Fracking Should be Shaleved 1

Next>

The sight of domestic water supplies being ignited due to contamination by natural gas has been one of the most enduring images left in peoples minds since the release of the film Gasland in 2010:

Gasland is an odyssey by film maker Josh Stone. In the film he uncovers the truth behind an industry that has become largely unregulated - a pattern that has become an all too familiar feature in the US.

In this article I'll be looking at the legacy that has been created by the shale gas industry and what it could mean for the rest of the world as the exploitation of unconventional energy sources continues apace.

Fracking - what is it?

Fracking is shorthand for hydraulic fracturing. This is a process that involves drilling a borehole into shale rock formations and then forcing a mixture of fluid and a propping agent (usually sand) into the well at high pressure, causing the rocks to fracture causing the release of methane gas. The following is a simplified diagram of the process:

Source: BBC

The initial drilling phase involves sinking a vertical well at a depth determined by the location of shale rock formations. This could range from several hundred to several thousand metres(m) below the surface. The next stage is to drill horizontally through the shale rock formation to about 1000m. A well casing needs to be installed to seal the well from surrounding formations and to add stability to the well.

The fluids injected into the well consist of a mixture of 98% water and sand and about 2% chemical additives. The extremely high pressure blasts the shale rocks apart creating fractures that can run up to a few hundred metres into the rock. The propping agent (sand) holds the fractures open allowing the gas to be released into the well.

Wells are generally constructed in the form of groups of wells or well pads, consisting of at least 6 or more wells.

The chemical constituents of fracking fluids can vary depending on the operation but can include friction reducers, surfactants, corrosion inhibitors, biocides, stabilizers and lubricants. As some of the chemicals used in the fracking process are not disclosed, it can be difficult to establish an accurate assessment. However in a report by the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, Shale gas: an updated assessment of climate change and environmental impacts commissioned by the Co-operative, an attempt is made to give a thorough overview of the whole hydraulic fracturing process from construction to extraction.

The report attempts to evaluate the potential impacts of shale gas exploitation in the UK. So far the only real comparison is what has occurred in the US. 

So what is the legacy of fracking in the US? And is Gasland a fair account of the environmental and human impacts of this industry?

The following map gives a representation of shale gas basins in the US:

The main production zones so far have been in the Marcellus shale in the north east and the Barnett shale in the south. But as the map shows, production has been expanding. 

To get an impression of the impacts fracking can have, we have to look at the process in more detail, based on data provided by the Tyndall report.

The resources required by a typical well will vary. But a large quantity of water is required by the process: 'Each stage in a multi-stage fracturing operation requires around 1,100-2,200m3 of water, so that the entire multi-stage fracturing operation for a single well requires around 9,000-29,000m3 (9-29 megalitres) of water and, with chemical additives of up to 2% by volume, around 180-580m3 of chemical additives (or 180-580 tonnes based on relative density of one).

'For all fracturing operations carried out on a six well pad, a total of 54,000-174,000m3 (54-174megalitres) of water would be required for a first hydraulic fracturing procedure and some 1,000-3,500m3 of chemicals (or 1,000-3,500tonnes based on relative density of one).' 

The effectiveness of the process will depend on water availability and this may involve some transportation by truck. Certainly the chemicals will have to be brought on site. These will be mixed on site to produce the fracking fluid.

Once the initial fracking process has been completed, the fluid will return to the surface as 'flowback'. The amount recovered can vary. According the US EPA 'estimates of the fluids recovered range from 15‐80% of the volume injected depending on the site'.

This means that 'each well on a multi-well pad will generate between 1,300 – 23,000m3 of flowback waste fluid containing water, fracturing chemicals and subsurface contaminants mobilized during the process, including toxic organic compounds, heavy metals and naturally occurring radioactive materials (NORMs). Similarly, any flowback fluid that is not recovered remains underground where there is concern that it is, or may become, a source of contamination to other formations including aquifers. Volumes remaining underground are equivalent to the inverse of volumes recovered, i.e. 1,300–23,000m3/well.'

Given the high volumes of flowback involved this will have to be stored on-site in pits and storage tanks: 'Water volume for a six well pad is suggested to be 7,900 to 138,000m3/pad for a single fracturing operation, with fracturing chemicals and subsurface contaminants making up to 2% or 160-2,700m3. Approximately 60% of the total flowback occurs in the first four days after fracturing, continuing and tailing off over a period of two weeks or so.' 

