20131206 eera-shale gas-dow v4

COMMERCIAL-IN-CONFIDENCE
DESCRIPTION OF WORK
EERA Joint Programme on Shale Gas
DoW EERA shale gas JP
EERA
EUROPEAN ENERGY RESEARCH ALLIANCE
Version: 1.4
Last modification date: 03/04/2014
Contact person: Rene Peters, rene.peters@tno.nl
Clarification on modifications made:
Madelaine Halter inserted 8-11-13 Modification on SP 5
Madelaine Halter inserted 8-11-13 Modification on SP 6
Yvonne Schavemaker inserted 6-12-13 Modification on SP5
Madelaine Halter inserted 3-4-2014 Revised SP2 and SP5

DoW JP Shale Gas
2
THE EERA JOINT PROGRAMME ON SHALE GAS
The Joint Programme on Shale Gas will establish a common knowledge platform for research on
the potential, impact and safety of shale gas development in Europe. Existing technologies and
methodologies will be evaluated and improved to establish an independent knowledge basis which
is based on sound research by 26 independent research institutes from 15 European member states.
The main drivers for setting up this program can be summarized as follows:
· It is expected that fossil fuels will dominate the European energy mix to at least 2030 (vii)
· The European Commission Energy Roadmap 2050 identifies gas as a critical fuel for the
transformation of the energy system in the direction of more renewables and lower CO2
emissions (iii).
· Shale Gas has proved to be a game changer in the US energy market;
o Increase of gas on the market can make the country self-sufficient on gas (e.g., it
drastically lowered the import of LNG) (v)
o It has lowered the gas prices in the US (i.e. US gas prices decreased by a factor
of ~3 over the last 4 years, and are a factor of ~3 lower compared to the EU) (i)
o It created new jobs (i.e. 600 000 jobs are supported by the shale gas industry in
2010) (vi)
There is a clear need for an independent knowledge basis addressing to what extent US
practices can be applied to Europe
· Shale gas source rocks are widely distributed around the world, but geological
characteristics differ. Many EU member states are investigating their shale gas resources
and may benefit from each other’s experience.
· Shale gas may play an important role in security of energy supply in EU member states(i)
· It is clear that shale gas will affect the European Union even if individual European
countries choose not to pursue this resource
Accelerated development of shale gas is accompanied by growing public concern regarding the
environmental impact of shale gas exploitation. As the European continent is densely populated,
public perception may play a much more prominent role than in remote areas where techniques
with large surface impact are common practice (e.g., grid drilling in the US). A transparent and
independent knowledge platform on Shale Gas within the framework of EERA will provide a
research-based understanding of technology and methods that address these concerns.
These drivers are the rationale behind the five sub programmes that will address the following
topics:
· Evaluate the total shale gas resources in Europe as a whole, and in the individual EU
member states based on one robust and accepted methodology, supported by the
participating research institutes.
· Safe technologies and methods to improve exploitation, e.g. understand, monitor, control
and predict the fracturing process, develop innovative fracturing fluids, proppants and
explore fluid free techniques and set up best practices.
· Assessment of the environmental impact and footprint of shale gas exploitation, of risk
mitigation measures, and of boundary conditions for minimum environmental impact.
· Assessment of energy and carbon efficiencies as well as the contribution of shale gas to
greenhouse gas and other emissions to air.
· Assessment the impact of shale gas on the economy and the energy system of Europe
including advice on improvements for the overall legal framework.
· Understanding the public awareness regarding shale gas development and develop
optimum strategies for establishing the dialogue between policy makers, NGO’s and
industrial stakeholders.
The key expertise, equipment, and infrastructure of 26 independent research institutes from 15
European member states (total committed humane resource of 185 py/y) will be used to carry out
the different research tasks within this Joint Programme.

DoW JP Shale Gas
3
Contents
THE EERA JOINT PROGRAMME ON SHALE GAS ..................................................................... 2
Contents ......................................................................................................................... 3
1. Background ........................................................................................................... 5
2. Value added .......................................................................................................... 6
3. Objectives ............................................................................................................. 6
1. Description of foreseen activities ......................................................................... 8
2. Milestones ............................................................................................................. 9
3. Participants and Human Resources ................................................................... 10
4. Infrastructures and facilities .............................................................................. 11
5. Management of the Joint Programme on Shale Gas .......................................... 11
6. Interface with other JPs ...................................................................................... 13
7. Risks .................................................................................................................... 14
8. Intellectual Property Rights of the Joint Programme on Shale Gas .................. 14
9. Contact Point for the Joint Programme on Shale Gas ....................................... 14
SP1 ASSESSMENT OF SHALE GAS POTENTIAL........................................................................ 16
1. Background ......................................................................................................... 17
2. Objectives ........................................................................................................... 17
4. Description of foreseen activities (including time line) ..................................... 18
5. Milestones ........................................................................................................... 19
6. GANT Chart ........................................................................................................ 26
7. Contact Point for the sub-programme on Assessment of Shale Gas Potential .. 26
SUMMARY RESEARCH ACTIVITY ON TECHNOLOGY FOR SAFE AND EFFICIENT
EXPLOITATION ................................................................................................................................. 28
1. Background ......................................................................................................... 29
3. Objectives ........................................................................................................... 29
6. Milestones ........................................................................................................... 33
7. GANT Chart ........................................................................................................ 37
8. Contact Point for the sub-programme 2 on Safe and efficient exploitation ....... 38
SP3 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT & FOOTPRINT ...................................................................... 40
1. Background ......................................................................................................... 41
2. Objectives ........................................................................................................... 41
4. Milestones ........................................................................................................... 44
6. GANT Chart ........................................................................................................ 48
7. Contact Point for the sub-programme on Environmental impact and footprint 48
SP4 ENERGY AND CARBON EFFICIENCIES AND EMISSIONS TO AIR ............................... 50
1. Background ......................................................................................................... 51
2. Objectives ........................................................................................................... 51
4. Milestones ........................................................................................................... 53
6. GANT Chart ........................................................................................................ 55

DoW JP Shale Gas
4
7. Contact Point for the sub-programme on Energy and Carbon Efficiencies and
Emissions to Air .................................................................................................. 55
SP5 SOCIAL LICENSE TO OPERATE ........................................................................................... 57
1. Background ......................................................................................................... 57
2. Objectives ........................................................................................................... 57
3. Description of foreseen activities (including timeline) ...................................... 58
4. Milestones ........................................................................................................... 59
5. Participants and Human Resources: WP 1& 2 .................................................. 60
6. Participants and Human Resources: (WP 3, 4 & 5) .......................................... 62

DoW JP Shale Gas
5
1. Background
Shale Gas has proved to be a game changer in the US energy market, where its rapid increase
in production is about to make the nation self-supplied with respect to gas and consequently
drastically lowered the import of LNG (only 10% of the regasification capacity is required
nowi). It has also lowered the internal gas prices (from an average of near $9/MBtu in 20081
to below $3/MBtu in 2012i) and created new jobs (shale gas supported 600 000 U.S jobs in
2010ii). Shale gas source rocks are widely distributed around the world, and looking to the
US, many nations have now started to investigate their shale gas possibilities.
Fossil fuels, such as oil, natural gas and coal are by far the largest sources of energy in the EU
and are projected to dominate the European energy mix through to at least 2030. The 2°C
Scenario of the Energy Technology Perspectives (IEA/OCDE) predicts decay in natural gas
production after peaking in 2030. However, the share of unconventional gas worldwide is
expected to increase from 12% (2009) to 24% (2035) and 34% (2050)iii.
The European Commission Energy Roadmap 2050 identifies gas as a critical fuel for the
transformation of the energy system in the direction of more renewables and lower CO2
emissions. It can be argued that in Europe natural gas replacing coal and oil undoubtedly will
contribute to emission reduction in the short and medium term, and that natural gas will have
a permanent role in the future energy mix provided a solution with CCSiii.
The most important European driver for shale gas development is the potential for higher
security of energy supply, since Europe currently imports 60% of its gas requirements, a
number that is projected to rise to 80% by 2030iv. In some EU countries close to hundred
percent of the gas is imported from Russiav. The possibility for lower energy prices that might
come as the shale gas technology and experience develop is also a factor that is mentioned, as
well as the possibility for jobs created by the shale gas industry.
There are, however, several concerns related to shale gas exploration and production. The
most frequently discussed ones are faith of chemical additives to in the water used during
production, and in particular risk of polluting the ground water. There is also a debate on the
GHG emissions of shale gas (CO2 and methane) and its energy efficiency compared to other
energy sources. Concerns are also raised about land and surface impacts, noise and micro
seismic events created by the production method.
There are also questions about the total potential of shale gas in Europe as a whole and in the
member states, since there is relatively little knowledge on the source rocks for the gas, their
quality and distribution and how easily producible the gas is.
Shale Gas basins are unevenly distributed among the EU member states and are not restricted
within national borders, so EU co-operation issues related to rights and cost-benefit sharing
will have to be addressed. The basins are transnational and knowledge could be easily
transferred from one European country to another.
i
Unconventional Gas: Potential Energy Market Impacts in the European Union European Commission,
Joint Research Centre, Institute for Energy and Transport, 2012.
ii HS Global Insight (Des. 2011). The Economic and Employment Contributions of Shale Gas in the US.
iii Energy Technology Perspectives 2012, OECD/IEA, ISBN: 978-92-64-17488-7
iv World Energy Outlook 2011, OECD/IEA
v BP Statistical Review of World Energy, 2010
vi Final report on unconventional gas in Europe, Philippe & Partners, Brussels, November 2011
vii EU environmental framework applicable to shale gas practices, European Commission, Brussels,
Vopel, 2012.

DoW JP Shale Gas
6
With the European continent being densely populated, public perception issues will most
certainly arise. Even though a recent study performed by the European Commission has
concluded that its existing legal framework was adequate to address shale gas extractionvi,vii,
there are, in terms of policies some points are not covered. Although different countries may
have different political position, a sound common European knowledge basis could be helpful
to this respect.
The bottom line is that Shale Gas issues may well affect EU even if individual European
countries choose not to pursue this resource. It is a potential opportunity for Europe, but
requires a rapid and comprehensive response in terms of assessment of potential, technology,
regulation and a facing a range of policy issues. Member states with an identified shale gas
potential are already starting to act.
2. Value added
The program establishes a common knowledge platform for development and evaluation of
new technologies to improve the development of shale gas fields.
The key expertise, equipment, and infrastructure of 24 research institutes from 15 European
member states (total committed humane resource of 185 py/y) will be used to carry out the
different research tasks. Contributing member states cover the most important geopolitical
regions where shale gas development may play a (future) role. Shale gas development is at
different stages in the contributing member states (i.e. from moratorium to full operation).
Accordingly, most aspects related to shale gas can be covered in the joint program.
Shale gas is not a national issue, it is a European issue. Several national shale gas initiatives
have already been started, but they look into the topic primarily from the individual member
states’ needs and points of view. It is, however, important to share knowledge, data and
experience to obtain the best possible decision bases for all member states. Shale Gas basins
are not restricted within national borders and neither should the knowledge.
The European R&D institutions will provide independent research based knowledge for the
public, politicians and decision makers. Public perception is a critical issue for all decision
makers, and the public and politicians should get access to more balanced information sources
than casual internet videos made by activists or streamlined information from industry
lobbyists. In those areas where shale gas activities are undertaken, there is also a need for
independent R&D in order to ensure continuous efforts to develop and use technology with
less environmental impact.
It is not possible to directly copy US shale gas production strategies. European gas shales are
often located deeper and some have different rock properties. They are also present in more
density populated areas. It is therefore necessary to evaluate different production strategies.
More innovation will be needed in Europe compared to USA, and the industry will need
support from R&D.
3. Objectives
The main objective is to align and share research activities at EERA institutes related to Shale
Gas exploration and production activities that cover the whole Shale Gas value chain for both
industry and government. These R&D topics are divided into the following sub programmes
(SP):
1. Assessment of shale gas potential
2. Technology for safe exploitation

DoW JP Shale Gas
7
3. Environmental impact & footprint
4. Energy and Carbon Efficiencies and Emissions to Air
5. A social license to operate are
The objectives of the Sub-Programme 1 Assessment of shale gas potential are:
1. Review state of the art technologies for the assessment of shale gas potential and
come to one EU-methodology.
2. Scientific and technological progress in the understanding of the nano to micro-scale
structure of source rocks, their original depositional environment and evolution
through geological time the reduction in uncertainties into the quantification of Shale
Gas Potential (SGP).
The objectives of the Sub-Programme 2 Technology for safe exploitation are:
1. Developing characterisation methods tailor made for gas shale reservoirs
2. Developing existing and innovative drilling techniques that improve borehole
stability
3. Improving the understanding of fracture growth aiming at better control and
prediction of the fracturing process
4. Developing innovative fracturing processes by using alternative fluids, new materials
(proppants) and fluid-free fracturing techniques
5. Increased learning from ongoing production monitoring
6. Illustrating best practices of safe and efficient shale gas exploitation by means of field
cases developed for typical European gas shales
The objectives of the Sub-Programme 3 Environmental impact and footprint are:
1. Compile a comprehensive inventory of the potential impact and footprint of shale gas
development
2. Quantify impact, footprint and risks associated with shale gas development
3. Determine potential risk mitigation measures and boundary conditions for minimum
impact and footprint
4. Develop standardized methodologies to assess impact, footprint and risks of shale gas
development.
The objectives of the Sub-Programme 4 Energy and Carbon Efficiencies and Emissions to Air
are to give a technical-scientific basis on:
1. The potential contribution of shale gas production to greenhouse gas (GHG) and other
gaseous emissions.
2. Removing environment barriers and developing innovative technology solutions.
The objectives of the Sub-Programme 5 A social license to operate are:
1. To improve understanding of the potential impact of shale gas activities on the wider
EU economy and energy system.
2. To examine the regulatory and governance challenges presented by shale gas
development at local, national and European scales.
3. To provide an in-depth understanding of European public awareness, knowledge
about, and acceptability of shale gas technology and its potential deployment in EU
Countries.
4. To understand the origins of community and national level activism and the
legitimate concerns stemming from perceptions of uncertainty and risks, critical to
guide effective public engagement around shale gas exploitation.
5. To suggest strategies of dialogue between policy makers, NGOs, industrial
stakeholders and the public regarding the social license to operate.

