Deep-Shale Gas Drilling, aka Fracking
•
2 likes•850 views
This document discusses high-volume hydraulic fracturing (HVHF) for extracting shale gas. It notes that HVHF uses much more water, chemicals, and produces more waste than conventional gas drilling methods. Potential environmental and health impacts include water contamination, air and water pollution, greenhouse gas emissions, and industrialization of rural landscapes. The document raises concerns that Ohio's regulations are not adequate to address the challenges of extensive HVHF development in the Utica and Marcellus Shales. It also notes that the EPA will conduct a new study on the impacts of fracking on drinking water.
Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (20)
Viewers also liked
Viewers also liked (20)
Similar to Deep-Shale Gas Drilling, aka Fracking
Similar to Deep-Shale Gas Drilling, aka Fracking (20)
More from Ohio Environmental Council
More from Ohio Environmental Council (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Deep-Shale Gas Drilling, aka Fracking
- 1. Deep‐Shale Gas Deep Shale Gas Drilling g Windfall or Pitfall? Windfall or Pitfall? Ellen Mee, JD Director of Environmental Health Policy Ohio Environmental Council August 6, 2011 A t 6 2011
- 3. How is high‐volume hydrofracturing different? g y g Developed in the late 1990s, not the 1940s. Really began to be used more extensively after 2005, when exempted from several important provisions of the federal environmental regulations the federal environmental regulations “Slick‐water hydraulic fracturing” because it uses a different mix of chemicals than the older methods different mix of chemicals than the older methods— reducing the amount of gelling agents and adding friction reducers (thus the term “slick”) The hydraulic fracturing technique to be used in the Marcellus shale is also known as “high volume” hydraulic fracturing (HVHF) because it uses much more fluid than old hydraulic
- 4. How is high‐volume hydrofracturing different? g y g More fresh water More chemicals More chemicals More toxic air emissions More toxic waste requiring disposal More heavy truck traffic More intense, industrial scale development More intense industrial‐scale development
- 5. More fresh water used HVHF typically uses 2 to 7.8 million gallons of fluid (or an average 5.6 million gallons) Each well can be “fracked” up to 18 times, using millions of gallons using millions of gallons of water each time 70 ‐ 300 times more water than conventional hydrofracturing!
- 6. More chemicals 2005 2009: 14 Oil and gas 2005 – 2009: 14 Oil and gas service companies used more than 2,500 hydraulic fracturing p products containing 750 g chemicals and other components. Industry claim – no problem, only 1% of the solution. How much is 1% of 5‐7 million gallons? 50 000 70 000 50,000 – 70,000 gallons of chemicals
- 7. Recent study UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE MINORITY STAFF APRIL 2011 ______________________________________ CHEMICALS USED IN HYDRAULIC FRACTURING ______________________________________
- 8. What are these chemicals? Methanol – most widely used chemical, as measured by the number of compounds containing the chemical compounds containing the chemical Used in 342 hydraulic fracturing products Hazardous air pollutant on the candidate list for potential regulation under H d i ll h did li f i l l i d the Safe Drinking Water Act. Between 2005 and 2009, the oil and gas service companies used hydraulic , g p y fracturing products containing 29 chemicals that are • known or possible human carcinogens, • regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act for their risks to human health, or human health or • listed as hazardous air pollutants under the Clean Air Act. •These 29 chemicals were components of more than 650 different products used in hydraulic fracturing
- 9. More toxic waste requiring disposal Recycling? Wastewater treatment plants? Class 2 injection wells? (4,467,913 billion barrels of brine water disposed through injection wells in 2009) ) Flowback water holding pits? pits? Problem is not only what goes in, but also what goes in but also what comes out?
- 10. Naturally occurring radioactive materials Naturally occurring radioactive materials The problem is not only what goes in, but also what The problem is not only what goes in, but also what comes out …. NORM: normally occurring radioactive materials – strontium, uranium, radon, etc. Heavy metals: lead, mercury, etc. Methane gas h Chemicals and other additives
- 11. Impact on drinking water resources Surface spills Abandoned wells & natural faults Abandoned wells & natural faults May be located near heavily populated areas or areas with private wells Horizontal orientation increases likelihood of pollution because likelihood of pollution because more likely to run under surface water sources – aquifers, lakes, streams, springs, rivers
- 12. Methane contamination Methane contamination of drinking water accompanying gas- well drilling and hydraulic fracturing Stephen G. Osborn, Avner Vengoshb, Nathaniel R. Warneb, and Robert B. Jackson Edited* by William H. Schlesinger, Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies, Millbrook, NY, and approved April 14, 2011 (received for review January 13, 2011) A il 14 2011 ( i df i J 13 2011) Methane concentrations were 17% higher on average closer to natural gas wells Average distance between PA drinking water wells and the Marcellus Shale = 2,900 – 5,900 feet Did not find contamination from fracking fluids But concern is whether chemical contaminants that are left underground (up to 85 – 90%) th t l ft d d ( t 85 90%) could ld follow similar trajectory over time
- 13. More toxic air emissions Emissions are invisible to the naked eye
- 14. Emissions harmful to human health Fugitive Dehydration Vehicles Flaring Engines Pits Venting Emissions Particulate x x x Matter Dust x x Hydrogen H d ogen x x x Sulfide Ozone o o o o Carbon x x x Monoxide Nitrogen x x x Oxides Sulfur x x x Dioxide VOCs x x x x x x BTEX x x x x x x PAHs x Methane x x x x