Clearly there are significant environmental and health & safety issues associated with these operations. The Tyndall Report identifies the following key risks and impacts:

• contamination of groundwater by fracturing fluids/mobilised contaminants arising from:

  o wellbore/casing failure; and/or

  o subsurface migration;

• pollution of land and surface water (and potentially groundwater via surface route) arising from:

  o spillage of fracturing additives; and

  o spillage/tank rupture/storm water overflow from liquid waste  storage, lagoons/pits containing cuttings/drilling mud or flowback water;

• water consumption/abstraction;

• waste water treatment;

• land and landscape impacts;

• impacts arising during construction:

  o noise/light pollution during well drilling/completion;

  o flaring/venting; and

  o local traffic impacts.

The report also points out that 'US Federal law currently exempts the underground injection of fluids for hydraulic fracturing purposes from regulation, there is no information on the identity and concentration of substances in hydraulic fracturing formulations.'

However some chemicals are listed and of note here is the fact that EU regulations would be much stricter than the US, so there would be increased disclosure here in the UK for example. The reference point here would be the European chemical Substances Information System (ESIS).

  

Out of the cocktail of chemicals listed:

• 17 are classified as being toxic to aquatic organisms (acute and/or       chronic);

• 38 are classified as being acute toxins (human health);

• 8 are classified as known carcinogens (Carc. 1A=1, Carc. 1B = 7);

• 6 are classified as suspected carcinogens(Carc. 2 = 6);

• 7 are classified as mutagenic (Muta. 1B); and

• 5 are classified as having reproductive effects (Repr. 1B=2, Repr. 2=3).

'It is clear that the presence of a number of the substances in fracturing fluids may present cause for concern, particularly given the intended use and the volumes being used.'

'Altogether, the toxicity profile of the flowback fluid is likely to be of greater concern than that of the fracturing fluid itself, and is likely to be considered as hazardous waste in the UK. ...[this] would tend to suggest mobilisation and presence of elevated concentrations of:

• heavy metals (of varying types);

• radioactivity and NORMs;

• total dissolved solids; and

• perhaps, hydrocarbons including benzenes (unclear whether this represents mobilised hydrocarbons or fracturing additives).'

The Tyndall report reproduces a list of chemicals in Annex 1 at the end of the report.

Pollution pathways are described in this diagram:

Groundwater contamination is another area of concern and clearly constitutes a possible pollution risk. The possible causes of contamination are: 

• catastrophic failure or full/partial loss of integrity of the wellbore (during construction, hydraulic fracturing, production or after decommissioning); and

• migration of contaminants from the target fracture formation through subsurface pathways including:

   o the outside of the wellbore itself;

   o other wellbores (such as incomplete, poorly constructed, or

      older/poorly plugged wellbores);

   o fractures created during the hydraulic fracturing process; or

   o natural cracks, fissures and interconnected pore spaces.

'Owing to its importance as both a source of drinking water and as source for rivers and wetlands, preventing its pollution is vital. If it becomes contaminated and pollution runs deep it can lead to long-term deterioration.'

Gas migration is another contamination factor and there have been several documented cases of this happening in the US. Riverkeeper has be monitoring the situation in the Marcelus shale region of the US. 

The Tyndal report concludes: 'Given that the development of shale gas requires the construction of multiple wells/well pads, the probability of an adverse event leading to contamination increases accordingly. As such, the likelihood of pollution incidents associated with wider development of shale increase from the ‘possible’ end of the spectrum at the level of a well pad through to the ‘probable’ as the number of wells and pads increases.'

Given the above situation in the US, the EPA has responded by initiating a comprehensive research study into the fracking industry. The results should be known by the end of this year (2012).

In addition, the EPA has also made available an ‘Eyes on Drilling’ Tipline for citizens to report non-emergency suspicious activity related to oil and natural gas development.

From a UK perspective, 'In England and Wales groundwater provides a third of drinking water on average and also maintains the flow of many rivers. In parts of Southern England, groundwater supplies up to 80% of needs. Owing to its importance as both a source of drinking water and as source for rivers and wetlands, preventing its contamination is vital.'

Additional impacts from development include:

• noise pollution;

• landscape impacts; and

• traffic and road damage.

These issues are likely be very contentious in a densely populated country such as the UK.

A major contention surrounding fracking is the potential greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from operations. Although there is limited data in so far as life-cycle GHG emissions are concerned, the Tyndall report does offer an approximate analysis and data from available information, which I won't go into in detail here. But from the perspective of cumulative global emissions - assuming high production and recovery - the figure given could be as high as 16 parts/million CO2 over the next 40 years, based on current data. This could rise though as there are possible hidden emissions. GHG data on chemical processing is unknown and fugitive emissions (gas escaping from wells) may rise.

