This presentation was made during an event on October 25, 2012 in Kartuzy, where Food & Water Europe was invited by a local group. We informed local residents about the risks, negative impacts and the exaggerated benefits of shale gas for Poland.
Presentation geert de cock kartuzy_fracking_english_final_long
1. 11/5/12
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
1
2. 11/5/12
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
2
3. 11/5/12
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
3
4. 11/5/12
7
Source:
Prof.
Rien
Herber,
former
vice
president
of
ExploraNon
Europe
at
Shell.
Source:
WorldOil.com
8
4
5. 11/5/12
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
5
6. 11/5/12
Source:
Pennsylvania
Department
of
ConservaKon
of
Natural
Resources
11
hTp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPfGoNvsqt0
Source:
EIA
video
–
CumulaKve
drilling
in
Pennsylvania
12
6
7. 11/5/12
Source:
Pennsylvania
Department
of
ConservaKon
of
Natural
Resources
13
Source:
InternaKonal
Energy
Agency
14
7
8. 11/5/12
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
8
9. 11/5/12
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
9
10. 11/5/12
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
10
11. 11/5/12
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
12. 11/5/12
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
12
13. 11/5/12
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
13
14. 11/5/12
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
14
15. 11/5/12
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
15
16. 11/5/12
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
16
19. 11/5/12
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
19
21. 11/5/12
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:
gdecock@fweurope.org
&
pbarczak@fweurope.org
• Tel:
0032
/(0)2/893.10.18
hTp://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/europe/fracking/
42
21