- 15. Larger disturbed areas, significant footprint g g p Each well pad can be 4 5 acres (or larger) 4 – 5 acres (or larger) Contain multiple wells – up to 8 per well pad t 8 ll d Multiple horizontal “fracs”
- 16. More industrialization – not your grandfather’s well Preference for many wells in a region Average density in Marcellus shale is expected to range h l d from 6 – 8 wells per square mile (based on 640 acre unit) to 16 or more per square mile to 16 or more per square mile Infill wells and drilling in other shale layers can increase well shale layers can increase well density even more
- 17. More truck traffic One well may require: One well may require: 1,760 to 1,905 trips Typical well pad with 7 wells = 13,000 round trips to local , p roads Includes tanker trucks for Includes tanker trucks for water , sand, drilling rig equipment, waste (flowback) water removal l
- 18. Greenhouse gas emissions g Cornell study examined life cycle contribution of HVHF • Suggests that methane emissions are at least 30% more than and maybe more than twice as great as those from conventional gas. • Higher emissions from shale gas occur at the time wells are hydraulically fractured—as methane escapes from flow‐back return fluids—and during drill out following the fracturing. • Methane is a powerful greenhouse gas, with a global warming potential that may M h i f l h ih l b l i i l h be greater than that of carbon dioxide, particularly in the years immediately following the emissions. US EPA Emissions from the deep shale drilling are almost 9,000 times higher than it had previously calculated, a figure that begins to agree with the Cornell research previously calculated a figure that begins to agree with the Cornell research
- 19. The Halliburton Exemption Important environmental oversight and regulation of the natural gas production was removed by the executive branch and Congress in the 2005 Federal Energy Appropriations Bill Exempted from important provisions of the: Clean Water Act (CWA) Clean Water Act (CWA) Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) Clean Air Act (CAA) Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA)(Superfund) Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act (EPCRA)(Toxic Right to Know Act) (EPCRA)(Toxic Right‐to‐Know Act)
- 20. Ohio is not prepared for high volume, horizontal hydraulic hydrofracturing SB 165 (2010) – First modernization of Ohio s 40 year old oil and gas SB 165 (2010) – First modernization of Ohio’s 40 year old oil and gas drilling laws Did not adequately address the challenges from intensive industrialization Did not adequately address the challenges from intensive industrialization from high volume, horizontal hydraulic fracturing Important environmental and public health protections related to the use of toxic chemicals, well siting, air emissions, public safety, and more, were left unresolved 2010 “STRONGER” Report (State Review of Oil and Gas Environmental Regulations) noted that . . . “future program changes in Ohio would be necessitated by the anticipated development of the Marcellus and Utica Shales” Sh l ”
- 21. A few concerns A few concerns • No statutory set backs No statutory set backs • The rules allow tank batteries to be located within 75 feet of homes whose owners are not party to the drilling contract (or even closer with h t t t th d illi t t( l ith the homeowner’s written consent, or if the ODNR waives the setback requirement entirely). The rules allow the well head to be no closer than 100 feet of a house, unless ODNR approves a request to place the well 100 feet of a house unless ODNR approves a request to place the well head closer. • Allows open pits and dikes for catching and temporarily storing waste All it d dik f t hi dt il t i t products from drilling (1509.22)
- 22. New U.S. EPA study EPA will investigate how fracking affects drinking water – budgeted at $3.5 million over 2 years (2012) (2014) budgeted at $3 5 million over 2 years (2012) (2014) Study to be transparent and peer reviewed, 4 hearings EPA’s study is based on life cycle impacts of fracking fluids Impacts from water demands and the air pathways Impacts from water demands and the air pathways included
- 23. Economic Impact? Boom and bust – job creation and job loss tend to follow pattern of boom & bust Few “local” jobs – relatively small, experience‐driven workforce (roughnecks, rig crews) who travel from well site to well site site to well site U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics shows increase of less than 3,000 new jobs in PA mining and logging from 2007 – 2010 June 2009 study: single well could directly create 11.53 full‐time jobs/year, not compounding yearly (depends on number of new wells drilled). 98% of these jobs required only while wells are being drilled (Marcellus Shale Workforce Needs Assessment). Only 0.17 long‐term, full‐time “permanent” jobs associated with the production phase of development for each well drilled, but jobs compound annually. 100 wells drilled each year for ten years = 17 production jobs each year = a total of 170 production jobs after 10 years Pennsylvania Economy League – Each direct job in the Pennsylvania oil and gas industry creates an additional 1.52 indirect and induced jobs throughout the economy. Economic “boom” doesn’t typically factor in high costs of industrialized gas drilling – bridge repairs, declines in farming and tourism revenue, reduced property values and property tax revenues f i d i d d l d
- 24. Recommendation The Ohio General Assembly should immediately issue a moratorium ordering the Ohio Department of Natural moratorium ordering the Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR) to withhold approval of new well permits involving high volume, horizontal hydraulic drilling, exploration, or extraction until such time as drilling practices are demonstrated to be safe for the environment and human health, and are properly regulated. , p p y g