Proponents of shale gas production argue that gas has lower GHG emissions than coal and that it could fill the gap left by diminishing conventional sources of gas. The Tyndall Report has this to say: 'Shale gas is promoted as a transition fuel offering security of supply and low carbon electricity when combusted in efficient CCGT power stations. It has been argued that the substitution of coal for shale gas in the production of grid electricity will assist in meeting emissions reductions targets. Gas fired power stations typically have a lifespan of over 25 years. Were a new round of stations to be completed in the next ten years they would become “stranded assets” or require expensive retro fitting with as yet untested carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology.'

In so far as implementing CCS to reduce emissions: 'CCS will always add costs to electricity production as it reduces the efficiency of the power station and requires additional energy input in transportation and injection of the captured carbon dioxide. CCS therefore increases the net quantity of upstream emissions of gas or coal production. Reduced efficiency means that greater quantities of fuel must be used for equal electricity output, multiplying emissions over and above those from fuel combustion. For unconventional gas these have the potential to be significant if mitigation is not in place.'

In plain English, shale gas is not a substitute for renewable's and it's a fiction to suggest that new 'dash for gas' will help us on our way to a low carbon economy.       

The UK perspective
The most 'promising' reserves of shale gas are located in north west England where the Bowland shale formation is located. 

Caudrilla Resources have been drilling exploratory wells in this area and fracking has taken place at one location.

According to Caudrilla, there are 5660bcm (billion cubic metres) of potential reserves. Working on the assumption that 20% recovery is possible, this amounts to 1132bcm. These figures may change in the future.

Greenpark Energy has been given permission by SEPA (Scottish Environmental Protection Agency) to commence fracking at a site near Canonbie in Dumfries & Galloway.

Dart Energy has 32 licences to explore various locations around the UK. The most advanced project is based near Airth, East of Stirling in Central Scotland.

In the Caudrilla Resources license area it is estimated that about 800 wells may need to be developed in order to exploit fully the shale gas reserves available. The setup will consist of 80 well pads of 10 wells per pad.

In a UK national context in order to achieve meaningful production (about 10% market share) up to 3000 wells may need to be developed. 

In so far as water and chemical use is concerned, activities so far suggest concentrations and volumes are lower than US typical values. Whether this will be a consistent pattern remains to be seen.

As for GHG emissions, these could represent as much as 15% total GHG UK emissions: 'The role of shale gas exploitation in the UK has potential ramifications for world energy markets. While it is possible that shale gas could substitute for coal, within the UK, this could be counteracted by global use of coal and shale gas. If shale gas resulted in no additional emissions in the UK, (e.g. it substituted for imported gas), in an energy-hungry world any gas not imported to the UK will likely be available at a lower cost to be used elsewhere, with an associated increase in global emissions. World demand for fossil fuels remains high and is projected to increase further in the absence of binding international agreements to limit greenhouse gas emissions. Based on the these projections any new sources of fossil fuel, even if relatively low carbon per unit of useful energy, are likely to be combusted and consequently add to the global emissions burden.'

The Tyndall report also highlights that a 'substantial move to exploit shale gas reserves could attract investment that might otherwise go to renewable energy. The House of Commons Energy and Climate Change Committee (2011) concluded that “shale gas has the potential to shift the balance in the energy markets that the Department has tried to create away from low carbon electricity generation”.'

There is of course the prevailing naive expectation that CCS will provide the magic bullet in terms of GHG reductions. But the available evidence shows that large scale CCS is about 30 years away. And as I discussed above there are drawbacks in terms of increased fuel consumption.

Earthquake!
The incidence of seismic events in relation to fracking activities has been given a great deal of exposure recently. But as this article in Scientific American details, you can get seismic activities with any underground activity that involves injection of fluids. That includes some conventional oil and gas wells as well as fracking.

In the UK, drilling near Blckpool was halted by Caudrilla Resources for a period, following which the British Geological Survey (BGS) concluded there was essentially a link between fracking and earthquakes in the region.

However, as the Tyndall Report notes - in connection with the Blackpool incident - 'seismic events can be caused by hydraulic fracturing and, whilst these are unlikely to be of a sufficient magnitude to cause structural damage on the surface, structural damage to the wellbore itself (and in all likelihood other wellbores in the vicinity) is possible and has been documented in this case.

According to a statement from Charles Hendry (UK Energy Minister) on 2 November 2011, the UK Government will look at the [Caudrilla] report carefully with the assistance of independent experts and regulators before deciding whether hydraulic fracturing operations should resume.'