DoW JP Shale Gas
8
The objectives of the Sub-Programme 6 Field Case Data are:
1. To improve understanding of the environmental impact of shale gas activities in
Europe on all environmental components (i.e. air, soil and soil gas, surface and
groundwater);
2. To improve the overall legal framework for shale gas activities with respect to
environmental constrains and access of data for research purpose;
3. To improve the geological database for resource estimations
If possible, field cases will be developed for typical European gas shales to demonstrate the
application of innovative production technologies and inform public on shale gas exploitation.
Proper demonstration field cases of European gas shales are important for illustrating best
practices of safe and efficient shale gas exploitation. Activities related to such field cases will
link to all sub programme activities.
1. Description of foreseen activities
SP1: Assessment of Shale Gas Potential
Imaging and reservoir rock characterisation must be optimum at all scales: from methane
molecular size to sedimentary basin. This is the very first step to be performed in exploration
and appraisal to achieve optimum field development and to minimise its environmental
footprint.
• WP1 Basin Scale Architecture
• WP2 Micro-scale characterisation
• WP3 Methods for Shale Gas reserves estimation
SP2: Technology for safe and efficient exploitation
The objective of SP2 is to improve the efficiency and the recovery from shale gas reservoirs
with the minimum environmental impact. This will be achieved by:
- Developing characterisation methods tailor made for gas shale reservoirs
- Developing existing and innovative drilling techniques that improve borehole
stability
- Improving the understanding of fracture growth aiming at better control and
- Developing innovative fracturing processes by using alternative fluids, new materials
- Identification and development of alternative shale gas production technologies;
- Increased learning from ongoing production monitoring
SP3 Environmental impact & footprint
Environmental impact and footprint will be assessed considering population densities,
geological settings, exploitation technologies, and regulations that are specific for European
Union member states.
• WP1 Impact of surface activities on human health, safety and environment
• WP2 Impact of hydraulic fracturing & gas production
• WP3 Impact of wells & requirements of well design
• WP4 Impact on water & water management
• WP5 Benchmarks & methodologies for risk assessment
• WP6 Mitigation measures & minimizing footprint
SP4: Energy and Carbon Efficiency and Emissions to Air
The main point of difference between the GHG emissions associated with shale compared to
conventionally sourced gas lie in the extraction and production processes. There are concerns
that small leakages of methane during shale gas extraction may at least partly offset the

DoW JP Shale Gas
9
effects of lower carbon dioxide emissions from its use in place of coal or oil. The potential
contribution of shale gas production to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions will be accessed.
• WP1 Emissions from Pre-production Stage
• WP2 Emissions from Production Stage
• WP3 Ambient emissions around shale gas basins
• WP4 Assessment of the current GHG emissions reporting framework
SP5: A social license to operate
The sub-programme has the following key objectives:
6. To improve understanding of the potential impact of shale gas activities on the wider EU
economy and energy system.
7. To examine the regulatory and governance challenges presented by shale gas development
at local, national and European scales.
8. To provide an in-depth understanding of European public awareness, knowledge about,
and acceptability of shale gas technology and its potential deployment in EU Countries.
9. To understand the origins of community and national level activism and the legitimate
concerns stemming from perceptions of uncertainty and risks, critical to guide effective
public engagement around shale gas exploitation.
10.To suggest strategies of dialogue between policy makers, NGOs, industrial stakeholders
and the public regarding the social license to operate.
2. Milestones
Milestone Measurable Objectives Project
Month
M1 Final JP Description of Work 1
M2 Steering Committee meeting 3
M3 JP Management Board meeting and Steering Committee meeting 6
M4 Knowledge sharing workshop
M6 Website for dissemination of results 10
M8 Knowledge sharing workshop on project results year 1
M9 Steering committee meeting 15
M10 presentation Annual report year 1
M15 Knowledge sharing workshop on project results year 2
M17 presentation Annual report year 2

DoW JP Shale Gas
10
M22 Symposium on project results
M23 Final report on project results
3. Participants and Human Resources
Name Country Role Associated to
(if associate)
Human
Resource
committed
GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
BELGIUM
Belgium Associate (RWTH/KUL) 2
KU LEUVEN Belgium Associate GSB 1
UNIVERSITY OF
BULGARIA
Bulgaria Participant 35
UNIVERSITY OF
OSTRAVA
Czech Republic Participant 5
GEUS Denmark Particpant EGS 5
IFPEN France Participant and
Coordinator SP1
5
RWTH AACHEN Germany Associate GSB 2
GFZ Potsdam Germany Participant 5
KIT-ITAS Germany Associate GFZ 1
UNIVERSITY OF ATHENS Greece Participant 20
UNIVERSITY ROMA TRE Italy Participant 5
ECN Netherlands Participant 6
TNO Netherlands Coordinator JP + SP3
Participant
5
UNIVERSITY OF
GRONINGEN
Netherlands Participant 6,4
IRIS Norway Participant SINTEF 5
SINTEF Norway Coordinator SP2
Participant
6
Państwowy Instytut
Geologiczny PGI
Poland Participant 12
Instytut Energetyki Poland Associate PGI or INIG 1
INIG Oil and Gas institute
AGH, University Krakow
Poland Participant 7,5
LNEG Poland Coordinator SP4
Participant
6
GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
ROMANIA
Portugal Participant 8,3
IGME Romania Participant 5
UKERC Spain Coordinator SP5
Participant
6,5
Czech Geological Survey UK Participant 4
INERIS Czech Republic Associate GFZ 5.7
Deltares Netherlands Associate TNO 2,5
ENEA Italy Associate Roma 3 2
TUEindhoven Netherlands Participant 5
University of Perugia Italy Participant Roma3 2
University of Gdansk Poland Participant 12,3
Tecnalia Spain Participant IGME 5
Adelard LLP UK Industrial
26 institutes involved – 192 fte commited

DoW JP Shale Gas
11
Name SP1 SP2 SP3 SP4 SP5 SP6 HR
commited
(py/y)
Geological Survey of Belgium 1 1 2
Katholieke Universiteit Leuven 1 1
Uni Min Geol St. Ivan Rilski 8 10 7 5 5 35
VSB - Technical Uni Ostrava 1.5 1.5 2 5
GEUS 1.5 0.5 0.5 2.5
IFPEN 2 2 0.5 0.5 5
GFZ Potsdam 5 5
ITAS 1 1
RWTH Aachen 2.5 0.5 0.5 3.5
University of Athens 10 10 20
University of Roma Tre 6 6
TNO 1 2 1.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 6
ECN 2.5 2.5 5
University of Groningen 0.5 0.5 1.2 4.2 6.4
IRIS 2 2
SINTEF 2 2 1 1 6
Polish Geological Institute 3 1.5 5 2 0.5 12
IEN - Instytut Energetyki 1 1
INIG - Oil and Gas Institute 7 9 2 2 20
AGH - University of Krakow x x x unspecified
LNEG 4.2 0.5 3 0.6 8.3
Geological Survey of Romania 5 5
IGME 1.5 2 2.5 0.5 6.5
UKERC 2.4 4.2 7.45 1.7 3.35 1.7 20.8
TOTAL 63.6 35.7 39.45 15.7 18.05 12.5 185
4. Infrastructures and facilities
Most of the programme members have at their disposal R&D infrastructures that they will
use for the purpose of the programme. An overview of all institutes and their facilities can be
found in Annex 1.
5. Management of the Joint Programme on Shale Gas
Governance structure
The EERA Shale Gas Joint Programme is currently organized into six sub-programmes.
This structure will allow efficient management of the JP activities. In the future, new
subprogrammes may be added. The guiding principles for the structuring of the JP into
subprogrammes are and will be thematic coherence and organisational efficiency.
JP membership
Publicly funded R&D organisations or private companies recognized as R&D organisations
by the European Commission can join the program as Participants if they commit more than
5 person years/year (py/y) to the program. Other organisations or those committing less than
5 py/y to the program can join as Associates. The contributions of an Associate, both in terms
of human resources and R&D work, are consolidated with those of the Participant that the
Associate has chosen. Several small members may associate and name one of them as

DoW JP Shale Gas
12
representative, becoming a Participant if the consolidated contribution surpasses 5 py/y. The
Participant will represent the interests of the Associates that are linked to it. Any agreements
governing the relationship between Participants and Associates are to be set up by the
respective Participants and Associates.
EERA membership is formalized by signing a Declaration of Support, JP membership (either
as participant or as associate) is formalized by signing program-specific Letter of Intent.
During the Awareness event in Brussels end of February it was decided to collect an annual
membership fee of 5000 EUR to cover the costs of internal and external communication, e.g.
webpage, bi-annual newsletter and common Steering Committee meeting expenses.
JP Steering Committee
The JP Steering Committee is composed of one representative of each JP participant. The JP
Steering Committee
• selects the Joint Programme Coordinator
• selects the Sub-programme coordinators
• reviews the progress and achievements of the JP
• provides strategic guidance to the management board
• approves new JP members (participants or associates)
• approves updates of the Description of Work of the JP.
The JP Steering Committee is chaired by the JP Coordinator; the sub-programme
coordinators participate as observers in the Committee. It convenes twice a year. The JP
coordinator and the sub-programme coordinators cannot act as representatives of their
respective R&D organisation in the Steering Committee.
JP Management Board
The JP Management Board is the executive body of the JP and is composed of the JP
Coordinator (chair) and the sub-programme coordinators.
Tasks and responsibilities:
Financial management of the JP budget (if applicable)
• Contractual oversight
• IP (intellectual property) oversight
• Scientific co-ordination, progress control, planning on programme and subprogramme
• level
• JP internal communication
• External communication with other organisations
• Reporting to Steering Committee and EERA ExCo
The JP Management board meets four times a year.
Sub-programme execution team
The Sub-programme execution team is the coordinating body on the sub-programme level. It
is composed of the sub-programme coordinator (chair) and the leaders of the projects within
the sub-programme. It meets on request.
Internal & External communication group
This group coordinates internal and external communication. The members of this group
coincide with the JPMB. During the first year the EERA JP Shale Gas webpage will be
established including presentation of the participating organisations and their key activities,
research infrastructure and contact information. There will also be a password protected
project management system for the participants.

DoW JP Shale Gas
13
JP Coordinator
The JP Coordinator (JPC) is selected by the JP steering committee for a mandate of two
years. The mandate can be renewed. The JPC chairs the Steering Committee and the
Management Board.
Tasks and responsibilities
• Coordination of the scientific activities in the joint programme and communication
• with the EERA ExCo and the EERA secretariat.
• Monitoring progress in achieving the sub-programmes deliverables and milestones.
• Reporting scientific progress and unexpected developments to the EERA ExCo.
• Propose and coordinate scientific sub-programmes for the joint programme.
• Coordinate the overall planning process and progress reporting.
Sub-programme coordinator
The Sub-programme coordinators (SPC) are selected by the JP steering committee for a
mandate of two years. The mandate can be renewed. The sub-programme coordinator takes
part in Steering Committee meetings, is a member of the management board and chairs the
sub-programme execution team.
Tasks and responsibilities
• Oversee the sub-programme projects
• Coordination of the scientific activities in the sub-programme to be carried out by the
participants according to the agreed commitment. The SPC communicates with the
contact persons to be assigned by each participant.
• Monitoring progress in achieving the sub-programmes deliverables and milestones.
• Reporting progress to joint programme coordinator
• Propose and coordinate scientific actions for the sub-programme
• Monitor scientific progress and report unexpected developments
Project leaders
The joint activities will be performed in the form of projects that are expected to be set-up in
variable configurations (in terms of project members) and in the framework of project
specific contracts. The project leaders are responsible for the execution of their projects; they
are members of the sub-programme execution team.
6. Interface with other JPs
Interface with JP on… Interface description Interface Management
JP Deep Geothermal
Energy
JP on Shale Gas contributes
from SP2 and SP3 to the JP
on deep geothermal energy
production performed within
the framework of the
European Technology Panel
on Renewable Heating and
Cooling, related to hydraulic
fracturing technology and
induced seismicity, e.g.
Hydraulic fracturing and
induced seismicity
Joint Programme coordinator
will contact the JP to ensure
both JP’s can strengthen the
knowledge base that will be
established, by aligning the
program upfront and sharing
knowledge, e.g. at committee
meetings, also from activities
relevant in other JPs.
JP Carbon Capture and Strong links with research on

DoW JP Shale Gas
14
Storage technologies for CCS
performed within the
framework of the Zero
Emissions Platform e.g.
methodologies for risk
assessment
JP Social Economics Strong links with economic
and social consequences of
the implementation of new
technologies/developments.
e.g. Public perception
7. Risks
The most important risk concerns the effective set-up of joint R&D activities (i.e. projects).
This will in general require the detailed definition of a work program, a consortium and a
legal contract. If the EERA project is to be proposed for external funding (e.g. FP7) the
corresponding procedures and rules commonly used by the programme members will be
applied. There is a natural risk unsatisfactory added value in the proposed project portfolio
funded by own resources of the participating institutes. These risks will be managed by the
Joint Programme Management Board.
8. Intellectual Property Rights of the Joint Programme on Shale Gas
IPR policies, rules and regulations as outlined in the Declaration of Support (DoS) will be
adhered to in the EERA Joint Programme Shale Gas.
9. Contact Point for the Joint Programme on Shale Gas
René Peters
Director Gas Technologies
TNO
Stieltjesweg 1
2628 CK Delft
Tel. +31 8886 66340
Mob. +316 51551566
Fax. +31 8886 60630
E-mail: rene.peters@tno.nl

DoW JP Shale Gas
15
SUB-PROGRAMME 1: Assessment of Shale
Gas Potential
A sub-programme within the Joint Programme Shale gas
EERA
Description of Work
Version: <1.2>
Last modification date: <03-07-2013>

DoW JP Shale Gas
16
SP1 Assessment of Shale Gas Potential
The aim of this Sub Programme SP1: “Assessment of Shale Gas Potential,” is to address the
need to conduct scientifically robust assessments of the shale gas resources in Europe. It is the
intention of this sub task to scientifically improve the key parameters and optimize the
methodology in assessing shale gas resources and thereby quantify the shale gas resources
assessment risks. The end goal is to develop a standard shale gas resource assessment
methodology for EU.
The SP1 programme of work is divided into three work packages (WP) that are delineated to
stimulate innovation in the various key disciplines of shale gas geosciences.
Basin scale architecture is the first work-package which is concerned with all methods and
approaches that can be used to improve the characterisation of organic bearing shale
formations at both the regional and the local (i.e. bedrock stratum or outcrop) levels and will
impact significantly our confidence in estimates of technically recoverable reserves.
The second work-package will focus research and development of sedimentary rock typing
approaches at the very small scale in space and is untitled Micro-scale characterisation. It
involves all laboratory measurement techniques and experimental workflows to characterise
the nature and geochemical properties of organic matter and mineral composition and
evaluate the fine structure of the porous space in the rocks, its fluid content capacity, its
permeability, its texture and its flow and mechanical properties (strength, brittleness), and
their inter-relationships.
Integration of knowledge, concepts, good practice approached and standardised experimental
protocol will be covered by the third work package Methods for Shale reserves estimation. In
this work package the expected deliverables should result in new guidelines and convincing
demonstration of the gain in prediction that new techniques can achieve with respect to the
current inventory of the shale gas resource in the European sedimentary basins.

DoW JP Shale Gas
17
1. Background
Europe has discovered its potential for Shale Gas within the last decade, with licensing
requests coming mainly from American Oil and Gas Companies, who have specialized in the
exploration and production of Shale Gas.
In the same time the U.S. Energy Information Administration published an assessment for gas
shale in Europe (15-15 .000 Bill. M3), suggesting that this new resource could become a
major game changer from dependency of the presently gas suppliers for Europe to
independent secured domestic gas supply.
Assessments of the shale gas in Europe have varied tremendously and are as such not reliable.
This has raised the need for an independent, objective science based assessment of the
European shale basins. The success and accuracy of such an improved assessment of the shale
gas resources is dependent on the identification of all the elements necessary to allow global
assessment, the best possible methodology, and the availability of all relevant data.
2. Objectives
The aim of this Sub Programme SP1: “Assessment of Shale Gas Potential,” is to address the
need to conduct scientifically robust assessments of the shale gas resources in Europe. It is the
intention of this sub task to scientifically improve the key parameters and optimize the
methodology in assessing shale gas resources and thereby quantify the shale gas resources
assessment risks. The end goal is to develop a standard shale gas resource assessment
methodology for EU.
First efforts will be used to review state of the art technologies and methodologies for the
assessment of shale gas potential and identify new research avenues. Scientific and
technological progress in the understanding of the nano to micro -scale structure of source
rocks, their original depositional environment and evolution through geological time will
bring new insight and reduced uncertainties into the quantification of Shale Gas Potential
(SGP).
footprint.
The SP1 programme of work is divided into three work packages (WP) that are delineated to
stimulate innovation in the various key disciplines of shale gas geosciences.
Basin scale architecture is the first work-package which is concerned with all methods and
approaches that can be used to improve the characterisation of organic bearing shale
formations at both the regional and the local (i.e. bedrock stratum or outcrop) levels and will
impact significantly our confidence in estimates of technically recoverable reserves.
The second work-package will focus research and development of sedimentary rock typing
approaches at the very small scale in space and is untitled Micro-scale characterisation. It
involves all laboratory measurement techniques and experimental workflows to characterise
the nature and geochemical properties of organic matter and mineral composition and
evaluate the fine structure of the porous space in the rocks, its fluid content capacity, its
permeability, its texture and its flow and mechanical properties (strength, brittleness), and
their inter-relationships.
Integration of knowledge, concepts, good practice approached and standardised experimental
protocol will be covered by the third work package Methods for Shale reserves estimation.

