Shalegas production in NL: a case study
The Brabant Case

Taco Hoencamp, shalegas expert Royal HaskoningDHV
Suppose:
Minister Kamp decides to shale
gas exploration drillings
Production of shale gas is
economically viable
A gas com...
Case study Brabant for EBN: 2011/12
1. Shale gas production field:
How does it look like?

2. Which environmental effects?...
Production field shale gas: many sites
Each site: clustering of 6- 10 wells
Vertical well: 3500m deep
Horizontal well: 150...
Finding sites (in the case study): via GIS
Keep distance from:
Buildings, houses
Roads, railways, canals, rivers
Existing ...
Example 1: Away from buildings,houses
Distance >
100m
Difficult
criteria
NL is
densely
populated
Eindhoven
Example 2: Not in protected areas
But still very
close.
Appropriate
Assessment
obligatory
Assess effects
on nature
Example 3: Oil and gas distribution systems
Not too close
Safety risk

Not too far
NL- gas
network
needed for
distribution
Example 4: Preference for agricultural areas
Preference for
Pasture
Farm land

Stay away from
Hay (heide)
Production field - result spatial analysis
Area around Boxtel
37 sites
Average surface 10 km2
Construction in 10-15 yrs
3 ...
Under the surface it looks likes this

3D-view of Wells
Edited concept
Scenario 4
Shale gas phases
Site preparation
Well drilling
Fracking
Production
Re-fracking ( after ±10 year)
Possible environmental effects production field
Traffic disturbance
Waste water storage / transport
Water use
Tremors
Nois...
Traffic disturbance mostly during first 8 years
A lot of circulating trucks with
Drilling rigs,
Fracking machines,
A lot o...
Reduction traffic disturbance: waste water collection
If you are digging for a
gas collection system:
Waste water via pipe...
Reduction traffic disturbance: water supply system
If you are digging for a gas
collection system:
Water supply via pipes
...
Tremors
Only with fracking
Not due to subsidence

In UK: 2,3 Richter scale
More wells, more fracks, more risks
Risk reduct...
Light
Light disturbance of drilling rigs / well locations
Already significantly reduced by existing measures
Adapted light...
Groundwater
Contamination via fracks
Not a real risk
Length fracks maximum 300 m,
horizontal well at > 3000 m depth
Many i...
Landscape and local solutions
Site selection based on:
Criteria (as from the case study)

Additional criteria
Least possib...
Fitting in the landscape
Average area covered by a site: 10 – 20 km2
Average distance between sites: 4 – 6 km
Fitting in the landscape
Average area covered by a site: 10 – 20 km2
Average distance between sites: 4 – 6 km
Economics of Brabant shale gas production
Based on:
Halliburton Notional Field Development
Royal HaskoningDHV calculation ...
Also in the case study (2011!):
Oil- and gas drillings are controversial in NL:
example Waddenzee,
Shale gas has a bad nam...
Transparency and openness
Example: North-South line Amsterdam (metro)
Past:
A lot of hindrance
Subsidence of houses
No con...
Transparency and openness
Make risks discussable
Show what you will do when a
risk occurs.

Open house
Excursions to the
d...
Monitoring: essential element of openness
Measure a lot:
Measure smart and measure thoroughly
Show what you measure
direct...
Win - win situations
Share profits: regional or Local
Fund for investments

Shale gas followed by use of
geothermal heat
L...
Conclusions
Production of shale gas on a regional scale
A thorough EIA is required:
Some effects seems small, others very ...
Conclusion
Thanks to EBN for making this presentation possible
Link to RHDHV report on website EBN:
http://www.ebn.nl/Actu...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

FEX | Industrie & Energie | 131112 | Conferentie Schaliegas & Olie | Presentatie | Taco Hoencamp

233 views
152 views

Published on

Published in: Business, Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
233
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
19
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
2
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

FEX | Industrie & Energie | 131112 | Conferentie Schaliegas & Olie | Presentatie | Taco Hoencamp

