Untitled - STOP HF
Transkript
Untitled - STOP HF
Shale gas Energy hope or dirty business? Shale Foreword The end of the year 2011 was marked by activities related to the issue of shale gas not only in the Czech Republic. The Commi>ee on Environment, Public Health and Food Safety of the European Parliament (ENVI) also started to deal with this topic. The group GUE/NGL was one of the first to realize what risks hydraulic fracturing of shale layers represents for the environment and for our health. Together with other colleagues from GUE/NGL, I was somewhat skeptical of the euphoria of proponents of this natural gas source that in their eyes constituted an assurance of energy independence for many European countries, and we were rather startled to see how uncritical the report submi>ed by Bogusław Sonik was. Although he is a member of ENVI, his report came across clearly as pro-drilling. The shadow rapporteur of GUE/NGL Sabine Wils therefore teamed up with other colleagues that were opposed to shale gas extraction and together they began a long process, at the end of which the Sonik report was noticeably more acceptable. Many of the high quality amendments were unfortunately not accepted, but such is life. Another commi>ee of the European Parliament that dealt with the shale gas extraction issue was the Commi>ee on Industry, Research and Energy (ITRE). Strong pressure from the shale gas lobby was rightfully expected there. Despite a brave fight of the shadow rapporteur of GUE/NGL Marisa Matias and other environmentally minded Members of the European Parliament we didn’t manage to correct the unfavorable report penned by Niki Tzavela too much. At the plenary session of the European Parliament on the 20th of November 2012 both reports were discussed jointly. During the discussion, colleagues from GUE/NGL Miloslav Ransdorf, Marisa Matias, Sabine Wils and Martina Anderson took the floor. They warned against shortsighted actions of drilling companies focused on the creation of immediate profit and against armies of their lobbyists that had flooded the European Parliament. They also brought forward the risks that hydraulic fracturing poses to the environment and the differences in geological conditions between Europe and the U.S., the U.S. being used by the drilling companies as a role model. They also reminded the MEPs of the long-term unsustainability of shale gas drilling in the U.S., proven by studies, and enormous demands of the method on water resources, the reserves of which will most likely decrease in the coming years. Both reports were voted on in the plenary of the European Parliament the next day. The Sonik report as a fair compromise, the Tzavela report unfortunately not very favorable. However GUE/NGL will not give up on its efforts, because time 3 has already shown that salvation by shale gas is a mere chimera. Even the Polish already understood that shale gas will definitely not free them from independence on the importation of natural gas. Although energy security is one of the most important issues, it is not something that we should struggle for at all costs. As a physician, I realize very well the risks of using carcinogenic and mutagenic substances during hydraulic fracturing. Their leakage for example into groundwater would have dire consequences both for the environment and for the health of the people living in the affected areas. I’m glad that I had the honor to become the first Czech member of the European Parliament to support the Coalition STOP HF. I appreciate immensely the efforts of its members who face a tough opponent and who are defending the interests of all of us. We can only hope that this ba>le between David and Goliath will be our triumph and that we will be able to breathe a sigh of relief. This booklet was published jointly with the Coalition and hopefully it will also help. MUDr. Jiří Maštálka, member of the European Parliament, GUE/NGL The Commi0ee on Environment, Public Health and Food Safety 4 SUMMARY 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 2. Principles of the method and its consequences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 2.1. Research and geophysical survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 2.2. Exploration, drilling platform . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 2.3. Vertical well . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 2.4. Horizontal well . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 2.5. Hydraulic fracturing (fracking) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 2.6. Composition of the fracking fluid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 2.7. Quantities of chemicals needed for one hydraulic fracturing . . . 16 2.8. Flowback water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 2.9. Flare – burning of excess gas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 2.10. Well yield . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 2.11. Repeated fracking of the horizontal well (re-fracking) . . . . . . . 19 2.12. Main damage caused by hydraulic fracturing in the U.S. . . . . . 20 2.12.1. Contamination of drinking water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 2.12.2. Contamination of air, smog situation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 2.12.3. Accidents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 2.12.4. Leakage of wells . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 2.12.5. Earthquakes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 2.12.6. Other impacts on the environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 3. Geology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 4. Environmental impacts – thirteen points . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 5. Climate change context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 6. Economics (yield analysis, social aspects, jobs) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 7. Political context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 8. An example of experiences of mayors in the Czech Republic . . . . . . 51 9. Legislative situation in the Czech Republic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 5 10. Propaganda methods of the hydraulic fracturing lobby . . . . . . . . . . 53 11. Experiences of the civic sector from 17 EU countries . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 12. Role of the EU . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 13. Protection of the public interest vs. drilling for mineral resources . . 57 14. Ecological footprint, change of the tax system, damage prevention 58 15. Vision to the rescue – society without growth and oil . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 16. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 17. List of resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 18. List of abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 6 1. Introduction In the last two years (since 2009 in Poland), the method of hydraulic fracturing (hereinaEer referred to as “HF ”) of shale and of other rocks, in conjunction with horizontal drilling, to obtain shale gas (SG), began to spread gradually within the individual EU countries, especially with the help of companies with the know-how and technology from the U.S. The objective of this booklet is to familiarize the reader not only with the essence of the method, its risks, the economics of shale gas exploration and extraction, but also to illuminate the geopolitical background, legislative issues and consequences of the method on climate change, as well as to point out the misleading propaganda of the drilling companies in the HF lobby (the HFL). We will try to illuminate the dishonest practices of drilling companies that they used to manipulate public opinion, politicians and the public administration in the Czech Republic. We will also touch on the role of the European Commission and of the European Parliament. Finally, we will briefly discuss values – whether the need to extract energy resources is absolutely superior to the interests of local groups or to the protection of public interest – in particular the protection of drinking water. We will try to put the shale gas bubble into the context of dependence of the civilization on fossil fuels in contrast with the ongoing global changes of the planet and try to outline possible solutions. Hydraulic fracturing is a textbook example of a conflict between private activities with extreme risks, where the profit motive of the private sector conflicts with the public interest, including the basic human rights of people for a healthy environment and for health, as defined by international agreements. The freedom of one side to destroy the environment is interfering with the freedom of the other side to require clean environment as the basic human need number one. The booklet does not aFempt to describe the nature and problems of the method of hydraulic fracturing scientifically. It is rather an aFempt to counter the fictions created by the media that are custom made by the hydraulic fracturing lobby in every country, including the Czech Republic. 7 2. Principles of the method and its consequences It should be observed that the principle of the method of hydraulic fracturing is not new; it was allegedly invented in Russia. But claiming that it had been used for decades can be misleading, because the modern version of hydraulic fracturing for shale gas depends on technologies developed only recently. It consists in the opening of existing fractures in the mother rock, and especially in the creation of new fractures, by the pressure of a fluid pumped into the rocks – but originally only vertical wells were being drilled. The method is also used on a small scale to stimulate the recovery of conventional natural gas wells. Eventually the method was and is being used on a different scale for hydrothermal purposes and hydrological surveys, including stimulation of conventional resources in vertical wells. Mr. Leo Eisner, Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, president of the company Seismik, about the Czech Republic: “The method had been used for decades here and nobody cared”. This is a classic example of manipulation: the method used decades ago didn’t include horizontal wells, the pressures were much lower and the harsh chemicals were absent, although sometimes diesel was used. The contamination was limited to one spot, with zero monitoring, which is a technical problem even today. What is new in the method of hydraulic fracturing is the integration of several technological processes into one whole and its use for sparsely scaFered gas in shale that was unthinkable to extract even 20 years ago. As an auxiliary method, it is being used also for coal bed methane (CBM) or coal seam gas (CSG) extraction, and eventually for natural gas from so called “tight gas”. We should note right here that some of the companies (OMV for example) deny using fracking for tight gas extraction, but in reality fracking for tight gas is common. The novelty of the current hydraulic fracturing method consists in the integration of the revolutionary technology of horizontal wells (that can be hundreds of meters long) with the pumping of a fluid containing sand (it keeps the fractures open aEer the flow back water is pumped out) and chemical additives under pressure far greater than ever before. 8 Logistics of the well and hydraulic fracturing. 