DoW JP Shale Gas
18
In this work package the expected deliverables should result in new guidelines and
convincing demonstrations of the gain in prediction that new techniques can achieve with
respect to the current inventory of the shale gas resource in the European sedimentary basins.
4. Description of foreseen activities (including time line)
This Sub Programme will aim at improving technologies to locate the shale gas potential in
the sub-surface, to perform better prediction in the resource inventory of European basins,
through an in-depth knowledge of the geohistory of petroleum systems from nano-scale to
basin scale. The foreseen activities will use state of the art technologies for the assessment of
shale gas potential and identify new research avenues. Scientific and technological progress in
the understanding of the nano to micro -scale structure of source rocks, their original
depositional environment and evolution through geological time will bring new insights and
reduced uncertainties into the quantification of Shale Gas Potential (SGP).
footprint. Some of the proposed research activities apparently in overlap with those of the
SP2-WP1, have to be understood as complementary. SP1 WP2 will be focused on laboratory
based characterisation methods for the assessment of original gas in place in Shale
formations. SP2 WP1 shall provide SP1 WP1 and WP2 complementary input data and shale
rock parameters in order to formulate the evolution of rock properties over geological time
scale.
The SP1 programme of work is divided into three work packages (WP) that are delineated to stimulate
innovation in the various key disciplines of shale gas geosciences.
WP1: Basin Scale Architecture
In this work-package eligible research activities should fall into one of the following topics:
WP1.1 Field Geology:
· Improved mapping of shale reservoir (thickness, areal extent, TOC content etc... );
· Sedimentary depositional models, sedimentary and organic facies variations;
· Structural styles and tectonic regimes: folds/faults/fractures present day architecture
and stress field;
· Interpretation of borehole loggings (lithofacies, petrophysics, geomechanical and
TOC determinations in uncored wells) and 2D seismic as well
WP1.2 Geophysics and Interpretation:
· Wide-angle wide-azimuth 3D seismic processing;
· Lithology and geomechanical rock properties of reservoirs and caprocks;
· Processing algorithms that correct for anisotropy;
· Elastic information through multicomponent seismic inversion;
WP1.3 Laboratory measurements
· Lithology and geomechanics: Shale and caprock mechanical properties;
WP1.4 Mathematical Modelling:
· In situ stress state prediction;
· Volumetric and qualitative prediction of gas shale occurrences by characterising and
quantifying inorganic and organic matter content, organic matter maturity and amount
of HC generated;
· Fracture networks for dual porosity modelling;
· HC expulsion and retention thresholds and relative permeability;

DoW JP Shale Gas
19
WP2: Micro-scale characterisation
WP2.1 Characterization of Shale and their organic matter at nano to micro scale
· Rock petrology : mineralogy, grain size distribution, clay content and diagenetic
pattern;
· Organic geochemistry: TOC, Rock-Eval, .kerogen type, organic facies, bio-markers
· Thermal maturity evolution: Vr, Tmax, thermic organic markers, kinetic models of
hydrocarbon degradation
· Thermodynamics models of water-rock-HC gas interactions
WP2.2 Evaluation of pore network :
· Evaluation at multi-scales of the geometry and topology of the porosity, the
mineralogical heterogeneity and organic matter 3D network
· Natural fracturing and pressure modelling in shale gas: reconstruction of geo-pressures
and linked rock-type specific failure estimation
· Permeability, porosity and calibration of Organic porosity;
· Shale fracture Capability, overpressure threshold;
· Molecular simulation in pore network;
· Process modelling of HC volume content, free versus adsorbed gas evaluation;
· Expulsion, retention/diffusion and migration mechanisms in Shale;
WP3:Methods for Shale Gas Reserves estimation
WP3.1 Best practice for assessment with advanced techniques:
· Laboratory experiment protocols and methodologies;
· Integration into models (data, processes, ...);
· Up-scaling and homogenisation techniques;
· Geohistory, Thermal, Migration and distribution of HC products;
· Pressure determination;
· Production curves;
· Possibilities of USGS methodology implementation in Europe;
WP3.2 Sweet spot identification;
· Specific Workflows;
· Sensitivity and risk analysis;
5. Milestones
Milestone Measurable Objectives Project Month
M1 Shale Gas Reserves estimation workshop 6
M3 Annual report year 1 with compilation, evaluation,
and application of national research
12
M4 Minutes of workshop on results of year 2 23
M5 Annual report year 2 with extension of existing
national research and research niches
24
M7 Final report with integrated research on quantified
risks, impact and footprint of shale gas
development
36

DoW JP Shale Gas
20
Name Country Role Associated
with
Human
Resources
committed SP1
Geological Survey of
Belgium
Belgium Associate TNO 1
Katholieke Universiteit
Leuven
Uni Min Geol St. Ivan Rilski Bulgaria Participant 8
GEUS Denmark Associate IFPEN 1.5
IFPEN France Participant -
Coordinator
SP1
2
GFZ Potsdam Germany Participant 5
RWTH Aachen Germany Associate GFZ Potsdam 2.5
University of Athens Greece Participant 10
University of Roma Tre Italy Participant 6
TNO Netherlands Participant –
JP/SP3
Coordinator
1
University of Groningen Netherlands Participant 0.5
SINTEF Norway Participant –
Coordinator
SP2
2
Polish Geological Institute Poland Participant 3
INIG - Oil and Gas Institute Poland Participant 7
AGH - University of Krakow Poland Associate PGI x
LNEG Portugal Participant –
Coordinator
SP4
4.2
Romania
Romania Participant 5
IGME Spain Participant 1.5
UK Energy Research Centre United
Kingdom
Participant –
Coordinator
SP6
2.4
Total 63.6

DoW JP Shale Gas
21
Name WP1.1 WP1.2 WP1.3. SP1 py/y
Geological Survey of Belgium 0.5 0 0.5 1
Katholieke Universiteit Leuven 1 0 0 1
Uni Min Geol St. Ivan Rilski x x x 8
GEUS 0.5 0.5 0.5 1.5
IFPEN 1 0.5 0.5 2
GFZ Potsdam 2 3 0 5
RWTH Aachen 0.5 1 1 2.5
University of Athens 5 2 3 10
University of Roma Tre 1 5 0 6
TNO 0.4 0.2 0.4 1
University of Groningen 0 0.2 0.3 0.5
SINTEF 0.75 0.5 0.75 2
Polish Geological Institute 2 0.5 0.5 3
INIG - Oil and Gas Institute 3 2 2 7
AGH - University of Krakow x x x x
LNEG 2.25 0.4 1.55 4.15
Geological Survey of Romania x x x 5
IGME 0.5 0 1 1.5
UK Energy Research Centre 0.3 0.9 1.2 2.4
TOTAL 19.2 16.7 12.7 63.55
List of institutes and summaries of their track record and contributions to SP1 (listed by country
when available):
Denmark
GEUS - Peter Britze, Head of Reservoir Department, pbr@geus.dk
France
IFPEN - William Sassi, Geologist, william.sassi@ifpen.fr
WP1Stratigraphic modelling and sedimentary basin architecture, Mechanical evolution of organic rich
shale
WP2 Characterisation of nano scale organic matter porosity
WP3 Petroleum system modelling for unconventional plays reserves assessment
Germany
GFZ - Prof. Dr. Brian Horsfield, Head of Section Organic Geochemistry, horsf@gfz-potsdam.de
Org. Geochemistry – Modelling - Knowledge Transfer
Recent projects:
Gash Shales in Europe – GASH” is nearly finished and starts its second three year project phase in
autumn 2013. It is funded by oil and gas companies.
GeoEn is funded by the German Ministry for Education and Research and will be finished in April
2013. This joint project covered besides shale gas with CO2 capture, CO2 storage and geothermal
energy. A part of this project was the establishment of the shale gas information platform SHIP.
GFZ has conducted several industry-partnership projects, e.g. in the Bakken Shale formation.
Ongoing research: GeoEn projects in the Williston and Georgina Basins
Germany
Institute for Technology Assessment and Systems Analysis (ITAS)

DoW JP Shale Gas
22
Julia Hahn, Scientific staff member , julia.hahn@kit.edu
Germany
RWTH Aachen University
Bernhard M. Krooss, Research scientist, Bernhard.krooss@emr.rwth-aachen.de
Collecting geological, geochemical, mineralogical and petrophysical data on European and worldwide
gas/oil shale systems. Conducting Numerical Basin Modelling (3D) studies and Petroleum System
Analyses on selected gas/oil shale systems.
The petrophysical laboratory of EMR/LEK is equipped for high-pressure gas sorption tests on coals
and gas shales and for fluid flow tests on rocks/coals with low to extremely low permeability
coefficients. The Clay and Interface Mineralogy Group houses expertise and state of the art equipment
for (clay) mineral characterization, inorganic geochemistry, pore structure analysis and mineral
surface characterisation. The Reservoir-Petrology Group uses micro- to nano visualization techniques
to characterize the pore space and diagenetic overprints. Furthermore, the EMR Group has state-of-the-
art SEM instrumentation for FIB, BIB and microtomography.
EMR/LEK, CIM and RPR aim at combining their expertise in regional geology, basin evolution,
petroleum/natural gas geochemistry, structural diagenesis, reservoir characterization, mineralogy and
petrophysics for the estimation of unconventional hydrocarbon resources. The processes involved in
the formation of unconventional reservoirs and the production of gas and oil from these systems are of
particular interest.
Another topic of interest is the heterogeneity of gas shales on reservoir scale. This is assessed by
combining sedimentological, diagenetic, mineralogical and petrophysical analyses at outcrop scale.
Greece
National and Kapodistrian University of Athens
Professor Dr. Vasileios Karakitsios, Director of the Department of Historical Geology and
Paleontology, of the Faculty of Geology and Geoenvironment, President of the Hellenic
Sedimentological Association, vkarak@geol.uoa.gr
WP1 1997-2000 Scientific Responsible of the Project: Research of favorable stratigraphic and
structural conditions for hydrocarbon trapping in the Ionian basin of Epirus. Funded by the Hellenic
Petroleum S.A. (Exploration and Production Division), and the University of Athens.
1998 Scientific Responsible of the Project: Stratigraphy, Sedimentology and Organic Geochemistry of
the cuttings and cores from the Ioannina 1 Well (Western Greece). Funded by the Enterprise Oil corp.
2005-2007. Scientific Responsible of the Project: Black shale horizons in the Western Greece Mesozoic
formations: Anoxic events, indicators of rapid global paleoenvironmental changes and deposition of
petroleum source rocks. Funded by the European Social Fund and National Resources (EPEAEK II)
PYTHAGORAS II.2006-2008 Scientific Responsible of the KAPODISTRIAS Project: Evolution and
petroleum potential of the geological formations of Western Greece. Funded by the University of
Athens 2009 Scientific Responsible of the KAPODISTRIAS Project: Palaeogeographical conditions of
the Phosphorites and source rocks formation in the Ionian zone (Western Greece). Funded by the
University of Athens.
WP21993-1995 Scientific Responsible of the Project: Study of the organic matter diagenesis, evolution
and maturation of the alpine Ionian basin formations and its probable hydrocarbon production.
Location of areas with developed productive horizons. Funded by the University of Athens.
1996-1997 Scientific Responsible of the Project: Study of the Geological and Petrophysical
characteristics of the Ionian series and the structure of the Ionian basin in relationship with the
migration and trapping of its hydrocarbons (Western Greece). Funded by the University of Athens.
WP3 2010-2012 Black shale occurrences in the Ionian Zone, part of the European Project: “GASH-EBSD”
of EUROGEOSURVEYS, E.U. 2013-2015 Assessing environmental impact of possible oil shale
and shale gas exploitation in western Greece. ESF& National Funds (awaiting approval).
Italy
Dipartimento di Scienze - Sezione di Scienze Geologiche, Università “Roma tre”
Sveva Corrado, Associate Professor sveva.corrado@uniroma3.it
WP1 Ongoing project: Reconstruction of “Discrete Fracture Network” in natural reservoirs and cap-rocks
of geothermal systems: the case history of Rosario de la Frontera (NW Argentina). This sub-project
is part of an Italy-Argentina bilateral project on the assessment of the geothermal potential of
Salta and Jujuy provinces by means of geological, geochemical and geophysical exploration.

DoW JP Shale Gas
23
Funding: Fully funded by the Italian Research Ministry (Miur-CUIA 2011 and Miur-Fondo Giovani
PhD Projects 2011-2013 Funds).
Methods: Structural analysis at different scales, quantitative and qualitative analysis of the fractures
and faults diagnostic parameters. Geological mapping. Seismic sections interpretation. 3D Geological
modeling. Structural restoration. Discrete Fracture Network modeling. This approach can be totally
borrowed for the study of gas shales fabric assessment.
Staff: 1 associate professor, 1 lecturer, 1 PhD student.
Recent Project: Gas shale potential of the Baltic and Lublin basins (Poland) by means of 3D Petroleum
System Modeling. Funding: fully funded by private companies.
Staff: 1 associate professor and 1 post-doc, external industrial partners for modelling.
WP2 Ongoing project: New rationale and new analytical techniques to assess thermal maturity level
of organic matter dispersed in sediments and thermal evolution of sedimentary succession.
Funding: private companies and Miur-PhD Projects Funds 2012-2014.
Study areas: Ukraine, Poland, Angola, Sicily (Italy).
Geodynamic settings: fold&thrust belts, forelands, passive margins.
Methods: Optical analysis of dispersed organic matter for reflectance measurements, Raman and Ftir
spectroscopy on dispersed organic matter, pirolysis on whole rock; Xray diffraction on clays (whole
rock and <2micron fraction); Apatite fission tracks and U-Th/He dating on apatite, 1-D and 3-D
petroleum system modelling. Staff: 1associate professor, 2 lecturers, 2 post-docs, 1 technician in Roma
Tre; external academic partners for thermochronology; external industrial partners for pyrolisis and
3D modelling.
Ongoing project: Integrating magnetic fabric on shales and thermal evolution on dispersed organic
matter of Tertiary siliciclastic successions in the Northern Apennines (Italy). Funding: Fully funded by
the Italian Research Ministry (Miur-PhD Funds 2010-2012, Miur-Prin 2009 Project). Methods: optical
analysis of organic matter dispersed in sediments for o.m. characterisation and thermal maturity
assessment; study of anisotropy of magnetic susceptibility on sediments; XRD on clays (different
fractions). Staff: 1 full professor, 1 associate professor, 1 lecturer, 1 PhD student, 1 technician.
Recent project: origin of cleavage in the Central Pyrenees: Geometry, mechanisms and paleo-thermal
conditions. Funding: Research projects CGL2009-08969 and CGL2006-05817 (Spanish Ministry of
Education) and pre-doctoral grant AP-2009 – 0554 (Programa de formación de profesorado
universitario, Spanish Ministry of Education); “Roma Tre” Research funding.
Methods: optical analysis of organic matter dispersed in sediments; XRD on clays (different fractions);
structural analysis at the outcrop and micro scale; geological mapping.
Staff: 1 associate professor, 1 technician from Roma Tre and external academic parteners (Zaragoza
University) for field work.
The Netherlands
TNO
Rene Peters, Director Gas Technology, Coordinator EERA JP Shale Gas, Rene.peters@tno.nl
Jan ter Heege, Business Case Manager Unconventionals, SP3 coordinator
WP1
To understand the petroleum system of shale gas, TNO uses petroleum system analysis. This has been
applied to the Posidonia Shale Formation in the Netherlands and work is ongoing related to the
Geverik member of the Namurian Epen Formation. This includes 1) regional mapping of the area by
means of seismic interpretation, uncertainty assessment, fault modelling and prediction and 2)
reservoir identification and characterization by means of well log interpretation, core interpretion,
thin-section interpretation, palynological interpretation and correlating these results of various wells
throughout the basin, 2) basin modelling including temperature evolution, maturity, source rock
potential, fluid flow and corresponding pressures, porosity and permeability and 3) pressure and fluid
system analysis using pressure and effective stress distribution, hydraulic reservoir continuity, leakage
zones interpretation and petroleum system dynamics.
WP2
Quantifying variation in mineralogy, microstructure and build-up of organic rich shales, i.e. Posidonia
Shale Fm, using light thin section microscopy, XRD, isotope analyses, QEMscan, FIB-SEM and BIB-SEM.
The variation in lithology, mineralogy and pore structure are captured and quantified on
different levels of scale: meter, cm and mm scale. The variation in microstructure and mineralogy will

