Presentation geert de cock kartuzy_fracking_english_final_long

809 views

Published on

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.

Published in: News & Politics
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Presentation geert de cock kartuzy_fracking_english_final_long

  1. 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. 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. 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. 4. 11/5/12   7  Source:  Prof.  Rien  Herber,  former  vice  president  of  ExploraNon  Europe  at  Shell.  Source:  WorldOil.com     8   4  
  5. 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. 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. 7. 11/5/12  Source:  Pennsylvania  Department  of  ConservaKon  of  Natural  Resources   13  Source:  InternaKonal  Energy  Agency   14   7  
  8. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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  
  17. 17. 11/5/12  Source:  Food  &  Water  Watch   33  Source:  Nature  Conservancy  (2011)   34   17  
  18. 18. 11/5/12  Source:  Nature  Conservancy   35  Source:  Rumbach  (2012)   36   18  
  19. 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  
  20. 20. 11/5/12   39  Source:  Rumbach,  2012   40   20  
  21. 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  

×