2.1. Research and geophysical survey Before the drilling itself, an area for potential exploration is chosen based on previous drilling and exploration work, literature research and so on. The chosen exploration area is further examined in the field via the so-called 2D non-destructive method. A network of sonars is placed in the studied area to record artificially induced ground waves generated either by using special heavy vehicles with hammers or, for 3D survey, by explosive charges in shallow vertical boreholes. Geophysical modeling displays a spatial model of the examined area with the rock structures, thanks to which potential gas sources are forecasted. Geophysical surveying using heavy equipment with hammers is presented as completely harmless [1]. This is not the case. As an example we can mention the village of Rogów in eastern Poland, where vibrations generated by this heavy machinery too close to inhabited areas caused both the distortion of the statics of the houses (visible cracks) and the loss of drinking water for several months because of turbidity, because the villagers without a public water supply depend only on wells from shallow circulation. 9 The company performing the shale gas exploration in Rogów, Geofizyka Toruń, denied any allegations, nevertheless it helped some of the plaintiffs to drill new water wells. Scientific commiFee of the Coalition STOP HF: 2D survey in tectonically sensitive areas (Exploration area Trutnovsko) and areas with landslides (Exploration area Valašsko) cannot be recommended. 2.2. Exploration, drilling platform Before the drilling can start, the area for a drilling rig has to be leveled, including access roads. This fact, ignored by drilling companies (when they talk about one well and one drilling rig), raises several problems that are partly temporary, partly for decades: land degradation, change of the water regime, forest and agricultural land grab and all of this on an area of up to 3 hectares per one platform. The main problem is the number of platforms. The extraction process needs hundreds and sometimes thousands of wells. The density of drilling rigs can be up to six per km2, sometimes even more. In Alberta, where natural gas is being extracted from sand, a platform (although smaller) can be found every 100 m! Aerial view of unconventional drilling, Wyoming 10 2.3 Vertical well Exploration of shale gas and other resources by the method of hydraulic fracturing begins the same way as the exploration of conventional oil and gas – by a deep borehole in the vertical direction. At this stage there is no difference between the exploration of conventional and of unconventional resources. Inclined borehole Rabensburg W4, Austria heading to the depth of 2800 m toward the border with Moravia. It should be noted that vertical wells are usually not exactly upright, but they are intentionally kept at an angle, until they reach the shale layers (in the case of shale gas). The layers are located sometimes at a depth of several km, sometimes at a depth of hundreds of meters (BarneF – 700m). The inclination of the borehole can sometimes be substantial (for example Rabensburg W4 in the picture – 51 degrees). In soEer rock, it takes approximately 15 days for the crew to reach 2 kilometers. In order to protect aquifers, an effort is made to seal approximately the first 300 m (cementing, steel tubing). The drilling of the first 300 m takes approximately one week, the cementing 2 days. Inclined boreholes are the least tight of all types of boreholes. The wells leak not only due to microscopic cracks caused by fracking, but also due to faults in cementing and due to pressures caused by gas and fracking fluid around the borehole (in the microscopic space between the rocks and the surface of the borehole the gas or fluid under pressure creates small channels, before the cement has the chance to harden) and due to the aging of materials in the borehole. 11 Vertical wells tend to be inclined for several reasons, the main of which is to reach under populated areas and to beFer position the borehole to reach the target layers. Hydraulic fracking is sometimes used for shale exploration already in the vertical well, in order to test the fissionability and yield of individual layers of target minerals that the vertical borehole had pierced. To determine thecharacteristics of the rock, its porosity, gas content, etc., another powerful exploration tool is routinely used – a deep probe that is placed behind the drilling head in the course of drilling both the vertical and of the horizontal well. The use of the probe helps to explore the rocks and to correct the borehole direction. All of the data from these probes is processed in real time in a control center. The probing uses radioactive substances such as Am-241, Cs-137 and Be to generate a beam of Radioactive container neutrons. The activity of the probe underground has probably no major negative impacts on the environment. However, a possible loss of the radioactive component during transportation (as happened in the U.S.) may lead, depending on the extent of exposition during a direct contact, even to the death of the irradiated person. For transportation, yellow containers, labeled with the radioactive sign and indication of the level of radiation, are being used (see photo Rabensburg W 4, Austria – degree III, therefore the highest safety hazard). The container weighs several tons. 2.4. Horizontal well Once the suitable shale layer is reached through the vertical well, the drilling head is exchanged and the direction of the well gradually changes to the horizontal position, where the target for fracking is located. Horizontal wells can be sometimes 3 km long. Even in Europe there are companies that are able to drill