DoW JP Shale Gas
24
be characterised and compared for the different scales and if possible correlated to indentified log
zones.
WP3
Since 2009 TNO un-risks volume estimates for unconventional resources in the Netherlands, with
several updates on the outcome when more parameters are better understood and/or interpreted, going
from detailed characterization on basin to microscale. Using all known prospective parameters for an
unconventional resource, an estimate of their potential gas volume in place is made. The values of
these parameters used for calculations have certain uncertainties. To obtain a best estimate for a
volume in place a Monte Carlo simulation analyis has been performed, allowing the prediction of the
distribution of quantities and therefore the uncertainties in the numbers. The result of the Monte Carlo
simulation gives a low, best and high volume estimate for a specific unconventional resource in the
Netherlands. These volume estimates correspond to the range of uncertainties of contingent and
prospective resources. The Producible Gas-in-Place estimates are based on technical (recovery
The Netherlands
ECN - Paul Korting – CEO – korting@ecn.nl,,
ECN - Jeroen de Joode – Gas coordinator at ECN Policy Studies – dejoode@ecn.nl
The Netherlands
University of Groningen -Dr J.A. Beaulieu, programme manager, j.a.beaulieu@rug.nl
WP2
The University of Groningen has a strong international position on nanotechnology research for
materials (Zernike Institute for Advanced Materials and Stratingh Institute for Chemistry). Professor
Rien Herber is initiating a project to apply this technology to determine the nanostructure of shales in
order to extract critical parameters for determination of maturity, gas generating potential and
fraccing efficiency
WP3
Professor Rien Herber has a track record in reserve estimation methods for unconventional gas,
building on his experience as VP Exploration Europe in Shell. Specifically, the contribution will
address the assessment of EUR in comparison with GIIP as well as determination of economic
boundary conditions for conversion of technical reserves into economic reserves.
Norway
SINTEF- Maria Barrio, Senior Business Developer, Maria.Barrio@sintef.no
Poland
PGI - Dr Anna Becker, Energy Security Program, anna.becker@pgi.gov.pl
WP1
1. Sequence and origin of thermal events within the Polish basin and its sedimentary base – their use
for reconstruction of hydrocarbon generation processes 2. Hydrocarbon basins in Poland and their
potential for unconventional gas accumulations 3. Possibilities of occurrence and exploitation of
unconventional gas and oil accumulations in lower Paleozoic shales in Poland 4. Determination of the
potential continuous hydrocarbon accumulations (including sweet-spots recognition) within the
organic reach shale successions in Poland 5. Integration and analysis of geological data obtained from
areas licensed for exploration for unconventional hydrocarbon accumulations
WP2
Determination of the potential continuous hydrocarbon accumulations (including sweet-spots
recognition) within the organic reach shale successions in Poland
WP3
Integration and analysis of geological data obtained from areas licensed for exploration for
unconventional hydrocarbon accumulations
Poland
INIG - Maria Ciechanowska Prof., Managing Director, maria.ciechanowska@inig.pl
WP1
Imaging of subsurface structures in anisotropic media using seismic migration method, 2013 ongoing
Reconnaissance of Polish hydrocarbon basins in terms of occurrence possibilities, resources and the
possibility of exploration licensing of unconventional gas reservoirs, 2009

DoW JP Shale Gas
25
Mechanical Earth Model (MEM) based on seismic and reservoir engineering data – theoretical basis,
definitions, demonstrative model, 2012 Updating of Silurian formations structural maps, 2011
Method for prediction pore pressure distribution using Petrel software, 2009 confidential
Possibility of hydrocarbon reservoirs occurrence in Paleozoic formations (Carboniferous, Devonian)
in Western Pomerania region
WP2
Geochemical methods in unconventional shale gas exploration. 2009 Construction of geological model
of unconventional gas reserves using "JewelSuite" software, 2013 ongoing. Developing a methodology
to determine the activation energy distribution for different types of kerogen using the Optkin Software,
2011. Comprehensive analysis of drill core material from Lubocino-1 well in relation to shale gas
prospecting. The study of reservoir quality and filtration properties of cores. Geochemical analysis,
2011, confidential. Interpretation of cores, cuttings and fluids (oil and gas) investigation results from
Lubocino-1 well for hydrocarbon exploration in Ordovician-Silurian shale formations, 2012
confidential. Analysis of drilling cores and rock cuttings for shale gas exploration (Lithuanian area),
2011 confidential. Laboratory investigations of rocks and fluids properties from B8 Z-5 well with
complex interpretation for unconventional gas exploration, 2012 confidential. Laboratory
investigations of cores from Lubycza Krolewska-1 well with results interpretation, 2012 confidential
WP3
Modelling and Production Simulation of Shale Gas Reservoirs (in Poland). Mutli-one-dimensional
basin modeling using PetroMod software in Paleozoic plays for assessment of prospecting for
unconventional gas resources (shale/tight gas), 2009. The Hydrocarbon balance of Miocene formation
in Carpathian Foredeep for estimation of potential resources (from Poland border to the Tarnow
meridian), 2010 confidential. The methodology of diagnosis and estimation of unconventional shale
gas / tight gas resources in the Polish reservoir conditions, 2011. Determination of the most
prospective areas for shale gas exploration in PGNiG concession areas in the border zone of the
Poland
AGH - Stanislaw Nagy, professor of gas engineering, Head of Gas Engineering Department
stanislaw.nagy@agh.edu.pl
Portugal
LNEG
Machado Leite (machado.leite@lneg.pt), Dulce Boavida (dulce.boavida@lneg.pt), Carlos Rosa
(carlos.rosa@lneg.pt), Zélia Pereira (zelia.pereira@lneg.pt)
Modelling of the structure and volume of the geological units with potential on Shale Gas
Romania
Geology, Geophysics, Geochemistry and Remote sensing - Caransebes 1, Bucharest, 012271 Romania-
Scientific Researcher, octavian.coltoi@igr.ro ; coltoi_o@yahoo.com
WP1Geochemical and stratigraphical characteristics of Silurian from eastern part of Moesian
Platform – Romanian sector, GASH Sub-Project 1 - Building a European Black Shale, Geological and
geophysical data analysis of the Mesozoic and Tertiary formations from self of the Black Sea
(Romanian)
WP3 Geological and geophysical data analysis of the Mesozoic and Tertiary formations from self of
the Black Sea (Romanian)
Spain
IGME (Spanish Geological Survey)
Roberto Martínez, Deputy Director of Research on Geological Resources, ro.martinez@igme.es
WP1 IGME has developed a study for the Ministry of Environment about the main areas of interest in
Spain for the exploration
WP3IGME has developed standards for the evaluation of reserves in Spain of many different mineral
resources and has a wide
United Kingdom
UKERC
Prof John Loughhead, Executive Director, UKERC, j.loughhead@ukerc.ac.uk
Dr Nicola Combe, Knowledge Exchange Associate, UKERC n.combe@ukerc.ac.uk

DoW JP Shale Gas
26
WP1 Dr Nick Riley, British Geological Survey, Subsurface Geological Memoirs, DECC resource
estimations; Prof. Richard Davies, Durham Energy Institute, We have staff working on basin-scale
evolution of European basins.
WP2Dr Nick Riley, British Geological Survey, Nannoscale geochemistry / mineralogy / structure,
micropore / micropermeability, micropaleontology, kerogen, microfacies.
Prof. Quentin Fisher, University of Leeds
Currently running a 3 year, £400,000 Joint Industry Project sponsored by Nexen, Chevron and EBN
investigating laboratory methods to characterize the properties of gas shales.
Prof. Richard Davies, Durham Energy Institute, We have academic working on clay chemistry and
petrography
WP3 Dr Nick Riley, British Geological Survey, UK shale gas resource assessment for DECC.
Prof. Alain C. Gringarten, Imperial College London, Characterization of shale gas production
mechanisms, as part of a JIP on Well Test Analysis in Complex Systems (see 2.1)
6. GANT Chart
Activity
Q
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
WP 1-1
WP 1-2
WP 1-3
WP 1-4
WP 2.1
WP 2.2
WP 3.1
WP 3.2
M1 M2 M3 M5 M7
M4 M6 M8
R W/S W/S W/S
W = workshop
D = draft report
R = report
Mx = milestone nr. X
S = annual status report
7. Contact Point for the sub-programme on Assessment of Shale Gas
Potential
Dr. William SASSI
IFPEN - Direction Geosciences
Geology Department
1 et 4 avenue de Bois-Préau
92852 Rueil-Malmaison - France
Tel: +33 1 47 52 63 69
Fax: +33 1 47 52 71 26
Mobile: +33 6 30 93 08 75
Email: william.sassi@ifpen.fr

DoW JP Shale Gas
27
EERA
SUB-PROGRAMME 2: Technology for safe and efficient
exploitation
An sub-programme within the Joint Program on:
Shale gas
Description of Work
Version: 1
Last modification date: 05-04-2013
Maria Barrio, SINTEF

DoW JP Shale Gas
28
Summary research activity on technology for safe and efficient
exploitation
Shale gas exploitation poses technological challenges because the hydrocarbons are directly
produced from the source rock with permeability far below the requirements for conventional
methods. For a European development, efforts are needed into a deeper upfront shale
characterization and understanding of the subsurface processes to become sufficiently
environmentally acceptable and safe in populated areas.
Production parameters and borehole stability need to be optimized in order to comply with
local laws and regulations. In particular, efforts will be dedicated to the optimization of
hydraulic fracturing as well as the identification and development of alternative production
technologies.
The objective of this sub-programme is to provide means to improve the efficiency and the
recovery from shale gas reservoirs with the minimum environmental impact. This will be
achieved by:
stability
- Increased learning from on-going production monitoring
The work is organized into five work packages covering (1) shale reservoir characterisation,
(2) horizontal drilling, (3) fracturing, (4) monitoring of fracturing and production and (5)
innovative stimulation technologies.
The tasks will be performed, mostly in parallel, over a 3 year time frame (2013 – 2016)
comprising an initial assessment of the technology status for the various countries and an
identification of topics needing and benefiting from a united European effort. Periodic
technology status reports will be elaborated as well as yearly meetings to discuss the
achievements.
11 European research institutes have signalized their capabilities to perform the research
outlined in this sub-programme (~36 py/y in total).

DoW JP Shale Gas
29
1. Background
The common characteristics of gas shale reservoirs are (i) hydrocarbons are produced directly
from the source rock; (ii) the permeability is too low to permit economic production with
conventional methods. The use of several extended horizontal wells from one surface frame
combined with hydraulic fracturing has been keys to successful development of shale gas
production in the USA. Still, the production scenario for most gas shale reservoirs shows a
rapid build-up and a relatively fast decay after 1-2 years of production. For European
development, the US technology cannot be directly implemented, but needs improvement in
order to adapt to local laws and regulations and to become sufficiently environmentally
acceptable and safe in populated areas.
In the US, experience with shale gas exploitation has been gained by drilling thousands of
wells and stimulation of the complete horizontal sections of wells. It is obvious that Europe
has to follow a different learning curve for shale gas exploitation than the one in the U.S with
much more emphasis on upfront shale characterization and modeling of subsurface processes.
Increased understanding and improved characterization will in turn increase the probability of
optimizing production parameters and borehole stability.
The success of shale gas exploitation will also critically depend on the optimization of
hydraulic fracturing, well placement and gas production. Even more, due to the restrictive
regulation on hydraulic fracturing in some European countries, alternative production
technologies (i.e. not based on hydraulic fracturing) should be identified and developed.
3. Objectives
The objective of SP2 is to improve the efficiency and the recovery from shale gas reservoirs
with the minimum environmental impact. This will be achieved by:
stability
- Increased learning from ongoing production monitoring
The five Work Packages (WP) proposed in this Sub-project will be executed in parallel as
they cover all the relevant aspect of shale gas exploitation: characterisation, drilling,
fracturing and monitoring.
identification of topics needing and benefiting from a united European effort. Periodic
technology status reports will be elaborated as well as yearly meetings to discuss the
achievements.
Cross-fertilization between gas shale development and other scenarios including low
permeability rocks (e.g. tight gas sands, coal be methane) should be motivated.

DoW JP Shale Gas
30
WP 1: Gas & Oil Shale reservoir characterization.
Permeability
Geological classification of gas "shales" with respect to heterogeneity, mineralogy, clay
content etc. will be developed. Further, new methods for permeability measurements under in
situ conditions, within matrix, natural fractures and induced fractures will be developed.
Gas flow in fracture reservoirs
Modelling of multi-phase (gas / condensate / oil / water) flow in fractured low permeability
reservoirs, possibly linked with geomechanical simulators will be conducted. In order to
ensure a good link to SP1, SP2 should examine these issues from a reservoir and engineering
perspective.
Anisotropy
Shale anisotropy and its influence on fluid flow, geomechanics and seismics will be studied.
Many conventional models assume isotropy eventually providing wrong conclusions.
High resolution multi-scale reservoir characterization
Integrated reservoir characterization utilizing all relevant datasets is required to quantify
spatial heterogeneity of gas shales in both vertical and horizontal sections. Petrophysical (well
logs), geophysical (seismic surveys, well tests, production data), geomechanical (experiments
and models), and microscopical (FIB/BIB-SEM, CT) characterization methods will be
integrated and tested on field or core data.
The SP2 approach (as different from SP1) will focus on integrating laboratory data with field
data with the objective of optimizing production parameters. Following this approach,
geological (static modeling) and geobiological (microfossil type, biofacies analysis)
characterization methods might be considered to a certain extent.
Results of detailed characterization at different spatial scales (from regional to micro-scale)
will be integrated to derive the heterogeneous reservoir properties of shale gas reservoirs. The
results will be used to determine optimum well placement and stimulation treatments and
integrated into 3D shale formation numerical models.
The ensemble Kalman filter (EnKF) (and other offspring ensemble based methods) has been
demonstrated to be an effective and popular tool for history matching petroleum reservoirs.
The EnKF is a data assimilation method where the essence is to update an ensemble of
models by means of measured data. The method is suitable for real-time applications, is easy
to implement and readily provides an uncertainty estimate which is essential in planning new
installations and optimal production strategies. Application of EnKF family of methods to
match and optimise production may prove to be essential for shale gas reservoirs.

DoW JP Shale Gas
31
WP 2: Drilling of horizontal wells in gas shale reservoirs.
Well integrity
The impact of cement quality and long term well integrity issues will be assessed. Screening
criteria for long term monitoring of shale gas wells will be developed. Investigation of
cementation quality of horizontal wells as well as development of minimal requirements for
cementation quality as a function of eventual methane leakages via annular fractures behind
casing will be performed.
WP2 will also look at well design, fracture design, well plugging abandonment and in
general, all engineering aspects necessary to implement SP3 recommendations on safety (e.g.,
well instrumentation as well as following the guidelines established in SP1.
A number of “self-healing” cements and various chemical solutions (including gelation and
foaming agents) were recently developed and introduce to oil and gas market. Those
technologies could be reviewed and their applicability to shale gas production wells screened.
Borehole stability
Borehole stability issues with respect to pre-existing fractures, shale anisotropy and possible
effects of interactions between shale and drilling fluid will be analyzed. Moreover, it will be
investigated novel drilling fluids (such as nanomodifiers or environmental friendly fluids)
which improve borehole stability.
A practical approach for well bore stability could be safe mud weight window design which
provides the range of equivalent densities or pressures of drilling fluid that avoid drilling
problems (fracturing, breakouts).
Alternatively, the possibility of using managed pressure drilling and ways to use back-pressure
MPD equipment for well control (by both mud pulse telemetry and wired pipe data)
may be looked upon as potential future drilling techniques.
Advanced drilling techniques
Low porosity reservoir can present drilling challenges in terms of drillability. Innovative
drilling techniques will be investigated.
In addition, it will be investigated to what extent multilateral well configurations can be an
alternative for hydraulic fracturing. Modelling of productivity, NPV or UR of shale gas
reservoirs using closed-loop production optimization tools projected over the lifecycle of the
well will be performed. The results will be used to determine optimum field development for
better appraisal of shale gas reservoirs.
WP3: Fracturing in gas shale reservoirs.
Fracturing optimization
One of the most important challenges in exploitation of European shale gas is to optimize the
design of fracturing jobs so that maximum production is achieved with minimum number of
wells and stimulation.

DoW JP Shale Gas
32
Modeling of fracturing will be performed using geomechanical and fluid flow simulators to
predict fracture initiation, propagation, stress perturbation, and fluid flow. Numerical
fracturing simulators need to be developed that can account for heterogeneous reservoir
properties, existing fracture networks and variations in stress field. Discontinuum models to
model fracture initiation and propagation, continuum models to model hydro-mechanical
interaction between reservoir and fractures, and analytical descriptions of flow through
fractures will be combined.
Smart proppants and hydraulic fracturing fluids
During fracturing the formed fractures are kept open, due to the injected material like sand or
ceramic, enabling the fluid flowback and later the flow of oil and gas into the well. Studies of
proppant embedment and fracture conductivity for various proppants are important
characteristic for supporting hydrocarbon recovery and will be studied. In addition, new
chemicals for proppants will be investigated. In particular, the development and application of
smart (nano-)tracer technology based on responsive tracer particles will be addressed.
Application of switchable viscosity fluids for conformance treatment and optimized hydraulic
fracturing will be investigated. The effectiveness of biocides in fracturing fluids will be
investigated and improved.
WP4: Monitoring of fracturing operations and production from gas shales.
Monitoring can be implemented both during fracturing and during production. Optimized use
and improved interpretation of μseismicity can help locating events and understand their
origin (shear vs. tensile) while reservoir scale monitoring by e.g. permanent seismic sensors,
including development of necessary rock physics tools to image recovery will provide
information during production.
Utilisation of advanced permanent downhole gauge (pressure, temperature, rates) analysis
could allow to gain better understanding of reservoir parameters (porosity, permeability)
changes as a result of stress changes (fracturing, production, shut-in, effect of neighbouring
wells) in-situ. This methodology was proved for a number of oil and gas producing formation
and could be essential in reducing uncertainty linked to reservoir parameters in shale gas
production.
Coupling (micro)seismic monitoring and geomechanical modelling of fault reactivation
The unique combination of geomechanical modelling, seismic monitoring and well test
analysis can be used to validate and improve predictions of fracture network development.
History matching of geomechanical and reservoir flow models based on seismic monitoring
and well test analysis during gas production can be used to optimize shale gas exploitation.
Monitoring can also be used to provide clear-cut criteria indicating when risk mitigation
measures are required. Technology and guidelines for micro-seismic monitoring will be
studies and further developed.
Other monitoring technologies
Among many methods monitoring the results of unconventional formation stimulating
treatments there is fractures mapping with the use of tiltmeters registering the occurrence of
any tilts. Besides fractures monitoring this method is also useful in well placement desing,
well horizontal sections design, waste injection monitoring or surface subsidence monitoring.