Regulatory Framework
The Tyndall report cites strong reservations regarding the UK (and EU) regulatory framework. Such a response from a normally cautious scientific community perhaps underlines the fact that regardless of how stringent regulations may be, fracking by its very nature is a risky venture. 

According to DECC 'UK regulation is “well-designed with clear lines of responsibility among several different bodies including DECC, the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), the respective Environment Agency, and Local Planning Authority” and that the UK has a “robust regime which is fit for purpose” and will ensure that unconventional gas operations are carried out in a “safe and environmentally sound manner”.'

Groundwater protection is covered by the EU Water Framework Directive (WFD) and Groundwater Directives.

The Tyndall Report summarises that 'In the UK: The Environment Agency’s (EA) intention is not to routinely require an environmental permit, suggesting that shale gas operations do not constitute groundwater activity. Only ‘normal’ operations are considered when determining whether to require an environmental permit. ‘Abnormal’ operations such as from full or partial loss of well integrity are not considered in this decision. As such, regulation of these risks is via domestic health and safety regulation with regard to well construction and design. As this regulation does not include environmental risk in the consideration of what measures are justified to reduce risk “so far as is reasonably practicable”; the study finds that this set of regulation is inadequate and needs to be updated if it is to be used to control environmental risks in the place of an environmental permit. The current approach (which considers only health and safety risks avoided) is considered unlikely to provide the same level of construction and design standard as one that considers ALL of the risks avoided by proper well design and construction. As such, either well design and construction regulation needs to be updated if it is be used for this purpose, or all development should be covered by environmental permits to build in the additional controls. In a recent report on shale gas (IGEM, 2011), the Institution of Gas Engineers and Managers (IGEM) identifies that, for technologies such as horizontal directional drilling and hydraulic fracturing, there is a “distinct lack of standards for these processes”. It has recommended that “standards are needed within the UK and internationally to ensure the consistency of safety measures and to guarantee that environmentally damaging or dangerous practices such as have been recorded in the US do not occur within the UK”.

In the EU: The experience of the UK suggests that, for control of environmental risks from ‘abnormal’ operations, domestic regulation on well design and construction may be used instead of permitting under the Groundwater Directive. As there is no harmonised regulation on well design and construction in the EU, any Member State doing the same will be relying on its domestic regulation. This means that the risks associated with abnormal operations, such as from full or partial loss of well integrity, may not be consistently controlled across Europe and may rely on procedures and regulations operating in the Member State concerned, where these may or may not offer an adequate standard of risk control.'

As for chemicals used in the fracking process, these are controlled by the European Chemicals and Health Agency (ECHA) under the REACH (Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and restriction of Chemicals) Regulations. The European Commission states that 'shale gas operators are not allowed to use a substance which does not fulfil REACH requirements in their activities. Shale gas operators must in any case comply with requirements applicable to downstream users under Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 on REACH. Should they fail to comply with such requirements, they would face penalties for non-compliance from Member State enforcement authorities.' The EC also notes that 'it is up to Member State enforcement authorities to ensure that shale gas exploration and exploitation projects fully comply with REACH requirements and subject operators to penalties in case of non-compliance. The Commission has not been informed so far of cases of non-compliance by shale gas operators.'

Again though, it is a question of whether individual member states regulations can provide the necessary framework that will cover fracking processes. Certainly the EC has it's own reservations on how the EU as a whole can respond to this rapidly emerging industry.

As the Tydall Report concludes: '...in the EU, control of risks and impacts may be delegated to Member State domestic regulation, interpretation and enforcement – a situation that is not dissimilar to that which is blamed for many of the problems in the US.'

Back to the future
So far in this article I've focused mainly on the information contained within the Tyndall Report, which is perhaps the most comprehensive scientific study of the shale gas industry available and is certainly essential reading for anyone wishing to avail themselves of the subject matter.

But the issues surrounding this controversial industry are widespread  and there is a lot of information and mis-information out there.

I asked the question at the beginning of this article whether the film Gasland is a fair reflection of what is happening in the US.    

My overall conclusion would be that the film is telling a story of real issues. Issues and problems that have happened and have been reported and recorded and which have finally persuaded the EPA to conduct an investigation into fracking.

In the next section: a report by DeSmogBlog Fracking the Future: How Unconventional Gas Threatens Our Water, Health and Climate tells the wider story of how political and economic manipulation by corrupt politicians and corporate lobbyists succeeded in holding America to ransom.

Next>