environmental impacts and risks of shale gas … · jan ter heege outcrop of posidonia shale...
TRANSCRIPT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND
RISKS OF SHALE GAS OPERATIONS:
Comparison of US best practices and
M4ShaleGas assessments for the EU
Jan ter Heege
outcrop of Posidonia Shale analogue at Whitby, UK
SEVERAL EUROPEAN RESEARCH PROJECTS ON
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT & RESOURCE ESTIMATES
European Commission
Horizon 2020 program
LIMITED E&P ACTIVITIES IN EUROPE LARGELY
DUE TO LACK OF SOCIAL LICENSE TO OPERATE
Public concerns regarding groundwater and surface pollution
due to fracking chemicals
Public concerns regarding climate footprints
Domestic energy supply (import/export conventional gas)
Unsure shale prospectivity due to lack of wells & production
Ongoing activities in Poland, new licenses in UK
MEASURING, MONITORING, MITIGATING, MANAGING
THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF SHALE GAS
4 subprograms
(SP) studying
different impact
areas
ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS US VERSUS EUROPE:
REGULATIONS, GEOPOLITICAL SETTINGS, CLIMATE
Main US concerns (c.f. Shale Gas Exchange 2015):
General safety: Traffic & transport around well site
Methane emissions
Drilling, completion, operation or abandonment of wells
Surface spills and leaks
Produced water disposal
Changing landscape (wildlife, biotopes)
Availability water resources
Induced seismicity
20 WORK PACKAGES
(WP) MAPPED TO MAIN
ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACTS OF SHALE
GAS IDENTIFIED BY
STAKEHOLDER
DISCUSSIONS
10 EUROPEAN MEMBER STATES, 18 INSTITUTES
LINKS TO US INSTITUTES AND INDUSTRY
External Advisory Board
Five partners from Europe, U.S.A, and Canada
Exchange of knowledge and experiences
Reviews of key project activities and reports
Industry Panel
Exchange of knowledge and experiences
Sharing of data and best practices
SP1 –
FRACTURING,
SEISMICITY &
WELLS
SP2 – IMPACT ON WATER, SOIL, AND WELL SITE
SP3 – IMPACTS ON AIR QUALITY AND CLIMATE
SP4 – SOCIAL LICENSE TO OPERATE
• Public awareness is growing
• Growing level of opposition (except in
Poland)
• Many people remain undecided
• Lack of trust in key stakeholders and
lack of transparency and availability of
independent information
• National and local context influences
public opinion: more opposition and
concern in potential shale gas regions
• Attitudes are often based on emotion
rather than information
INDUCED SEISMICITY: A GROWING CONCERN
Induced
seismicity related
to high volume
hydraulic
fracturing and
waste water
disposal
SEISMIC RISKS CONTROLLED BY COMBINATION OF
OPERATIONS AND LOCAL GEOLOGICAL SETTINGS
PGA natural seismicity, Giardini et al. 2003
Site specific ground motions & seismic risks:
Scale and type of operations
Geological setting & shale type
Background natural seismicity
Population density
Building & construction regulations
EXAMPLE INDUCED SEISMICITY IN THE NETHERLANDS
Rare natural (tectonic) seismicity
(Mmax < 5.8) in the South
Frequent depletion-induced seismicity
(ML < 3.6) in the North:
-Mainly Groningen gas field
-Truly induced seismicity
-Relation with cumulative production & reservoir compaction
-Serious public concern & billion euro problem
Gas storage:
-Some empty gas fields with past seismicity
-Monitoring required for license to operate
M4SHALEGAS: PREDICTIVE MODELLING WORKFLOWS
Modelling seismicity
from source
mechanisms to
receiver signals &
ground motions
THANK YOU FOR YOUR
ATTENTION
This presentation is part of a project that has received funding by the European
Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement
number 640715
fossils from outcrop of Posidonia Shale analogue at Whitby, UK