DoW JP Shale Gas
33
Monitoring and analysis of microbes in-situ may provide a valuable tool to asses water
quality in-situ and confirm safety of the fracturing jobs.
Monitoring of drill cutting and other flow back fluids during well operation could be essential
for increasing the knowledge about reservoir and carrying out safe well operations.
Baseline monitoring
The need for baseline definition and acquisition as well as the current lack of measurements
will be addressed in a European context. The opportunity of establishing proper baseline
before operations eventually start should be fully explored. This task should have a clear link
to SP3. The work in this task will address the technology development needed to support the
requirements established in SP3.
Baseline monitoring should cover reservoir properties, reference for seismicity measurements,
etc.
WP5: Innovative stimulation technologies
Some European countries have banned the use of hydraulic fracturing by law (France,
Romania). This work package will focus on other possible methods to unlock the trapped gas
in the unconventional reservoirs.
When the fracturing fluid is water-based so called formation or permeability damage may
occur, due to swelling of clay minerals or other physical and chemical mechanisms.
Minimization of the damage is possible due to partial or complete substituting water by
for e.g. gases. Fracturing fluids prepared in such a way are called energized fluids. Other
choices of environmentally friendly fracking fluids, possibly having a positive effect on
recovery, and that have low post-damage effects (e.g. to avoid solids production) will also be
assessed (for instance, propane).
Other fracturing alternatives to hydraulic fracturing will be investigated, e.g. thermal
fracturing, electrofracturing.
Injection of CO2 could provide a sound alternative to conventional recovery technologies.
Carbon dioxide could, potentially, be injected above fracturing pressure therefore increasing
well injectivity and replacing water in fracturing operations. Compositional effects between
methane and CO2 might result in increased gas recovery. This, however, requires addressing
questions associated with CO2 injection scheme, and backproduction. The shale gas
reservoirs, in this case, would be used not only to produce natural gas, but also as a carbon
storage sites.
6. Milestones
M1 Technology status report delivered 6, 18, 30
M2 Annual report 12,24,34
M3 Yearly workshop conducted 13,25,35
M4 Midt-term review performed 18
M5 Final review performed 36

DoW JP Shale Gas
34
Name2
(acronym)
Country Role3 Associated to
(if associate)
Human
Resource
committed
(py/y)
SINTEF Norway SP2 Coordinator 2
GEUS Denmark Associated IFPEN 0,5
IFPEN France
Participant –
Coordinator SP1 2
RWTH Aachen Germany Associate GSB 0,5
TNO Netherlands
Participant –
Coordinator SP3 2
IRIS Norway Participant 4
Polish Geological Institute Poland Participant 1,5
AGH - University of Krakow Poland Participant unspecified
IGME Spain Participant 2
UK Energy Research Centre4 UK
Participant –
Coordinator SP6 4,2
British Geological Survey UK Associated UKERC
Durham Energy Institute UK Associated UKERC
Durham University UK Associated UKERC
University of Edinburgh UK Associated UKERC
University of Leeds UK Associated UKERC
Imperial College London UK Associated UKERC
University of Manchester UK Associated UKERC
An indicative distribution of resources is included:
Organisation acronym WP2.1 WP2.2 WP2.3 WP2.4 WP2.5 SP2 py/y
SINTEF 0,75 0,5 0,75 0 2
Uni Min Geol St. Ivan Rilski 10 5 5 0 20
GEUS 0,25 0 0,25 0 0,5
IFPEN 0,5 0 0 1 0,5 2
RWTH Aachen 0 0 0,5 0 0 0,5
TNO 1 0,25 0,5 0,25 2
IRIS 2 0 0 0 2
Polish Geological Institute 0,5 0 0,5 0,5 1,5
INIG - Oil and Gas Institute 1 1 1,5 0,5
4
AGH - University of Krakow x x x x x
IGME 0,5 0 0,5 1 2
UK Energy Research Centre 2,4 0 0,9 0,9 4,2
TOTAL 7,9 4,75 7,4 5,65 35,7
2 Full names of institutes and summaries of their track record and contributions to SP3 are listed
below.
3 Institutes with a total contribution of min. 5 py/y to the whole JP are listed as participants.
4 UKERC is coordinating contributions from institutes in the United Kingdom (combined py/y for UK
institutes is given).

DoW JP Shale Gas
35
List of institutes and summaries of specific elements in their track record and contributions with
special relevance to SP2 (listed by country):
Bulgarian institutes:
University of Mining and Geology "St. Ivan Rilski"
Dr. Dimitar Merachev, dimerachev@gmail.com
Participant in the GASH project and their Geochemistry laboratory for Mine equipment, Solid rock.
Education and Research Laboratory of Phase Method and Radiography Structural Analysis
Education and Research Laboratory of Electronic Microscopy
Danish institutes:
Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland (GEUS)
Dr. Peter Britze- Head of Reservoir Department, pbr@geus.dk
France institutes:
IFP Energies nouvelles (IFPEN)
Dr. William Sassi, william.sassi@ifpen.fr
Seismic methods for unconventional reservoirs
Fracture hydromechanical modeling
German institutes:
Bernhard M. Krooss, Research scientist, Bernhard.krooss@emr.rwth-aachen.de
EMR-RPR studies the natural fracture systems in unconventional reservoir rocks in terms of location,
timing, distribution and cementation. Current projects focus on unconventional Upper Carboniferous
rocks in northern Germany.
Dutch institutes:
TNO
Dr. Jan ter Heege- Business Case Manager Unconventional Gas, jan.terheege@tno.nl
Norwegian institutes:
SINTEF
Dr. Maria Barrio, Senior Business Developer, Maria.Barrio@sintef.no
Coordination SP2
Formation physics:
- Geomechanical modelling of fracture propagation in intact and naturally fractured gas shale
environments, through use and development of discrete element techniques.
- Laboratory measurements –using cores and core fragments- of rock mechanical and petrophysical
parameters (such as brittleness) of gas shales, with relevance for exploration and production.
- Effect of in situ stress an inherent shale anisotropy on fracture propagation (through modelling and
use of true triaxial experiments).
- Multiscale petrographical and petrophysical evaluation of shale properties.
Well integrity:
- Integrity of annular sealants, such as cement and other sealant materials
- Influence of thermal cycling on well integrity
- Cement-formation bonding
- Well leakages and development of microannuli
- Characterization of well barrier materials
- Well abandonment.
IRIS
Dr. Roman Berenblyum, Roman.Berenblyum@iris.no
Simulation of EOR in Clastic Reservoirs
Transient well flow modeling and modern estimation techniques for accurate production allocation
Reservoir data assimilation for realistic geology
Estimation of pressure dependent fracture parameters

DoW JP Shale Gas
36
Automated drilling
Environmental monitoring
Microbial EOR
Polish institutes:
AGH University of Science & Technology
Prof. Stanislaw Nagy- Head of Gas Engineering Department, stanislaw.nagy@agh.edu.pl
Quantitative analysis of well logs to determine the lithological formation, porosity, inflow and filtration
parameters
Optimization of drilling parameters, including the selection of drilling technology, tools, drilling fluids
and cementing vertical and horizontal holes for shale gas 2013-2016
Integrated Reservoir, Exploration & Gas Extraction System for Shale Gas – 2013-1016
Effective technologies in geoengineering, conventional & non-conventional oil & gas reservoirs
(including coal-bed methane) 2011-2015
Evaluation of impact of drilling & fracturing process for natural environment 2012-2013
INIG- Oil and Gas Institute
Prof. Maria Ciechanowska- Managing Director, maria.ciechanowska@inig.pl
Extensive national research covering:
Anisotropy models of rocky medium and correlation of the mineralogical indices of brittleness with the
acoustic properties of rocks
Dispersion analysis of acoustic velocities in Polish shale rocks: effects of petrophysical properties and
mineralogy, 2013 ongoing
Drill core analysis and study of geomechanical properties of rocks
Laboratory for rocks and fluids properties investigations with complex interpretation for
unconventional gas exploration
Quantitative description of wellbore stability problems in swelling shales in dynamic conditions with
due account for wellbore stress and strains, including models
Simulation of fracture zones, testing of fracturing fluids for hydraulic fracturing and impact of various
chemical composition of fracturing fluids on pore fluids
Polish Geological Institute – National Research Institute (PGI-NRI)
Dr. Anna Becker, Energy Security Program, anna.becker@pgi.gov.pl
Determination of the potential continuous hydrocarbon accumulations (including sweet-spots
recognition) within the organic reach shale successions in Poland
Hydrocarbon basins in Poland and their potential for unconventional gas accumulations
Monitoring of ground surface settlement on the area of three selected shale gas exploration localities
(WP4)
Spanish Institutes:
Instituto Geológico Y Minero de España (Spanish Geological Survey, IGME)
Dr. Roberto Martínez- Deputy Director of Research on Geological Resources, ro.martinez@igme.es
(WP3.1, 3.2, 3.4-3.6)
Multi-phase modelling related to gas and CO2 storages
Large experience in classification of mineral resources
Expertise within rock mechanics of shales of the University of La Coruña
Studies of seismicity and monitoring tools (together with the Institute of Earth Science Jaume Almera)
UK institutes:
UK Energy Research Centre (UKERC)
Prof. John Loughhead- Executive Director, j.loughhead@ukerc.ac.uk
Dr. Valeria Branciforti- Knowledge Exchange Associate, v.branciforti@ukerc.ac.uk
Coordination of contributions from institutes in the United Kingdom
British Geological Survey
Ed Hough et al.

DoW JP Shale Gas
37
Predictive Stratigraphic Analysis, controls on shale reservoir architecture & quality, how to identify
and predict “sweet spots”.
Fracture propagation/imaging.
Microseismic monitoring.
University of Edinburgh
Dr Mark Chapman, Dr. Chris McDermott
Investigations of anisotropic rock physics mode, brittleness index and fraction of brittle minerals.
Calibration of the models against core and log data from the Barnett shale
Development of rock physics templates for improved data integration
Experimental investigation of fracture propagation and permeability; equipment to simulate in situ
reservoir conditions of true tri-axial conditions.
University of Leeds
Prof. Quentin Fisher
Laboratory methods to characterize the properties of gas shales and use of microseismic and
geomechanical modelling of fracturing.
Microseismic monitoring of the hydraulic fracturing process.
State-of-the-art finite element modelling to optimize the fraccing process (e.g. spacing and sequencing
of both wells and fractures)
Imperial College London
Prof. Alain C. Gringarten
Characterization of shale gas production mechanisms, as part of a JIP on Well Test Analysis in
Complex Systems
Durham Energy Institute
Prof. Richard Davies
Involved in a multi-company consortium involving 6 researchers, across 3 universities called ReFINe
(Research Fracking in Europe).
University of Manchester
Prof. Kevin TaylorRock geomechanics and fracturing. Capabilities include: ability to measure elastic
(seismic) properties from room pressure up to a few hundred MPa (i.e., over the whole of the
interesting pressure range); ability to measure gas and fluid permeabilities using a range of methods
including ones which we have used on rocks with the range of permeabilities that shale gas reservoirs
have; ability to hydrofracture samples under controlled effective pressures; ability to make
measurements of failure stresses and frictional properties under a wide range of temperature,
confining pressure and pore fluid pressure conditions; Expertise in characterizing deformation
microstructures using a wide range of electron-optical techniques. Expertise in field scale
fracture/fault characterization
7. GANT Chart
Activity 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
WP1: Characterisation
WP2: Drilling
WP3: Fracturing
WP4: Monitoring
WP5: Alternative
production methods
Technology status report M1 M1 M1
Annual report of activities M2 M2 M2
Annual workshop M3 M3 M3
Midt-term review M4
Final review M5

DoW JP Shale Gas
38
8. Contact Point for the sub-programme 2 on Safe and efficient exploitation
Maria Barrio
SINTEF Petroleum Research
S.P. Andersensvei 15b, 7465 Trondheim, Norway
+47 995 34 665

DoW JP Shale Gas
39
SUB-PROGRAMME 3: Environmental impact
& footprint
EERA
Description of Work
Version: 2.0
Jan ter Heege, TNO

DoW JP Shale Gas
40
SP3 Environmental impact & footprint
Environmental impact and footprint associated with large scale shale gas development is of
major concern to public, stakeholders and policy makers. Current knowledge on the effects of
shale gas exploitation mainly originates from shale gas practices in the United States. Due to
differences in geological settings and societal environment between European member states
and the United States, a common independent European knowledge basis is required to decide
on the fate of shale gas in Europe and implement proper regulations.
The main objective of this sub-programme is to establish such a knowledge basis through (1)
compiling a comprehensive inventory of risks, impact and footprints by extending and
integrating national research programs, (2) applying knowledge to the European situation, (3)
standardize methodologies to quantify impact, footprint and risks for European shale gas
plays, and (4) determine potential risk mitigation measures and boundary conditions for
minimum impact and footprint.
Different research tasks will be carried out in six work packages on (1) impact of surface
activities on human health, safety and environment, (2) impact of hydraulic fracturing and
gas production, (3) impact of wells and requirements of well design, (4) impact on water
resources and optimum water management, (5) standardized methodologies for baselines,
benchmarks and risk assessment, (6) measures to mitigate risks and minimize footprint. The
tasks will be performed, mostly in parallel, over a 3 year time frame (2013 – 2016) starting
with compilation and evaluation of national research (year 1), followed by extension of
existing research and on addressing research niches that are specific for the European Union
(year 2) and integration of the research, development of standard methodologies, and
dissemination of quantified risks, impact and footprint (year 3). Milestones include a website
to build and disseminate the knowledge basis, and annual progress reports and workshops.
The key expertise, equipment, and infrastructure of 18 research institutes from 10 European
member states (total committed humane resource of ~36 py/y) will be used to carry out the
different research tasks. Contributing member states cover the most important geopolitical
regions where shale gas development may play a (future) role. Shale gas development is at
different stages in the contributing member states (i.e. from moratorium to full operation).
Accordingly, all aspects related to the environmental impact and footprint of shale gas
development can be covered in the sub-programme.

DoW JP Shale Gas
41
1. Background
The accelerated worldwide development of shale gas is accompanied by growing public
concern regarding the impact of shale gas on human health, safety and environment. Part of
this concern originates from shale gas practices in the US, where experience is gained through
the drilling of thousands of wells and stimulation of the complete horizontal section of the
wells. Shale gas development in Europe may benefit from lessons learned in the US.
However, population densities, geological settings, exploitation technologies, and regulations
in European Union member states are markedly different from the US. It is clear that practices
and problems with development of shale gas plays in the US cannot be directly transferred to
Europe. Besides security of energy supply, public concern with shale gas development is an
important driver for differences in political positions concerning shale gas between European
member states. Accordingly, a sound common European knowledge basis and clear
independent view based on solid research of the environmental impact and footprint of shale
gas is essential for public and policy makers to decide on the fate of shale gas in Europe.
The research in this sub-programme aims to establish such a knowledge basis and
independent view. It focuses on quantifying impact, footprint and risks for the European
situation rather than summarizing arguments in favor or against shale gas development. The
added value for European member states consists of (1) a better knowledge basis on
environmental impact and footprint due to extension and integration of national research
programs on shale gas, (2) establishment of a knowledge basis on environmental impact and
footprint that is specific for the European situation, and (3) standardization of methodologies
to quantify impact, footprint and risks. The program also establishes a common knowledge
platform for development and evaluation of new technologies to improve the development of
shale gas fields, firstly with environmental issues in focus, and secondly, to enhance cost-efficiency
during the total life-time of any field opened for production.
The knowledge basis that will be established in this sub-programme contributes to research
activities for deep geothermal energy production performed within the framework of the
European Technology Panel on Renewable Heating and Cooling (e.g., environmental impact
of hydraulic fracturing). The research also has strong links with research on technologies for
CCS performed within the framework of the Zero Emissions Platform (e.g., methodologies
for risk assessment).
2. Objectives
The sub-programme (SP) on Environmental impact and footprint contains six work packages
(WP) that deal with impact and footprint on different spatial scales (from regional to well site)
and for different environments (subsurface to surface). The main objectives of the sub-programme
are to (1) compile a comprehensive inventory of the potential impact and
footprint of shale gas development, (2) quantify impact, footprint and risks associated with
shale gas development, (3) determine potential risk mitigation measures and boundary
conditions for minimum impact and footprint, (4) develop standardized methodologies to
assess impact, footprint and risks of shale gas development. Acquired understanding of
industrial, political and public perception of shale gas development within the joint project
will be used to identify the need for new technologies. All work packages contribute to these
main objectives.
The individual WPs address impact and footprint for different activities related to shale gas
development.
WP1 assesses the impact of surface activities on human health, safety and environment for
different spatial scales (i.e. from regional to well site) and activities (e.g., drilling,
development of infrastructure, transport).

