  of  land.  •  Water  and  soil  contaminaKon  by  spills  (Bamberger  and  Oswald)  – “complete  tesKng  of  air  and  water  prior  to  drilling  and  at  regular  intervals  aver  drilling  has  commenced”  

37  

Traffic  

•  “each  well  would  would  require  between  890  and  1350  heavy-­‐duty  truck  loads  per  well”  (Food  &  Water  Europe,  March  2012)  

•  “an  8-­‐well  pad  may  require  some  4-­‐6  thousand  truck  trips  over  some  six  months  pre-­‐extracKon”  (EP  report  –  Boguslaw  Sonik)    

38  

11/5/12  

20  

39  

Source:  Rumbach,  2012   40  

11/5/12  

21  

Conclusion  •  Importance  of  environmental  impact  assessment,  prior  to  drilling  

•  ATenKon  to  the  cumulaKve  impacts  of  large-­‐scale  shale  gas  development  

•  Healthy  dose  of  suspicion  about  the  local  economic  benefits  – NegaKve  economic  impacts  –  Long-­‐term  environmental  damage  –  Renewable  energy  and  energy  efficiency?  

41  

Thank  you!  

•  Email:  [email protected]  &  [email protected]    

•  Tel:  0032  /(0)2/893.10.18  

hTp://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/europe/fracking/    

42