Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Presentation geert de cock lembork_fracking_english_final_short
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Presentation geert de cock lembork_fracking_english_final_short

537
views

Published on

This presentation was made during an event on October 26, 2012 in Lembork, where Food & Water Europe was invited by a local group. We informed local residents about the risks, negative impacts and the …

This presentation was made during an event on October 26, 2012 in Lembork, 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.

Published in: News & Politics

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
537
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
1
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 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   Lembork,  October  26,  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   hTp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPfGoNvsqt0    Source:  EIA  video  –  CumulaKve  drilling  in  Pennsylvania   11  Source:  Pennsylvania  Department  of  ConservaKon  of  Natural  Resources   12   6  
  • 7. 11/5/12   texas   Source:  IEA  2012,  Golden  rules   13   Moving  to  environmental  impacts       CumulaNve  impacts   14   7  
  • 8. 11/5/12   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.   15   Water  quality  •  Between  25  to  75%  of  injected  water  returns  to   surface  (flowback)  à  huge  wastestream  •  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   16   8  
  • 9. 11/5/12   Water  quality  •  Problems  with  well  integrity  can  lead  to   methane  contaminaKon  of  water  wells   –  Flaming  tap  phenomenon   –  Industry  denies:  lack  of  baseline  data   17   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)   18   9  
  • 10. 11/5/12   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   19   Other  impacts  •  Poor  air  quality  due  to  shale  gas  drilling    •  NegaKve  health  impacts   –  Higher  cancer  risks  for  those  living  within  800   meters  of  a  shale  gas  well   20   10  
  • 11. 11/5/12   Economic  benefits??  •  PotenKal  job  numbers  are  exaggerated  •  Shale  gas  will  not  lead  to  lower  gas  prices  •  Boom  &  Bust  for  local  economy  •  NegaKve  impact  on  other  sectors:   –  Real  estate   –  Tourism   –  Farming   21     Land  use:     IndustrialisaNon  of  rural  areas  •  About  3.6  hectares  for  mulK-­‐well   pad  installaKon  (AEA  report,  2012)    •  Plus  other  gas  infrastructure:   –   Compressor  staKons   – Pipelines   – Gas  storage,  etc.   22   11  
  • 12. 11/5/12  Source:  Rumbach  (2012)   23  Source:  Food  &  Water  Watch   24   12  
  • 13. 11/5/12  Source:  Nature  Conservancy  (2011)   25  Source:  Nature  Conservancy   26   13  
  • 14. 11/5/12   Source:  Rumbach  (2012)   27   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)     28   14  
  • 15. 11/5/12   29  Source:  Rumbach,  2012   30   15  
  • 16. 11/5/12   Conclusion  •  Importance  of  environmental  impact  assessment,   prior  to  drilling  •  ATenKon  to  the  cumulaKve  impacts  of  large-­‐ scale  shale  gas  development  •  QuesKonable  local  economic  benefits   –  NegaKve  economic  impacts   –  Long-­‐term  environmental  damage   –  Renewable  energy  and  energy  efficiency?   31   Djienkuje!   •  Email:  gdecock@fweurope.org  &   pbarczak@fweurope.org     •  Tel:  0032  /(0)2/893.10.18  hTp://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/europe/fracking/     32   16  

×