DoW JP Shale Gas
42
WP2 assesses the impact of hydraulic fracturing and gas production. Subsurface impact (e.g.,
fracture containment) as well as near surface impact (e.g., potential leakage risks of hydraulic
fracturing fluids) are considered.
WP3 assesses the impact of wells and requirements of well design. The impact of different
well designs is considered to determine well designs that lead to minimum environmental
impact and footprint.
WP4 assesses the impact on water resources and optimum water management. All aspects
related to water consumption; transport and treatment of produced water are considered.
WP5 assesses standardized methodologies for baselines, benchmarks and risk assessment.
This work package addresses standardization of methodologies that enable unbiased
comparison of impacts and risks across Europe. Comparison with methodologies developed
for other subsurface activities (e.g., carbon capture and storage, geothermal energy
production) are considered to develop and evaluate benchmarks.
WP6 assesses measures to mitigate risks and minimize footprint. In this work package,
measures will be identified that will minimize the impact, footprint and risks assessed in
WP1-5.
Within each of the six work packages of SP3, research activities are structured in tasks (T).
The tasks will be performed, mostly in parallel, over a 3 year time frame (2013 – 2016) by
several research institutes with proven track record in the individual research tasks. During
the first year, the main focus will be on the compilation and evaluation of national research on
the impact and footprint of shale gas development for application within the European Union.
During the second year, the main focus will be on the extension of existing research and on
addressing research niches that are specific for the European Union as a whole rather than for
individual member states alone. During the third year, the main focus will be on integration of
the research, development of standard methodologies, and on dissemination of quantified
risks, impact and footprint of shale gas development within Europe.
Research activities reflect current understanding of the most important impact and footprint of
shale gas development in Europe. It is foreseen that additional means of impact may be
identified, and that the perceived importance of impact currently identified may change as
research progresses. This sub-programme has strong links with all other sub-programmes in
the Joint Programme, i.e. with SP1 on Assessment of shale gas potential in relation to the
potential scales of impact and footprint, with SP2 on technology for safe and efficient
exploitation in relation to safety and footprint of shale gas production techniques, with SP4 on
Energy and Carbon efficiencies and emissions to air in relation to the footprint of gas
emissions at well sites, with SP5 on regulations, markets and policy issues in relation to
optimum regulations that ensure minimum impact of shale gas development, and with SP6 on
public perceptions in relation to independent and reliable assessment of risks, impact and
footprint of shale gas development in Europe.
Initially, the sub-programme will rely on research activities and funding available at the
participating institutes. Additional funding will be sought as the programme progresses.
Research activities (tasks) carried out in the six work packages are outlined below. All tasks
contribute to the objectives described in section 2. In all work packages, it will also be
evaluated to what extent practices from large scale shale gas development in the USA can be
applied to Europe. Impact and footprint will be addressed within the context of current land
uses (baseline) and compared to other uses of land or subsurface as well.
WP1: Impact of surface activities on human health, safety and environment
The impact of activities such as transport of materials, drilling, and waste disposal for
construction of well sites will be assessed (T1.1). Development of infrastructure (e.g., roads,
railroads, pipelines) required for transport of materials to/from the well site and transport of

DoW JP Shale Gas
43
gas from the well site to existing gas grids through pipelines will impact eco-systems, for
example by landscape fragmentation (T1.2). The regional impact on human health, safety and
environment of large scale shale gas development related to the availability and costs of raw
materials as well as human resources will be investigated (T1.3). The impact of different
surface activities will be integrated to assess the combined impact on eco-systems and human
health, safety and environment (T1.4).
WP2: Impact of hydraulic fracturing and gas production
Hydraulic fracturing has received a lot of attention in discussions on environmental aspects of
shale gas development in Europe, mainly related to risks of groundwater contamination and
induced seismicity. The risks and potential impact of loss of containment of hydraulic
fractures and migration of hydraulic fracturing fluids and /or proppants to groundwater levels
by connection to natural fractures will be assessed (T2.1). The risks and potential impact of
induced seismicity by reactivation of existing faults due to hydraulic fracturing, gas
production, or waste water injection will also be assessed (T2.2). Other risks and impacts
related to hydraulic fracturing and gas production (e.g., ground subsidence) will be identified
and quantified if proven relevant (T2.3).
WP3: Impact of wells and requirements of well design
Proper well design is important for safe production of shale gas. Risks and environmental
impact of wells will be assessed for different well designs (T3.1). Assessment of the impact of
wells will be used to define guidelines for proper well design (T3.2) and identify well designs
with minimum surface footprint (T3.3). The risks and potential impact reduced wellbore
stability over the lifetime of shale gas fields will also be assessed (T3.4).
WP4: Impact on water resources and optimum water management
Hydraulic fracturing for shale gas development requires large quantities of water. In this work
package, impact related to availability of water (T4.1), access to water resources (T4.2), and
transport of water (T4.3) will be assessed. In addition, treatment, recycling, reuse and disposal
of flowback and produced water that might contain residual fracking fluids, gasses, and trace
elements of heavy metals will be addressed (T4.4). Special attention will be given to
guidelines for the disposal of naturally occurring radioactive material that may be present in
flowback or produced water (T4.5). Monitoring toxicity of fracturing fluids and flowback
water will be performed (T4.6).
WP5: Standardized methodologies for baselines, benchmarks and risk assessment
To accurately assess the environmental impact and footprint of shale gas development, it
needs to be compared to baseline data collected prior to shale gas development in areas of
interest. Standardized methodologies are required to compare impact and footprint in different
shale gas plays. In this work package, standardized methodologies will be developed for
collection of baseline data (T5.1), for establishing benchmarks for comparison with other
subsurface activities (e.g., conventional gas, CO2 storage) (T5.2), and for assessment of risks
associated with shale gas development (T5.3).
WP6: Measures to mitigate risks and minimize footprint
While WP1-WP4 focus on assessing the environmental impact and footprint, this work
package focuses on determining measures that can be applied to mitigate risks and footprint.
Research will include the use of monitoring techniques to assess subsurface perturbations due
to hydraulic fracturing (e.g., using microseismics), due to gas production during the lifetime
of a field, and post-production ("after-field-life") (e.g., using 4D seismic surveys) (T6.1).
Boundary conditions for hydraulic fracturing (e.g., for injection volumes) (T6.2) and gas
production (e.g., traffic light systems for induced seismicity) will be established (T6.3).
Guidelines for well and field abandonment after boundary conditions for safe exploitation are
exceeded will also be addressed (T6.4).

DoW JP Shale Gas
44
4. Milestones
M1 Report with additional sources of impact based on
participant inventories
6
12
24
M8 Final report with integrated research on quantified
risks, impact and footprint of shale gas
development
36
Name1
(acronym)
Country
(sorting
criterium)
Role2 Associated
to (if
associate)
Human
Resource
committed
(py/y)
TNO Netherlands JP/SP - Coordinator 1.5
VSB- Technical Uni Ostrava Czech
Republic
Participant 1.5
GEUS Denmark Associate IFPEN 0.5
IFPEN France Participant – Coordinator
SP1
0.5
University of Athens Greece Participant 10
SINTEF Norway Participant - Coordinator
SP2
1
AGH - University of Krakow Poland Associate PGI x
LNEG Portugal Participant - Coordinator
SP4
0.5
Kingdom
Participant - Coordinator
SP6
7.45
Total 39.45
Name WP3.1 WP3.2 WP3.3 WP3.4 WP3.5 WP3.6 SP3
py/y
TNO 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 1.5
Uni Min Geol St. Ivan Rilski x x x x x 0 7
VSB- Technical Uni Ostrava 0.5 0.2 0 0.3 0.5 0 1.5
GEUS 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0 0.5
IFPEN 0 0 0 0 0 0.5 0.5
University of Athens 2 2 0 2 2 2 10
SINTEF 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 1

DoW JP Shale Gas
45
Polish Geological Institute 1 1 0.5 1 1 0.5 5
INIG - Oil and Gas Institute 0 1 0 0 1 0 2
AGH - University of Krakow x x x x 0 0 x
LNEG 0 0 0.5 0 0 0 0.5
IGME 0.5 0.5 0 0.5 0.5 0.5 2.5
UK Energy Research Centre 1.5 0.5 0.1 2.7 2 0.65 7.45
TOTAL 6.2 5.7 1.6 7 7.5 4.45 39.45
1Full names of institutes and summaries of their track record and contributions to SP3 are listed below.
2Institutes with a total contribution of min. 5 py/y to the whole JP are listed as participants.
3UKERC is coordinating contributions from institutes in the United Kingdom (combined py/y for UK
institutes is given).
List of institutes and summaries of their track record and contributions to SP3 (listed by
country):
Czech Republic institutes:
VSB-Technical University of Ostrava
Prof. Pavel Danihelka- Head of the Laboratory of Risk Research and Management,
pavel.danihelka@vsb.cz
Cooperation with the Czech Ministry of Environment on the conception of environmental security,
participation on crisis plans of the MoE (WP3.1)
Common research activities with the society Vodní zdroje Chrudim (Water resources Chrudim) on the
field of water sources and management (WP3.4)
Preparing methodologies of major accidents impacts on environment (WP3.5)
Danish institutes:
Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland (GEUS)
Dr. Peter Britze- Head of Reservoir Department, pbr@geus.dk
Coordination SP1, contribution in WP3.1-3.5
Dutch institutes:
TNO
SP coordination, contributions in all WP’s
France institutes:
Environmental evaluation through LCA (WP3.6)
Greek institutes:
National and Kapodistrian University of Athens
Prof. Vasileios Karakitsios- Director of the Department of Historical Geology and Paleontology,
vkarak@geol.uoa.gr
1999-2001 Scientific Responsible of the KAPODISTRIAS Project: Description, protection and
promotion of the geologic and geomorphologic environment of Epirus. Funded by the University of
Athens
2009-2010: Geological and Paleontological findings of the extensive Ioannina Municipality area,
aiming at the creation of the Ioannina Natural History Museum. Funded by the Ioannina Municipality.
2013-2015 Assessing environmental impact of possible oil shale and shale gas exploitation in western
Greece. ESF& National Funds (awaiting approval). (WP3.1)
2004-2005 Scientific Responsible of the Project: Hydrogeological study and determination of
perimetric protection zones of the Krya springs, Ioannina. Funded by the Ioannina Municipal
Enterprise of water supply and drainage (D.E.Y.A. Ioannina).

DoW JP Shale Gas
46
SINTEF
Dr. Maria Barrio- Vice President Gas Technology, Maria.Barrio@sintef.no
Dr. Tore Skjetne, Tore.Skjetne@sintef.no
Coordination SP2, contribution in WP3.1, 3.3-3.6
Polish institutes:
AGH University of Science & Technology
Prof. Stanislaw Nagy- Head of Gas Engineering Department, stanislaw.nagy@agh.edu.pl
Prof. Wojciech Górecki- Petroleum geology, wgorecki@agh.edu.pl
Jan Macuda & Aleksandra Jamrozik (WP3.1)
Recommended Practices Toward Addressing the Environmental Impact of
Poland Shale Gas Development, for GTI Chicago (USA) 2012
Stanislaw Nagy & Igor Kosacki (WP3.2)
Integrated Reservoir, Exploration & Gas Extraction System for Shale Gas – 2013-1016
Rafal Wisniowski & Stanislaw Stryczek (WP3.3)
Effective technologies in geoengineering, conventional & non-conventional oil & gas reservoirs
(including coal-bed methane) 2011-2014
Optimization of drilling parameters, including the selection of drilling technology, tools, drilling fluids
and cementing vertical and horizontal holes for shale gas 2013-2016
Jan Macuda & Aleksandra Małysa (WP3.4)
Analysis and evaluating legal acts concerning human and environment safety proceeding during
prospecting and exploitation works towards gas extraction from shale formations, commissioned by
industry, confidential
Analysis and evaluating legal acts concerning human and environment safety proceeding during
prospecting and exploitation works towards gas extraction from shale formations, commissioned by
industry, confidential
Monitoring of toxicity of fracturing fluids and flowback water (WP4)
Toxicity of fracturing fluids, their components and flowback water after fracturing will be tested with
the use of standardised ecotoxicological tests battery (Microtox/DeltaTox, Daphtoxkit F magna,
Thamnotoxkit F, Rotoxkit F, Ostracodtoxkit F, etc.) and MARA (Microbial Assay for Risk Assessment).
Alternative fracturing fluid composition (WP2)
In a case of high toxic components there will be analysed a possibility of a use of interchangeable
chemicals of lowered toxicity, and with preservation of technological parameters of fracturing fluids.
This will enable decrease in environmental hazard.
Dr. Anna Becker, Energy Security Program, anna.becker@pgi.gov.pl (contact person for EERA)
Dr. Monika Konieczyńska, Geology for Land Use Planning and Sustainable Development Program,
monika.konieczynska@pgi.gov.pl (environmental impact specialist, WP3.1-3.6)
Assessment of Environmental Hazards caused by Prospecting, Exploration and Exploitation of
Unconventional Hydrocarbon Resources (WP3.1)
Environmental Impact of Hydraulic Fracturing Process in Exploration and Production of Shale Gas
Environmental Aspects of Hydraulic Fracturing Treatment Performed on the Łebień LE-2H Well

DoW JP Shale Gas
47
Environmental Impact of Hydraulic Fracturing Process in Exploration and Production of Shale Gas
Environmental Aspects of Hydraulic Fracturing Treatment Performed on the Łebień LE-2H Well
Spanish Institutes:
Dr. Roberto Martínez- Deputy Director of Research on Geological Resources, ro.martinez@igme.es
(WP3.1, 3.2, 3.4-3.6)
IGME has developed very recently a very detailed study of the impact of coal mining and coal tailings
on human health and ecosystems. This experience can be very useful for this JP. (WP3.1)
IGME has developed a first study of the potential impact of hydraulic fracturing, including
groundwater contamination and induced seismicity (WP3.2)
IGME study on potential impacts also includes water management and disposal (WP3.4)
CIEMAT, who is supporting IGME in this JP has developed methodologies for risk assessment in
several underground activities, like CO2 storage or nuclear waste underground storage. (WP3.5)
IGME will provide large experience in the use of monitoring techniques (WP3.6)
UK institutes:
Dr. Nicola Combe- Knowledge Exchange Associate, n.combe@ukerc.ac.uk
Coordination of contributions from institutes in the United Kingdom, coordination SP6
British Geological Survey
Dr. Nick Riley (WP3.4-3.6)
Hydrochemistry of flowback fluids. Aquifer protection.
Management of induced seismic risk.
Durham Energy Institute
Prof. Richard Davies (WP3.1-3.6)
We are launching a multi-company consortium across 3 universities called ReFINE (Research
Fracking in Europe). Hence significant interest in this theme and strong commitment. The staff are Dr
Fred Worrall, Dr Simon Mathias, Professor Gillian Foulger, Professor Richard Davies, Professor
Sarah Curtis, Professor Phil Macnaghten, Mr Laurence Williams, Mr Sam Almond and Dr Liam
Herringshaw (Durham University).
Durham University
Prof. Sarah Curtis (WP3.1)
Our extensive and ongoing research on hazard and risk provides the context for a study in which we
are collaborating with colleagues in Quebec, Canada to explore scope for a health and social impact
assessment of shale gas. This collaboration also links us to the Durham Energy Institute.
We are happy to explore how through this established collaboration we may be able to contribute to
work in EERA, and provide scope to extend the perspectives considered beyond EU countries
University of Edinburgh
Dr. Stuart Gilfillan & Prof. Stuart Haszeldine (WP3.4)
Geochemical tracing of groundwater pollution from unconventional gas production - This study will
establish a methodology to categorically resolve methane sources in groundwaters and hence
determine if pollution by gas extraction has occurred. The work will establish the C and H stable
isotope, noble gas composition and radiocarbon content of coal bed methane and shale gas from
producing fields and backflow production waters in the UK and USA. These will be compared to the