  1. 1. Shalegas production in NL: a case study The Brabant Case Taco Hoencamp, shalegas expert Royal HaskoningDHV
  2. 2. Suppose: Minister Kamp decides to shale gas exploration drillings Production of shale gas is economically viable A gas company wants to produce:
  3. 3. Case study Brabant for EBN: 2011/12 1. Shale gas production field: How does it look like? 2. Which environmental effects? 3. Which mitigating measures possible? 4. Participation of the region C-MER (19/9/2013): case study example for National Spatial plan shale gas Four subjects above in this presentation
  4. 4. Production field shale gas: many sites Each site: clustering of 6- 10 wells Vertical well: 3500m deep Horizontal well: 1500-2500m Space between horizontal wells: 400m Surface ± 10 – 20 km2 1-2 year drilling - 2 month fracking Production phase 10 to 15 years Water use Drilling: ± 13.000 m3 Fracking with re-use: ± 90.000 m3 Waste water Drilling water: ± 13.000 m3 Production water ± 90.000 m3 per year
  5. 5. Finding sites (in the case study): via GIS Keep distance from: Buildings, houses Roads, railways, canals, rivers Existing safety zones i.e. gas and fuel lines Ground water protection areas, drill free zones Natura2000 areas Fault lines Archaeological sites Preference for: Agricultural areas Near main gas distribution lines
  6. 6. Example 1: Away from buildings,houses Distance > 100m Difficult criteria NL is densely populated Eindhoven
  7. 7. Example 2: Not in protected areas But still very close. Appropriate Assessment obligatory Assess effects on nature
  8. 8. Example 3: Oil and gas distribution systems Not too close Safety risk Not too far NL- gas network needed for distribution
  9. 9. Example 4: Preference for agricultural areas Preference for Pasture Farm land Stay away from Hay (heide)
  10. 10. Production field - result spatial analysis Area around Boxtel 37 sites Average surface 10 km2 Construction in 10-15 yrs 3 – 5 drilling rigs Mitigating measures 6 5 7 4 8 9 3 6 9 1 2 8 7 5 7 9 8 6 4 1 3 2 5 1 3 4 3 9 1 2 2 4 8 7 5 6 Not drilling simultaneously in all areas Central gas treatment Gas pipes buried along roads to treatment plant
  11. 11. Under the surface it looks likes this 3D-view of Wells Edited concept Scenario 4
  12. 12. Shale gas phases Site preparation Well drilling Fracking Production Re-fracking ( after ±10 year)
  13. 13. Possible environmental effects production field Traffic disturbance Waste water storage / transport Water use Tremors Noise and light disturbance Landscape Ground water pollution Also (but not in this presentation) Chemicals Regional Safety Nature / Natura2000
  14. 14. Traffic disturbance mostly during first 8 years A lot of circulating trucks with Drilling rigs, Fracking machines, A lot of water and sand Waste water and production water Other (such as chemicals) Road network not suitable everywhere: Small roads for light traffic Traffic security CO2 emissions, tremors, noise
  15. 15. Reduction traffic disturbance: waste water collection If you are digging for a gas collection system: Waste water via pipes Same trench as of gas collection lines To central treatment plant Less traffic Less risks for pollution (proper monitoring required)
  16. 16. Reduction traffic disturbance: water supply system If you are digging for a gas collection system: Water supply via pipes For a large part: same trench as gas lines Water company “Brabant Water” Water production per year: 180.000.000 m3 Of which 40% for industry Water use shale gas: 8.000.000 m3 in 8 year 1.000.000 m3 per year = 0,5% production of BW
  17. 17. Tremors Only with fracking Not due to subsidence In UK: 2,3 Richter scale More wells, more fracks, more risks Risk reduction by: Stay away from faults: detailed research Constant micro seismic monitoring Apply traffic light method
  18. 18. Light Light disturbance of drilling rigs / well locations Already significantly reduced by existing measures Adapted light: Clear Sky-lamps Inward directed lightning Much less disturbance for flora and fauna Much less visible from a distance
  19. 19. Groundwater Contamination via fracks Not a real risk Length fracks maximum 300 m, horizontal well at > 3000 m depth Many impermeable layers in between well - groundwater Careful with faults Contamination via well: possible Production field many wells, more risk Proper well design, many casings Proper monitoring
  20. 20. Landscape and local solutions Site selection based on: Criteria (as from the case study) Additional criteria Least possible noise disturbance Safest routes for heavy traffic Fitting in the landscape Participation of the region
  21. 21. Fitting in the landscape Average area covered by a site: 10 – 20 km2 Average distance between sites: 4 – 6 km
  22. 22. Fitting in the landscape Average area covered by a site: 10 – 20 km2 Average distance between sites: 4 – 6 km
  23. 23. Economics of Brabant shale gas production Based on: Halliburton Notional Field Development Royal HaskoningDHV calculation of costs EBN Leeswijzer Not based on exploration drillings!! Capital Investment for 37 sites / 315 wells: Drilling: € 2.7 - € 3.0 billion Fracking: € 1.2 billion Installations, pipe systems: € 0.6 - € 0,7 billion Totalling € 4,5 – 4,9 billion Operational costs for 15 years: € 2.3 – 2.8 billion Production per year: average 6.000.000.000 m3 Profit (after taxes) based on € 0,26/m3 gas prize 16-18% return on investment
  24. 24. Also in the case study (2011!): Oil- and gas drillings are controversial in NL: example Waddenzee, Shale gas has a bad name: Mainly due to bad experiences in US Gas land; The Promised Land A lot of positive changes now in US Conditions for proper participation region: Openness Transparency Include region in spatial planning process Create Win - Win situations
  25. 25. Transparency and openness Example: North-South line Amsterdam (metro) Past: A lot of hindrance Subsidence of houses No contact with citizens Project about to stop Now: Openness, transparency No censorship Every debate / comments through website Pro- and Contra- debate on website Contractor workers show what they are doing Organised visits to building sites; Some construction parts permanently accessible
  26. 26. Transparency and openness Make risks discussable Show what you will do when a risk occurs. Open house Excursions to the drilling/fracking site Invite the surrounding citizens: open days Visit schools, social clubs Damage form
  27. 27. Monitoring: essential element of openness Measure a lot: Measure smart and measure thoroughly Show what you measure direct online, no censorship To be monitored: Drilling process: solid waste, energy use Fracking process: seismic activity, energy use Waste water: quality / quantity Traffic intensity Air, light, noise emissions Gas production: And many more Independent controller
  28. 28. Win - win situations Share profits: regional or Local Fund for investments Shale gas followed by use of geothermal heat Long term lease of (agricultural) fields for sites Income guaranty agriculture
  29. 29. Conclusions Production of shale gas on a regional scale A thorough EIA is required: Some effects seems small, others very large Many effects can be mitigated Some effects demand specific measures Find solutions together with the region Be open with information and discuss risks (and the measures to contain them)
  30. 30. Conclusion Thanks to EBN for making this presentation possible Link to RHDHV report on website EBN: http://www.ebn.nl/Actueel/Documents/2012_Shale-gasproduction-in-a-Dutch-perspective_Haskoning.pdf More information: Taco.hoencamp@rhdhv.com Erik.zigterman@rhdhv.com www.royalhaskoningdhv.com

×