The document provides an overview of shale gas development in the United States and discusses whether Poland is ready for large-scale shale gas extraction. It notes that shale gas development requires thousands of wells and industrializes rural landscapes. Concerns discussed include the potential impacts of fracking on water usage, water quality, air quality, and human health. While shale gas may provide some economic benefits and jobs, these are exaggerated and boom-bust in nature. The document questions whether shale gas development is appropriate for Poland given the environmental and health impacts experienced in the United States.

1. 11/5/12
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
1

2. 11/5/12
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
2

3. 11/5/12
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
3

4. 11/5/12
7
Source:
Prof.
Rien
Herber,
former
vice
president
of
ExploraNon
Europe
at
Shell.
Source:
WorldOil.com
8
4

5. 11/5/12
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
5

6. 11/5/12
hTp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPfGoNvsqt0
Source:
EIA
video
–
CumulaKve
drilling
in
Pennsylvania
11
Source:
Pennsylvania
Department
of
ConservaKon
of
Natural
Resources
12
6

7. 11/5/12
texas
Source:
IEA
2012,
Golden
rules
13
Moving
to
environmental
impacts
CumulaNve
impacts
14
7

8. 11/5/12
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
8

9. 11/5/12
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
9

10. 11/5/12
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
10

11. 11/5/12
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

12. 11/5/12
Source:
Rumbach
(2012)
23
Source:
Food
&
Water
Watch
24
12

13. 11/5/12
Source:
Nature
Conservancy
(2011)
25
Source:
Nature
Conservancy
26
13

14. 11/5/12
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
14

15. 11/5/12
29
Source:
Rumbach,
2012
30
15

16. 11/5/12
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:
gdecock@fweurope.org
&
pbarczak@fweurope.org
• Tel:
0032
/(0)2/893.10.18
hTp://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/europe/fracking/
32
16