DoW JP Shale Gas
48
composition of natural shallow groundwaters in regions where pollution is thought to have occurred.
Analysis of these samples will provide further understanding of the effectiveness of the different natural
tracers in fingerprinting contamination of groundwaters.
Prof. Ian Main, Dr. Andrew Bell & Dr. Mark Naylor (WP3.5)
'Robust Assessment and Communication of Environmental Risk', NERC consortium grant
NE/J016438/1, under the Probability and Uncertainty in Risk Estimation (PURE) programme
'Strategies and tools for Real Time Earthquake Risk Reduction' (REAKT), EU FP7 grant
‘Localizing signatures of catastrophic failure (LOCAT)’, ERC Complexity-Net pilot call, EPSRC Grant
EP/I018492/1
‘Earthquake and Failure Forecasting in Real Time (EFFORT): from controlled laboratory tests to
volcanoes an earthquakes’, NERC Grant NE/H02297X/1
‘Managing uncertainty in Complex Earth Systems’ Scottish Government and Royal Society of
Edinburgh Fellowship
Jeremy Turk (WP3.6)
MSc paper on fugitive emissions modelling for global shale gas production based on Howarth (2011)
numbers applied to ARI basin resource estimates. Production scaled linearly from US growth of
production 2008-2012 towards 2035 estimate of 45% of gas production.
University of Leeds
Prof. Quentin Fisher (WP3.4)
The analysis of flowback water and development of treatment strategies.
Integrated Water Resource Management projects in Ethiopia, Zambia and Zimbabwe.
6. GANT Chart
Research tasks within WP1-4 can be performed in parallel, according to the following timeline:
I-WP1-4 (year 1) Compilation and evaluation of national research
II-WP1-4I (year 2) Extension of research and addressing research niches that are specific for the
European Union
III-WP1-4 (year 3) Integration of the research, development of standard methodologies, and
dissemination of quantified risks, impact and footprint.
IV-WP5 WP5 research tasks, require input from WP1-4 and will start after finishing I.
Research tasks within WP5 can be performed in parallel.
V-WP6 WP6 research tasks, require input from WP1-5 and will start after finishing II.
Research tasks within WP6 can be performed in parallel.
VI-WP1-6 Dissemination through workshops and website (joint activity in all WP’s)
VII-WP1-6 Reporting (joint activity in all WP’s)
Activity Q 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
I-WP1-4
II-WP1-4
III-WP1-4
IV-WP5
V-WP6
VI-WP1-6 M2 M3 M5 M7
VII-WP1-6 M1 M4 M6 M8
R W/S W/S W/S
W = workshop, R = report, Mx = milestone nr. X, S = annual status report
7. Contact Point for the sub-programme on Environmental impact and
footprint
Jan ter Heege
TNO-Petroleum Geosciences
Princetonlaan 6, 3584 CB, Utrecht, The Netherlands
Tel: +31652779124
E-mail: jan.terheege@tno.nl

DoW JP Shale Gas
49
SUB-PROGRAMME 4: Energy and Carbon
Efficiencies and emissions to air
EERA
Description of Work
Version: 1.0
Dulce Boavida, LNEG

DoW JP Shale Gas
50
SP4 Energy and carbon efficiencies and emissions to air
Various studies have yielded a large variation in the estimated impacts of shale gas on the
environment. There are concerns that even small leakages of methane and non-methane
volatile organic compounds (NMVOC) during shale gas extraction may at least partly offset
the effects of lower carbon dioxide and other emissions from its use in place of coal or oil.
There is, however, different published work and opinions and neutral research based facts and
evaluations are needed to help decision makers in Europe.
The overall objective of this sub-programme is to align pre-competitive research activities at
EERA institutes to give a technical-scientific basis to further knowledge on the potential
contribution of shale gas production to greenhouse gas (GHG) and other gaseous emissions.
independent view on Energy and Carbon Efficiencies during the overall shale gas production
chain as well as emissions to air of GHGs and air pollutants . It focuses on quantifying
impact, footprint and risks for the European situation. This will be achieved by:
- conducting pre-competitive research to answer a number of uncertainties regarding
the level of emissions.
- developing methods for calculating life cycle greenhouse gas emissions and
harmonization with reference to conventional gas and coal.
- improve emission estimations from shale gas well sources.
- development of appropriate emission factors through gas sampling and compositional
analysis.
The work is organized into six work packages covering (1)Emissions from Pre-production
Stage, (2) Emissions from Production Stage, (3)Ambient emissions around shale gas basins,
(4) Assessment of the current GHG and air pollutant emissions reporting framework.
identification of topics needing and benefiting from a united European effort. Periodic reports
will be elaborated as well as yearly meetings to discuss the achievements.
Eight European research institutes have signalized their capabilities to perform the research
outlined in this sub-programme (~10,7 py in total).

DoW JP Shale Gas
51
1. Background
The GHG and other gaseous emissions from shale gas production have been the subject of a
number of studies in the USA since 2010. These studies have yielded a large variation in the
estimated impacts of shale gas on the environment. There are concerns that even small
leakages of methane and non-methane volatile organic compounds (NMVOC) during shale
gas extraction may at least partly offset the effects of lower carbon dioxide and other
emissions from its use in place of coal or oil. Next, to GHG emissions, serious air quality issues
have emerged in the US besides the groundwater and water pollution issues. There is, however,
different published work and opinions and neutral research based facts and evaluations are
needed to help decision makers in Europe. Parasitic consumption required for production,
including sub‐surface manipulation, product clean‐up and separation and other activities
require a careful analysis to understand the energy and carbon emission of the sources, which
will themselves, depend on the specific extraction and processing systems devised. Accurate
knowledge of this is critical to safe exploitation decisions and regulation.
Overall, these emissions from shale gas are dominated by the extraction stage. Significant
emissions also arise from the well completion, gas processing and transmission stages, but the
overall significance of these pre-extraction stages is less. Emissions during extractions can be
divided into three main sources: 1) Combustion of fossil fuels to drive the engines of the
drills, pumps and compressors, etc, required to extract natural gas onsite, and to transport
equipment, resources and waste on and off the well site; 2) Fugitive emissions that escape
unintentionally during the well construction and production stages; and 3) Vented emissions
resulting from natural gas that is collected and combusted onsite (flaring) or vented directly to
the atmosphere, in a controlled way.
independent view on Energy and Carbon Efficiencies and Emissions to Air during the overall
shale gas production chain as well as emissions to air of GHGs and air pollutants . It focuses
on quantifying impact, footprint and risks for the European situation.
2. Objectives
The overall objective of this sub-programme is to align pre-competitive research activities at
EERA institutes to give a technical-scientific basis to further knowledge on the potential
contribution of shale gas production to greenhouse gas (GHG) and other gaseous emissions.
These emissions need to be placed in perspective compared to other energy sources. Their
impact on climate and environmental goals as defined by the EC in its thematic strategy and
climate action plans need to be assessed. The focus is to create a common research agenda
that advances the knowledge base and accelerates progress in removing environment barriers
and developing innovative technology solutions.
The sub-programme (SP) on Energy and Carbon Efficiencies and Emissions to Air is a sub-programme
of the EERA Joint Programme on Shale Gas. This sub-programme is addressing
the main shale gas process stages: Pre-production and production. The SP comprises the
following four workpackages (WP):
WP1 - Emissions from Pre-production Stage – aims to conduct pre-competitive research to
answer a number of uncertainties regarding the level of emissions associated with the well
completion stage.

DoW JP Shale Gas
52
WP2 - Emissions from Production Stage – aims at developing methods for calculating life
cycle greenhouse gas emissions and harmonization on extant shale gas LCA literature with
reference to conventional gas and coal. It will quantify air pollutant emissions from the in-use
equipment.
WP 3- Ambient emissions around shale gas basins - aims to improve emission estimations
from shale gas well sources, including a greater focus on ambient measurements around shale
gas basins to assess the regional air quality impacts and conduct back-trajectory modelling
verification of fugitive methane and NMVOC leaks from gas production facilities.
WP4 - Assessment of the current GHG and air pollutant emissions reporting framework -
aims to take into account the different circumstances in Europe, and how this may influence
overall emissions. In order to ensure the effective control of GHG and air pollutant emissions
from potential shale gas development in Europe it is important to ensure that emissions,
where they arise, are reported. For GHG this involves the reporting to UNFCCC through the
National Inventory Reports, for air pollutants (NOx, NMVOC) reporting under the NEC
directive is compulsory. This information is important for understanding the net impact of any
shale gas installations, and for assessing the impacts of control measures, and the potential for
further controls. Development of appropriate emission factors through gas sampling and
compositional analysis will be required to ensure that emission factors reflect the local shale
gas composition.
Within each of the four work packages of SP4, research activities are structured in tasks (T).
The tasks will be performed, mostly in parallel, over a 3 year time frame (2013 – 2016) by
several research institutes with proven track record in the individual research tasks. During
the first year, the main focus will be on the compilation of MS and Norway status of research
on the Energy and Carbon Efficiencies and Emissions to Air of shale gas development,
creating an agenda for common research. During the second year, the main focus will be on
the extension of existing research and on addressing research niches that are specific for the
European Union as a whole rather than for individual member states alone. During the third
year, the main focus will be on integration of the research, development of common proposal,
and on dissemination of shale gas development within Europe.
This sub-programme has strong links with all other sub-programmes in the Joint Programme,
but mainly with SP2 on technology for safe and efficient exploitation in relation to safety and
footprint of shale gas production techniques, with SP3 on Environmental impact & footprint
in relation to the footprint of gas emissions at well sites, and with SP6 on public perceptions
in relation to independent and reliable assessment of risks, impact and footprint of shale gas
development in Europe.
Initially, the sub-programme will rely on research activities and funding available at the
participating institutes. Additional funding, through the preparation of joint research proposals
will be sought as the programme progresses.
Research activities (tasks) carried out in the four work packages are outlined below. All tasks
contribute to the objectives described in section 2. In all work packages, it will also be
evaluated to what extent practices from large scale shale gas development in the USA can be
applied to Europe.

DoW JP Shale Gas
53
WP1 - Emissions from Pre-production Stage – Pre-Production-related GHG emissions
include: emissions from roads and well-pad construction; from diesel engines and
compressors used during drilling. (T1.1) – Identification of the different possible sources and
types of emissions. This will be used to produce a list of possible emission reduction
techniques that can be applied (T1.2).
WP2 - Emissions from Production Stage – The methodologies and assumptions of studies
examined greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and air pollutants from shale gas production are
different, and have resulted in various conclusions on the potential emissions. The GHG
balance of shale gas has to take into account all GHG air emissions related to the production,
transportation, and end-use of shale gas. (T2.1) LCA literature review on gaseous emissions
from shale gas production with reference to conventional gas and coal. (T2.2) Developing
methods for calculating life cycle greenhouse gas emissions and harmonization on extant
shale gas LCA literature with reference to conventional gas and coal. (T2.3) Indicative
calculation of air pollutant emissions during shale gas production for a representative case.
WP 3- Ambient emissions around shale gas basins – (T3.1) Identification and estimations of
the different emission from shale gas well sources, including a greater focus on ambient
measurements around shale gas basins. (T3.2) to assess the possible regional air quality
impacts and conduct back-trajectory modelling verification of fugitive methane leaks from
gas production facilities. The possibility of coordinate air pollutant measurement campaigns
and scenario modeling using CTM LOTOS-EUROS, will be evaluated (T3.3).
WP4 - Assessment of the current GHG and air pollutants emissions reporting framework - In
order to ensure the effective control of GHG emissions from potential shale gas development
in Europe it is important to ensure that emissions, where they arise, are reported. This
information is important for understanding the net impact of any shale gas installations, and
for assessing the impacts of control measures, and the potential for further controls.
(T4.1)To analyze the representativeness of the US-based emission factors and estimates for
the European situation. This will be done in collaboration with the shale gas exploitation
experts in the consortium as best practices and characteristics of the shale gas layers and shale
gas composition will be crucial for such an assessment. (T4.2) Air pollutant emissions from
future shale gas exploration and exploitation will be put in perspective to other sources
through bottom-up emission calculations. (T4.3)Development of appropriate emission factors
through gas sampling and compositional analysis will be required to ensure that emission
factors reflect the local shale gas composition.
4. Milestones
M1 Report with the identification of all possible
sources and types of emissions.
6,12
M2 Annual report 12,24,36
M4 Minutes of workshop on results of year 1,2,3 12,24,36
M5 Integrated research agenda 18
M6 Final report with integrated research agenda 36

DoW JP Shale Gas
54
Name WP4.1 WP4.2 WP4.3 WP4.4 SP4
py/y
LNEG 0.5 0.5 1 1 3
Uni Min Geol St. Ivan Rilski x x x 0 5
TNO 0 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.5
University of Groningen 0 0 0.5 0 0.5
SINTEF 0.5 0.5 0 0 1
Polish Geological Institute 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 2
INIG - Oil and Gas Institute 0 0 0 2 2
UK Energy Research Centre 0.3 0.5 0.2 0.7 1.7
Total 1.8 2.2 2.3 4.4 15.7
List of institutes and summaries of specific elements in their track record and contributions with
special relevance to SP4 (listed by country):
University of Mining and Geology "St. Ivan Rilski"
Dimitar Merachev, exploration geologist – dimerachev@gmail.com
Dutch institutes:
TNO
UNIVERSITY OF GRONINGEN
Dr J.A. Beaulieu, programme manager, j.a.beaulieu@rug.nl
SINTEF
Dr. Maria Barrio, Senior Business Developer, Maria.Barrio@sintef.no
Polish institutes:
with
SP4
TNO Netherlands Participant – Coordinator
SP3
0.5
SINTEF Norway Participant – Coordinator
SP2
1
LNEG Portugal Participant - Coordinator
SP4
3
Kingdom
Participant – Coordinator
SP6
1.7
Total 15.7

DoW JP Shale Gas
55
Dr. Anna Becker, Energy Security Program, anna.becker@pgi.gov.p l
UK institutes:
Dr. Nicola Combe- Knowledge Exchange Associate, n.combe@ukerc.ac.uk
6. GANT Chart
Activity / Quarters 1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
WP1: Emissions from Pre-production
WP2: Emissions from Production
WP3: Ambient emissions
WP4: Reporting framework
Report with the identification of all possible
sources and types of emissions
M1 M1 M1
Annual report of activities M2 M2 M2
Website M3
Annual workshop M4 M4 M4
Research agenda M5
Final Report M6
7. Contact Point for the sub-programme on Energy and Carbon Efficiencies
and Emissions to Air
Dulce Boavida
LNEG
Estrada do Paço do Lumiar, 22, edif. J
Tel: +351 210924778
E-mail: dulce.boavida@lneg.pt

DoW JP Shale Gas
56
EERA
SUB-PROGRAMME 5: A Social Licence to Operate?
An sub-programme within the:
Shale gas
Description of Work
Version: 4
Michael Bradshaw & Nicholas Pidgeon - UKERC

DoW JP Shale Gas
57
SP5 Social License to Operate
This sub-program analyses a range of interrelated issues that are captured by the concept of
the ‘Social Licence to Operate?’ These can be conceived of two high level inter-related
issues: first the impact of shale gas development on the wider economy and energy strategy
and the efficacy of existing regulatory regimes to manage the environmental, social and
economic impacts of shale gas exploration and development. Second, wider national public
attitudes and engagement in relation to the shale gas industry and specific community
responses to shale gas drilling in particular locations. This Sub-Programme is organised
around five work packages (WPs) that together produce an integrated assessment of the issues
that need to be addressed to both maximise the potential benefits of shale gas development,
while, at the same time, minimising the social, economic and environmental costs at both the
community scale and the wider scale of national economies and the EU.
1. Background
The scientific rationale for this sub-programme is that the unfolding public debate on shale
gas development in Europe suggests that it is not advisable to separate the issues of the impact
on the wider economy and energy system and the regulatory and governance issues from
those of public perceptions, engagement and acceptance (or not). In the UK at present the
conflict over shale gas is framed around the benefits in terms of energy security and economic
growth, on the one hand; and the costs in terms of local environmental impact and the wider
issue of climate change policy, on the other hand. In such a context, the development of a
‘shale gas regime’ that encompasses both the specific regulatory and planning processes and
the wider issues of economic benefit and energy policy is essential to gaining wider public
acceptance. At the same time, the tensions between developing unconventional fossil fuels to
address energy security in the wider context of decarbonisation also needs to be considered.
Thus, an integrated approach to all of the issues surrounding the ‘Social License to Operate?’
makes scientific sense.
2. Objectives
The sub-programme has the following key objectives:
11.To improve understanding of the potential impact of shale gas activities on the wider EU
economy and energy system.
12.To examine the regulatory and governance challenges presented by shale gas development
at local, national and European scales.
13.To provide an in-depth understanding of European public awareness, knowledge about,
and acceptability of shale gas technology and its potential deployment in EU Countries.
14.To understand the origins of community and national level activism and the legitimate
concerns stemming from perceptions of uncertainty and risks, critical to guide effective
public engagement around shale gas exploitation.