such long wells (for example the German 12 company DrillTec). For higher yield from one drilling rig, sometimes several horizontal wells are drilled mostly in the shape of a folding fan, with the aim to crush the maximum amount of rock underground. Horizontal drilling is a major novelty, compared to conventional oil or gas resources, due to the scale of the affected area. Large areas are affected, both on the surface, but especially underground, where in order to maximize the production of gas from rock, as much mother rock as possible is fracked, the gas being scaFered relatively scarcely (as opposed to conventional resources). Several horizontal wells are sometimes drilled from one vertical well; sometimes several vertical wells are drilled from one platform. AEer the removal of the horizontal drilling head, cartridges with explosives are inserted in the horizontal part of the well. The explosions break the shale vertically up to a distance of several decimeters from the drilling hole (in approximately 7 to 9 sections). The explosions cause miniature earthquakes that have a negligible effect on the surface, but can cause damage to the underground part of the well and its integrity. Then the phase of hydraulic fracturing itself begins. 2.5. Hydraulic fracturing (fracking) Fracturing operation on top of Colorado’s Roan Plateau According to the EPA, from 7 to 15 thousand m3 of water is needed for one fracking. On average it is 11,500 m3 of water. To break the rock, dozens of compressors are joined together and a fluid is injected in the well under pressure of up to 100 MPa sometimes for weeks at a time (which oEen creates smog situations). 13 Recently, microseismic monitoring that allows for the control of the fracking process in real time was deployed on a fraction of wells. The problem is that if existing tectonic faults are reached, monitoring doesn’t record the leakage of fracking fluid into the surrounding area, because the fault being older, it doesn’t have to widen under pressure, it becomes merely a route for the fracking fluid to migrate uncontrollably. Microseismic monitoring is therefore not a fail proof safeguard against contamination. 2.6. Composition of the fracking fluid “...basically the types of substances used are the same substances that we use every day, such as dish soap. All of us rinse our hands in them.” Quote from Ing. Benada, a proponent of drilling, advisor to Cuadrilla Moravia s.r.o. (Newspaper: Mladá fronta DNES, 1. 2. 2012, Section: Olomoucký kraj, Page: 1, Author: Daniela Čunková) Composition of the hydraulic fracturing fluid that was supposed to be used for fracking in the area with reservoirs of baby water in the Broumovsko region by the company HuFon Energy. Spokesperson Anna Maio referred us to the company website to prove that the mixture is harmless. The picture above (except for the “poison” sign) was found in the section “water protection”. For example, glutaraldehyde is toxic and there is no “safe” level of exposure. It can’t be sold in the U.S. off the shelf. Formamide is a carcinogen; it doesn’t lose its harmful properties even if diluted! 14 In the past, even diesel was used for fracking of for example coal seams. For a long time U.S. companies were keeping the composition of the fracking fluid secret, supposedly to protect commercial interests. Today they are forced to release the mixture composition and report it in a database. The specific contents of the fracking fluid depends on the type of rock that can vary from one location to another. An efficient fracking mixture with a very dangerous composition was developed in the U.S. The chemicals fulfill several functions at a time with the aim of maximizing the yield. The mixture has to have biocidal effects so that pipes and fissures are protected against bacteria. It is also desirable that the mixture has anti-corrosion effects to protect the metal structures (fiFings of the well). But mainly the fracking mixture must be greasy. This ensures that all surfaces that come into contact with the fluid are lubricated, which improves the release of the gas from the mother rock. That’s why it is currently necessary to use compounds based on oil (benzene, toluene). Furthermore, the fracking fluid contains weak acids that corrode the rock to increase its permeability and the release of gas. The use of acids (nitric acid, hydrochloric acid) causes a serious side effect. It enriches the fracking fluid underground with heavy metals that leach from the mother rock, in particular Cadmium (Cd) and other highly toxic elements. In order to limit the most egregious offenses against the environment, many companies are trying to develop fracking mixtures that do not use water. The company Gas-Frac uses a gel based on propane. Halliburton is testing fluids that do not contain biocides. Expansion Energy is trying to develop a technology that would use natural gas itself for fracking. What all of these technologies have in common is the fact that they are still not mature for mass application and that they seem expensive. Furthermore they may have their own security risks (explosiveness of propane, etc.). The main components of fracking fluids are: water and sand (approx. 99%) and chemicals (approx. 1%, in Lieben in Poland 2.7%). It has been reported that the rock is broken in this way up to a distance of 100 m from the horizontal well. The function of sand and of ceramic proppant is to enter the new cracks in the rock and to stop them from closing aEer the fracking fluid is pumped back. If the fracturing area overlaps with a tectonic fault (some faults can´t be detected from the surface) it can result in uncontrolled leakage of the fracking fluid for up to hundreds of meters from the fracking zone. 15 In the U.S., there are approximately 750 chemicals and other substances in 2500 types of fracking fluids. 