The document discusses the development of best risk governance practices for shale gas production in Europe, highlighting the unique challenges and technology governance required in the region compared to the U.S. It emphasizes a threefold approach involving understanding environmental impacts, analyzing technology governance, and matching risks with governance to minimize the environmental footprint. Key concerns include greenhouse gas emissions, water contamination, and regional regulatory variations, aiming for a transparent risk evaluation framework to facilitate sustainable practices in shale gas extraction.

1. 1
Developing an approach for best
risk governance practices of shale
gas production in Europe
N. Arnold1, K. Gufler1, G. Giersch 2
1 Institute of Security/Safety- and Risk Sciences, University of Natural
Resources and Life Sciences, Vienna, risk@boku.ac.at, www.risk.boku.ac.at
2 Organisation for International Dialogue and Conflict Management – IDC,
Vienna, info@idialog.eu, www.idialog.eu

2. 2
Overview
 Introduction
 Shalegas in US and Europe
 Approach for risk governance practice
 Final thoughts

3. 3
Introduction
 High volume hydraulic fracturing / fracking
 Creation of small fractures in a rock formation to
allow for migration of hydrocarbons
 Used for shale gas, tight gas, tight oil
 Requires
 Horizontal drilling
 Up to 2 km horizontal, in 3000 m depth
 High pressure, tight cement casings
 Up to 1000 bar
 Frack-fluids:
 Water and sand, variety of chemicals (~ 0.5%) Source: Broderick, J et al. (2011). Shale gas:
an updated assessment of environmental
and climate change impacts

4. 4
Shale gas production in the US
 Boom started mid-2000s, with technological advances in horizontal drilling
together with regulatory exemptions for the exploration and extraction
industry
 Today: Worlds largest natural gas producer
Source: http://maps.fractracker.org/
Source: US EIA. Annual Energy Outlook
2014

5. 5
Shale gas in the EU
 EC has highlighted its commitment to further GHG emission
reduction term
 The Energy Roadmap 2050 and Strategic Energy Technology
Plan (SET‐Plan take notice of the potential implication of shale
gas for the EU.
 The EC has so far stepped away from comprehensive EU
regulation
 In contrast to US: divers regulations, diverging interests, trans-boundary
issues
 Countries with promissing ressources
 Germany
 France

6. 6
Approach for best risk governance
practices
 To achieve best practices, both in shale gas
exploration & production and in governing
associated risks and concerns, it is essential to
understand impacts, risks and uncertainties of
shale gas development in Europe and its specific
technologies
 A threefold approach is suggested to contribute
towards minimising the environmental footprint
and making shale gas E&P socially and
environmentally sustainable
 (A) Understanding environmental impacts
 (B) Analysing technology governance
 (C) Matching between impacts and
governance: criteria development for best
available technologies and best risk
governance.

7. 7
(A) Environmental risks and
uncertainties / impacts of fracking
 Extending the knowledge base on environmental impacts and
risks
 Based on experiences/data of ongoing shale gas production (e.g.
the US)
 Issues are interlinked, some of the pathways of risks and impacts
are still unknown
 (i) GHG emissions and air quality
 Methane leakage, (up to 10% suggested by studies)
 (ii) surface impacts, land use and footprint
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/
 Interferance with existing infrastructure or agriculture, Traffic volume, ..

8. 8
(A) Environmental risks and
uncertainties / impacts of fracking
 (iii) water and groundwater related risks
 contaminations of ground and surface waters
via several pathways, flowback & wastewater
 Recovery of the injected fluids is highly variable, (15%-80%)
 (iv) Geohazards and seismicity
 induced seismic activity, fracture fluid migration to aquifer
 Issues have to be related to technological and contextual (regional) frame
conditions
 Site specific impacts can be assessed by scenario based regional case studies and
by site specific assessment activities.
 comparing technological choices in view of their environmental impacts is
prerequisite for pointing out best available technologies
Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/

9. 9
(B) Analysing technology
governance
 The assessment of relevant EU regulations and governance, is
based on a comparative analysis of various parameters derived from
well-established risk governance frameworks.
 The assessment should be structured along the analysis of the
following aspects:
 Environmental baseline assessment practices, requirements and
standards;
 Environmental monitoring and compliance oversight, as well as methods
and regulatory approaches to impact data and data comparability;
 Transparency requirements, transparency practices and transparency
demands;
 Risk communication approaches, dialogue and community participation.

10. 10
(C) Matching between impacts and
governance
 The matching approach is directed towards the elaboration of criteria
for the identification and evaluation of risks and impacts, best
available technologies (BAT) and best risk governance practices.
While the results will depend on data and valuations of stakeholders,
the objectives of such a transparent risk evaluation framework can
be pointed out as follows:
 specify fits and misfits between environmental impact (and impact scenarios) and
regulatory provisions or (existing) risk governance practices;
 find out potentials to shape related technology and regulation practice in order to
reduce environmental risks and to provide governance strategies for the
implementation of best available technologies (BAT);
 elaborate checklists and criteria for the evaluation of best practices in risk
management.

11. 11
Overview

12. 12
Final thoughts
 An appropriate governance framework for shale gas development has to
consider more than impact assessments, and existing national rules and
regulations. It is influenced by the questions of economic impacts, resource
availability and competition with alternative energy carriers.
 In the EU‐context it will face transboundary issues and different grades of
public acceptance.
 Matching impacts against EU policy objectives and risk governance practices
and involving interested stakeholders for criteria development requires a trans
disciplinary approach.
 It is directed to European best practices in risk governance in view of
mitigating environmental impacts and fostering the social sustainability and
acceptance of shale gas development.
 Although it has been developed for shale gas development in EU, it can be

13. 13
Thank you for your kind attention!