DoW JP Shale Gas
58
15.To suggest strategies of dialogue between policy makers, NGOs, industrial stakeholders
and the public regarding the social license to operate.
3. Description of foreseen activities (including timeline)
WP1 Assessment of the impact of shale gas on the economy and the energy system
WP 1 considers the impact that shale gas development might have on EU energy strategy and
on the wider economy. On the one hand, might a significant increase in indigenous gas
production in the EU lessen dependence on imports from non-EU countries, such as Russia,
Norway and the Middle East? On the other hand, if the gas price decreases as a result of large
volumes of shale gas on the market (both from domestic production and as LNG), might the
transition to a sustainable (low carbon) energy system in Europe be delayed? At the same
time, what impact might access to cheaper gas have on the EU’s industrial economy? The
development of shale gas also raises issues about supply chain management in the gas
industry and the wider economic multiplier associated with shale gas exploration and
production. Can industry respond quickly enough to provide the necessary drilling equipment
and associated infrastructure or will failures in this area limit the pace of development and its
wider economic impact? How might government interventions promote (or constrain) the
exploitation of Europe’s shale gas potential? In some EU member states, tax incentives have
been suggested, as has the streamlining of regulatory procedures, to encourage shale gas
exploration activity, while other states have banned shale gas drilling completely. Activities
will include investigation of:
· The impact of shale gas on the European, regional, and national economies.
· The impact of shale gas on the global and European gas markets.
· The impact of shale gas on the transition towards a carbon neutral energy system.
We intend to explore these issues at a European level, developing cumulative emissions
scenarios for the energy systems as a whole and exploring the impact of key sensitivities, such
as the LCA performance of CCS. Our past work also included a bottom up emissions
accounting exercise (similar to SP4) using secondary data but we do not intend to repeat this
exercise.
WP2 Examination of the regulatory and governance challenges presented by shale gas
development at local, national and European Scales.
In WP2 the existing regulations related to shale gas extraction will be analysed in the EU
member states, with respect to the Mining Act, Environmental Laws and Spatial Planning
Laws. Clearly, any future shale gas activities should be supported by a robust legal framework
and set of regulations on the EU and Member State level. As the future for shale gas
extraction in Europe may well hinge upon the critical question of public acceptability, the
subject of later work-packages, this WP will have to consider both national attitudes and risk
perceptions, and responses at a local level. At a local level, shale gas development will set the
objectives of national government and the wider community – to achieve affordable and
reliable supplies of energy – against those of the local communities asked to bear a variety of
disruptions alongside possible uncertain environmental or health risks. The analysis extends
beyond the conventional confines of state-based regulatory systems to envisage what a ‘shale
gas governance regime’ that incorporates a wider range of stakeholders might look like. Such
a regime is essential to gaining public acceptance of shale gas development. Key activities
will include:
· The supply chain dimensions of shale gas development in an EU context

DoW JP Shale Gas
59
· Assessment of legal framework requirements for shale gas activities
· Implementation issues and best-practices.
· Piloting of ‘concern assessment’ methodologies for incorporating risk perceptions.
WP3 Policy Framings and Social Representations.
In WP3 we will seek to establish an understanding of the emerging policy framings of shale
gas at a national and European level. This work-package will involve preliminary exploration,
through documentary analysis and interviews, of how the varied stakeholders (policy,
business, civil society) view shale and its place in the future European energy and
decarbonisation landscape. Related work could also explore media images and reporting over
time to map the shifting social representations of shale gas. This work also involves analysis
of the role of civil society, in particular anti-shale gas activists, in framing the debate and
shaping public opinion. The work will also aim to explore key cross-nation differences, their
relationship to the historical context of energy use and exploitation in any particular EU
member State, the potential for key stakeholder mobilisation, and lessons from past
controversies with analogous energy technology issues (e.g. CCS, radioactive waste disposal,
wind energy siting etc.).
WP4 National Studies of Public Perceptions of Risks and Benefits of Shale Gas
Extraction.
WP4 is a critical baseline data gathering task, and one where we currently have very little
hard evidence. It is aimed at obtaining a comprehensive empirical analysis of public
perceptions of shale gas in Europe, and to understand which factors underlie these
perceptions. In the same way that Carbon Capture and Storage Technologies and other
examples in the energy domain have been studied recently, this work will require very careful
methodological development. The aim will be to develop qualitative bottom-up studies of
people’s interpretations of shale gas, and then to combine these with more informed-preference
type survey techniques to elicit risk and benefit perceptions of shale gas, how this
is related to acceptability of shale gas, and factors shaping perceived risks and benefits.
WP5 Community Responses to Shale Gas Proposals.
WP5 explores a critical emerging research need is to study how affected communities are
responding to shale gas issues when local proposals are put forward, and how perceptions
may differ from those expressed in the national samples. Critical research questions include:
How do responses differ from national samples and to what extent can local contextual factors
account for this, next to individual factors? What is the potential for both community
mobilisation and dialogue in the face of shale gas proposals? How can public concerns best be
addressed (e.g. by changes in relevant technologies, regulation, information provision, or
compensation)? Can we apply and adapt innovative methods of ‘social impact assessment’,
alongside more traditional environmental impact assessments? Empowering communities to
participate in decision making, utilising deliberative community engagement methods, and by
changes in relevant technologies, regulation, governance, information provision, and other
approaches to responsible innovation will be needed to forge a social licence to operate,
increased wellbeing and social sustainability.
4. Milestones
M1 Scoping report for WP1-6 6

DoW JP Shale Gas
60
12
24
M7 Final report with integrated research on risk
perceptions and community responses
36
5. Participants and Human Resources: WP 1& 2
with
Human
Resources
committed to SP5
ECN Netherlands Participant -
Coordinator SP5
2.5
Belgium
VSB- Technical Uni Ostrava Czech
Republic
Participant 1.5
IFPEN France Participant –
Coordinator SP1
0.5
RWTH Aachen Germany Associate GFZ
Potsdam
0.5
TNO Netherlands Participant –
Coordinator SP3
0.5
Polish Geological Institute Poland Participant 0.5
IEN - Instytut Energetyki Poland Associate PGI 1
Kingdom
Participant –
Coordinators SP5
3.35
British Geological Survey United
Kingdom
Associate UKERC 18.05
Name WP5.1 WP5.2 SP5 py/y
Geological Survey of Belgium 1 1
Uni Min Geol St. Ivan Rilski x X 5
VSB- Technical Uni Ostrava 1 0.5 1.5
IFPEN 0.5 0.5
RWTH Aachen 0.5 0.5
TNO 0.25 0.25 0.5
ECN 2.5 2.5
University of Groningen 1.2 1.2
Polish Geological Institute 0.5 0.5

DoW JP Shale Gas
61
IEN - Instytut Energetyki 1 1
IGME 0.5 0.5
UK Energy Research Centre 2.35 1..4 3.35
TOTAL 9.1 3.95 18.05
Participants (WP 1 & 2)
Belgian institutes:
Royal Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences, Geological Survey of Belgium
Kris Piessens, geologist, Kris.Piessens@naturalscienecs.be
University of Mining and Geology St. Ivan Rilski
Dimitar Merachev, exploration geologist – dimerachev@gmail.com
Nikola Sechkariov, exploration geologist – nikola.sechariov@gmail.com
Nikolay Hristov, exploration geologist – nk.hristov@gmail.com
Czech Republic institutes:
VSB-Technical University of Ostrava
Prof. Pavel Danihelka- Head of the Laboratory of Risk Research and Management,
France institutes:
Bernhard M. Kroos - Research scientist, Bernhard.krooss@emr.rwth-aachen.de
Netherlands institutes:
TNO
Dr. Christian Bos, Energy Markets, Christian Bos@tno.nl
Coordination JP Shale Gas, Coordination SP3
TNO is working on a dynamic gas market model within the EDGAR program, which is
capable of simulating the market pricing and security of supply by using agent based
technology. This model can be expanded to include the impact of shale gas on the European
market.
University of Groningen
Dr J.A. Beaulieu, programme manager, j.a.beaulieu@rug.nl
Martha Roggekamp
ECN
Dhr. Jeroen de Joode, dejoode@ecn.nl
Coordination SP5
Polish institutes:
Instytut Energetyki (IEn)
Dr Andrzej Slawinski - IEn’s Director Representative and Head of Energy Research
Integration Centre CENERG, andrzej.slawinski@ien.com.pl

DoW JP Shale Gas
62
The Institute provides analysis and case studies of energy economics and the development of
energy strategie.
Dr. Anna Becker, Energy Security Program, anna.becker@pgi.gov.pl (WP3.1-3.6)
Spanish Institutes:
Dr. Roberto Martínez- Deputy Director of Research on Geological Resources,
ro.martinez@igme.es
UK institutes:
Prof. Michael Bradshaw, Professor of Human Geography, University of Leicester (after 1st
January 2014 the Warwick Business School), mjb41@le.ac.uk. Michael Bradshaw will play a
coordinating role in relation to WP 1 & 2 and together with Prof Nick Pidgeon
(UKERC/Cardiff) will manage and coordinate SP5.
Dr. Valeria Brancifortia- Knowledge Exchange Associate, v.branciforti@uker.ac.uk
Coordination SP5
Dr John Broderick, University of Manchester
Tyndall Manchester is an interdisciplinary research centre with an international reputation
for delivering cutting-edge and impartial analyses on energy and climate change. We have
been investigating the climate change implications of shale gas developments for the past two
years primarily focussing on the combustion emissions of the gas itself, rather than fugitive
and other emissions from hydraulic fracturing.
We have considered the cumulative quantities of emissions that may be released by the
extraction and combustion of shale gas and the implications of expansion of the industry in
the UK in two reports (Wood et al 2011, updated as Broderick et al 2011).
Dr John Broderick and Prof Kevin Anderson have also developed capital cost estimates
comparing a UK shale gas industry with renewable electricity generation and have shared
these outputs in European Parliamentary workshops, presentations and reports to the
Environment and Petitions Committee.
6. Participants and Human Resources: (WP 3, 4 & 5)
Name Country Role Associated to
(if associate)
Human Resource
committed
UKERC UK Participant – SP5
Coordinator
1.6
ITAS D Participant 1
TNO NL Participant – Coordinator SP3 0.5
ECN NL Participant – Coordinator SP5 2.5
RUG NL Participant 4.2
LNEG PT Participant – Coordinator SP4 0.6
VSB-TUO CZ Participant 2.0
BGS UK Associate UKERC 0.1
12.5
This needs to be reworked around the 3 WPs
Name WP6.1 WP6.2 WP6.3 WP6.4 WP6.5 WP6.6 SP6
py/y

DoW JP Shale Gas
63
VSB- Technical Uni Ostrava 1 1 2
ITAS x X X 1
TNO 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.5
ECN 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 2.5
University of Groningen 2.2 2 4.2
LNEG 0.6 0.6
UK Energy Research Centre 0.1 1.0 0.6 1.7
TOTAL 0.2 5.5 3.7 0.5 1.1 0.5 12.5
Participants (WP 3,4, & 5)
UKERC, United Kingdom
Professor Nick Pidgeon,
EERA JP Shale Gas Joint-Coordinator SP5, Cardiff University, Understanding Risk Research
Group, School of Psychology, Cardiff CF10 3AT
pidgeonn@cardiff.ac.uk
UKERC will provide the coordination role through Cardiff University’s Understanding Risk
research group which currently researches public engagement and risk perceptions around
energy and emerging technologies (nuclear power, renewable energy, nanotechnologies,
climate engineering, CCS). Topics will include how the public perceives technologies of shale
gas (WP 6.3), and development and application of novel methodologies for publics
deliberating shale from a ‘whole system’ perspective. UKERC will also conduct learning
from experience with (radioactive waste, CCS, underground natural gas storage) as well as
identifying potential resource conflicts (Associate, British Geological Survey, WP 6.1 and
6.4).
ITAS, Germany
Julia Hahn, Institute for Technology Assessment and Systems Analysis (ITAS), Karlsruhe
Institute of Technology, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT) Karlstrasse 11, D-76133,
Karlsruhe, Germany
julia.hahn@kit.edu
Public perception of and public discourses about new technologies and their impacts are
major topics of two research departments (“research areas”) within ITAS. They deal with
various technologies, including storage of nuclear waste, nanotechnology, energy
technologies and neurotechnologies. Shale gas would be added as another “new case” to this
portfolio. (WP 6.3 and 6.4)
TNO, The Netherlands
Rene Peters, Coordinator EERA JP Shale Gas
TNO, Stieltjesweg 1, 2628 CK Delft, The Netherlands
Rene.peters@tno.nl
TNO will contribute to institutional analysis of the actor networks around controversial issues
in the physical-spatial domain, like shale gas, and the role of divisions between government,
industry stakeholders, NGOs, local communities, knowledge institutes and media (WP 6.3).
Identification, analysis and handling of risk factors in shale gas exploration and exploitation,
based on comparison to other ‘controversial’ more acceptable energy technologies (WP 6.4),
and assess public perception development in the Dutch shale gas cases Boxtel and Marknesse
(WP 6.5).

DoW JP Shale Gas
64
ECN, The Netherlands
Jeroen de Joode
Energy Research Centre of the Netherlands (ECN), P.O Box 1, 1755 ZG Petten, The
Netherlands
dejoode@ecn.nl
The ECN has significant current national and EU activity and expertise in the study of public
perceptions of CCS technologies, in methodologies for informed choice public surveys of
perceptions of new technologies and change over time, and comparative studies of
perceptions in different countries (e.g. Netherlands, Japan and Australia). ECN will contribute
to the study of the development of national and community attitudes to shale in The
Netherlands (WP 6.3 and 6.4) and to methodological work on deliberating shale gas from a
whole systems perspective (WP 6.5).
RUG, The Netherlands
Dr J.A. Beaulieu,
Groningen Energy and Sustainability Programme, University of Groningen, The Netherlands
j.a.beaulieu@rug.nl
The Environmental Psychology group at the University of Groningen (RUG) will focus on
biases in judgements on risks and benefits, relationships between knowledge, values,
perceived risks and benefits, and acceptability and shale gas. RUG is also a world leader on
social impact assessment, which has transformed over time to become the process of
managing the social issues and this methodology will be applied to the shale gas case. (WP
6.4 and 6.5)
LNEG, Portugal
Dulce Boavida
National Laboratory of Energy and Geology, Estrada da Portela, Bairro do Zambujal,
Apartado 7586 – Alfragide, 2610-999 Amadora, Portugal
dulce.boavida@lneg.pt
LNEG, the National Laboratory of Energy and Geology, carries out research, testing and
technological development activities mainly in the areas of energy and geology. We will
conduct studies primarily of public perception in Portugal related to shale gas exploration and
exploitation (WP 6.5).
VSB-TUO, Czech Republic.
Prof. Pavel Danihelk
VSB-Technical University of Ostrava, 17. Listopadu, 708 33 Ostrava, Czech Republic
VSB-TUO is currently involved in a National Security Research Programme on risk
communication. The atmosphere in the Czech Republic is currently rather negative against
shale gas exploitation, including letters of opposition from communities potentially involved,
suggesting that there is a lack of confidence and trust from the side of communities. The work
would aim to understand the factors underlying this position (WP 6.5)

DoW JP Shale Gas
65
i Unconventional Gas: Potential Energy Market Impacts in the EuropeaJoint Research Centre,
Institute for Energy and Transport, 2012.
ii HS Global Insight (Des. 2011). The Economic and Employment Contributions of Shale Gas in the US.
iii Energy Technology Perspectives 2012, OECD/IEA, ISBN: 978-92-64-17488-7
iv World Energy Outlook 2011, OECD/IEA
v BP Statistical Review of World Energy, 2010
vi Final report on unconventional gas in Europe, Philippe & Partners, Brussels, November 2011
vii EU environmental framework applicable to shale gas practices, European Commission, Brussels,
Vopel, 2012.

20131206 eera-shale gas-dow v4

More Related Content

Viewers also liked

Similar to 20131206 eera-shale gas-dow v4

More from Pomcert

20131206 eera-shale gas-dow v4