presentation geert de cock lembork_fracking_english_final_short
DESCRIPTION
This presentation was made during an event on October 26, 2012 in Lembork, where Food & Water Europe was invited by a local group. We informed local residents about the risks, negative impacts and the exaggerated benefits of shale gas for Poland.TRANSCRIPT
11/5/12
1
The American experience of living with large-‐scale shale gas development.
Is Poland ready for this?
Geert De Cock, Policy officer
EVENT Title
Lembork, October 26, 2012 1
Food & Water Europe
• European programme of Food & Water Watch – Based in Washington, DC
• Working on food, water … and shale gas • 12.000 individual US ciKzens as members – Financial support from a dozen American foundaKons
• No corporate, no government donaKons
INDEPENDENCE & TRANSPARENCY
hTp://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/about/annual-‐report/ 2
11/5/12
2
Shale gas
• Reduce dependence on Russian gas • Help move Poland away from coal
• Can natural gas – and domesKc shale gas – help Poland to achieve these goals?
3
Overview
• What is fracking for shale gas? • How is unconvenKonal gas different • Environmental impacts • Health impacts • Economic and employment aspects • Conclusion
4
11/5/12
3
Fracking for shale gas
• 2 technologies made extracKng gas from shale rocks technologically possible: – Hydraulic fracturing – Horizontal drilling (up to 2 km)
• Water pumped in at high pressure – Mixed with sand & chemicals
• Proppant (silica sand) keeps cracks open • Water and gas return to surface
5
Source: Propublica 6
11/5/12
4
Source: Prof. Rien Herber, former vice president of ExploraNon Europe at Shell. 7
Source: WorldOil.com 8
11/5/12
5
Source: Florency Geny, Oxford IES -‐ currently business analyst Statoil 9
Shale gas = spaKally intense
• IEA: “Be ready to think big” – “larger number of wells required” – For example: • BarneT shale: 15.000 wells • Marcellus shale: up to 100.000 wells
• 1000s of wells required in the next decade – IF recoverable reserve esKmates are correct
10
11/5/12
6
Source: EIA video – CumulaKve drilling in Pennsylvania 11
hTp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPfGoNvsqt0
Source: Pennsylvania Department of ConservaKon of Natural Resources 12
11/5/12
7
Source: IEA 2012, Golden rules 13
texas
Moving to environmental impacts
CumulaNve impacts
14
11/5/12
8
Water quanKty
• Water usage by Polish shale gas industry only amounts to 0,06% of annual usage in Poland (based on 200 wells)
• BUT: all water is sourced locally. – In Texas’ counKes, fracking industry’s water consumpKon equal to households
• CompeKKon between water users • Produced water used cannot be used for other purposes.
15
Water quality
• Between 25 to 75% of injected water returns to surface (flowback) à huge wastestream
• Ill-‐equipped water treatment plants in US to deal with: – NORM – Naturally Occurring RadioacKve Materials – Heavy metals – High levels of bromides: reacts with chlorine to form carcinogenic trihalomethanes
– Fracking chemicals, including BTEX compounds 16
11/5/12
9
Water quality
• Problems with well integrity can lead to methane contaminaKon of water wells – Flaming tap phenomenon – Industry denies: lack of baseline data
17
Fracking chemicals
• Only 1 to 2% of millions of liters, BUT: – Despite relaKve low concentraKons, absolute volumes are huge à thousands of kilos
– Some chemicals are dangerous “even at concentraKons near or below their chemical detecKon limits” (Bishop,2011)
18
11/5/12
10
Fracking chemicals
• Examples: – 2-‐Butoxyethanol -‐ high doses reproducKve problems, birth defects, red blood cells, high mobility, low degradaKon, contaminate aquifers
– Ethylene Glycol -‐ irritate eyes, nose & throat, respiratory toxicant, increased risks of spontaneous aborKon, animal teratogen
– Methanol – affects nervous system – Aroma6c hydrocarbons like benzene -‐ carcinogenic – Glutaraldehyde – respiratory toxin, mutagenic
19
Other impacts
• Poor air quality due to shale gas drilling
• NegaKve health impacts – Higher cancer risks for those living within 800 meters of a shale gas well
20
11/5/12
11
Economic benefits??
• PotenKal job numbers are exaggerated
• Shale gas will not lead to lower gas prices
• Boom & Bust for local economy
• NegaKve impact on other sectors: – Real estate – Tourism – Farming
21
Land use: IndustrialisaNon of rural areas
• About 3.6 hectares for mulK-‐well pad installaKon (AEA report, 2012)
• Plus other gas infrastructure: – Compressor staKons – Pipelines – Gas storage, etc.
22
11/5/12
12
Source: Rumbach (2012) 23
Source: Food & Water Watch 24
11/5/12
13
Source: Nature Conservancy (2011) 25
Source: Nature Conservancy 26
11/5/12
14
Source: Rumbach (2012) 27
Traffic
• “each well would would require between 890 and 1350 heavy-‐duty truck loads per well” (Food & Water Europe, March 2012)
• “an 8-‐well pad may require some 4-‐6 thousand truck trips over some six months pre-‐extracKon” (EP report – Boguslaw Sonik)
28
11/5/12
15
29
Source: Rumbach, 2012 30
11/5/12
16
Conclusion
• Importance of environmental impact assessment, prior to drilling
• ATenKon to the cumulaKve impacts of large-‐scale shale gas development
• QuesKonable local economic benefits – NegaKve economic impacts – Long-‐term environmental damage – Renewable energy and energy efficiency?
31
Djienkuje!
• Email: [email protected] & [email protected]
• Tel: 0032 /(0)2/893.10.18
hTp://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/europe/fracking/
32