1. Shalegas production in NL: a case study
The Brabant Case
Taco Hoencamp, shalegas expert Royal HaskoningDHV

2. Suppose:
Minister Kamp decides to shale
gas exploration drillings
Production of shale gas is
economically viable
A gas company wants to produce:

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. 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. 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. Example 1: Away from buildings,houses
Distance >
100m
Difficult
criteria
NL is
densely
populated
Eindhoven

7. Example 2: Not in protected areas
But still very
close.
Appropriate
Assessment
obligatory
Assess effects
on nature

8. Example 3: Oil and gas distribution systems
Not too close
Safety risk
Not too far
NL- gas
network
needed for
distribution

9. Example 4: Preference for agricultural areas
Preference for
Pasture
Farm land
Stay away from
Hay (heide)

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. Under the surface it looks likes this
3D-view of Wells
Edited concept
Scenario 4

12. Shale gas phases
Site preparation
Well drilling
Fracking
Production
Re-fracking ( after ±10 year)

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. Fitting in the landscape
Average area covered by a site: 10 – 20 km2
Average distance between sites: 4 – 6 km

22. Fitting in the landscape
Average area covered by a site: 10 – 20 km2
Average distance between sites: 4 – 6 km

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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