342 cases: methanol 274 cases: isopropyl alcohol 126 cases: 2-butoxyethanol 119 cases: ethylene glycol Other: hydrochloric acid, toluene, benzene or lead. 29 substances found in 650 products were either carcinogenic or otherwise unsafe. [2] 2.7. Quantities of chemicals needed for one hydraulic fracturing Ing. Stanislav Benada made this misleading statement on the 1st of February 2012: “Regarding the chemicals used, the quantities are minimal. For two hundred cubic meters of water we add half of a percent of chemicals.” hFp://olomouc.idnes.cz/plan-tezit-plyn-z-bridlic-na-hranicku-se-lidemnelibi-boji-se-o-vodu-105-/olomouc-zpravy.aspx? c=A120201_1726075_olomouc-zpravy_stk This statement makes it seem that only kilograms of chemicals are used for one hydraulic fracturing. But given an average requirement of 14 million liters of water per fracking, this “negligible ” 0.5% of chemicals emphasized over and over in the media represents 70 tons of chemicals for one fracking! The hydraulic fracturing lobby tries from the outset to evoke through clever graphical rendering and percentages of additives (the magical 0.49%) the negligibility of chemical compounds. So in order to make the quantities easier to imagine we converted the volume of chemicals to the carrying capacity of the famous tank container truck V3S: the amount of chemicals would fill 16 trucks. That’s why on the historically first demonstration against hydraulic fracturing in the Czech Republic that was held on the 6th of March 2012 in Náchod we brought one V3S truck with a number 16. 16 The hydraulic fracturing lobby in the Czech Republic wasn’t ready for the fact that in the rapidly growing scientific council of the Coalition STOP HF we would also have experts in chemistry and Ing. Benada thus sent us a signal of his incompetence (based on a phone call and email contact we realized that he was calculating only the volume of the vertical well, not the volume of the whole fracking area). The same mistake being repeated by other lobby representatives, we realized how interconnected the proponents of fracking are. When Mr. Eisner spoke at the Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, he also mentioned that the quantities of chemicals are limited to kilograms per well. Confronted by the scientific council of the Coalition STOP HF, in his speech to CEP (Center for Economics and Politics) later that day (which he aFended together with Ing. Benada and with Mr. Králíček, the advisor to the Minister of the Environment), he corrected the estimate to a higher number, still erroneous, which he mentioned also to the newspaper IDNES: “For one well, the quantity of potentially harmful chemicals used is approximately 2.5 tons ”. hFp://technet.idnes.cz/bridlicovy-plyn-v-cr-0l6/veda.aspx?c=A121114_151747_veda_mla But most importantly: The Czech Republic doesn’t have enough water so that it can afford to degrade it. Example: the water-retaining dam “Rozkoš” is the 8th largest dam in the Czech Republic. The maximum size of the surface is 1001 hectares, the volume 76,154,000 m³. This volume would be sufficient for only 6923 frackings. It would also be contaminated by the 0.5 percent of chemicals, in this case 484,610 tons, not counting the possible contamination by radioactive compounds underground. We use the same numbers as the drillers do. Only RNDr. Dvořáková (we will present her later), while speaking at the Academy of Sciences, forgot to explain to listeners that for profitable drilling, thousands of wells are needed. Then the comparison of water consumption between one golf course and one hydraulic fracturing is somewhat misleading. 2.8. Flowback water For the release of gas, the fracking fluid needs to be pumped back to the surface. Because of the acids contained in the fluid, toxic heavy metals leech into the water from the mother rock. Another problem of flowback water is that it contains the added chemicals. One of the main problems of the 17 whole method is also the fact that flowback water oEen contains radioactive substances that are very common in the rocks that carry oil and gas, especially in the Czech Republic. This creates radioactive waste. [3] Usually about 20 – 80% of the fracking fluid is pumped back to the surface. With thousands of wells it is such an immense volume of toxic water that in practice it’s almost impossible to treat. The companies are therefore trying to recycle the fluid. Sometimes they also inject the water back into old wells, even in groundwater areas. The EPA justifies the permits by saying that the recovery of that water would be so technically challenging that it would not be worth it to use that water in the future… A definite and considerable volume of “unwanted” gas is burned (flared) both during the exploration and the extraction phase. The size of the flames can range from a meter to even dozens of meters. For example the flare in Hohenau in the picture burned during the exploration of supposedly conventional gas 300 m from a village and the flames reached 10 m in height (all of this in an area protected by the Ramsar convention). The hydraulic fracturing lobby prefers not to speak about flares. If they do, they mention one flare per platform per well. Flares in the U.S. burn for weeks, months, years. The flames can reach a height up to 30 m. The satellite image of extraction areas can be seen below. The effect of thousands of burning flares in the shale formation Bakken in North Dakota is noticeable from space and is comparable to the lights of a city with millions of people. The effects on the quality of air and on the climate are drastic. It is reported that up to 9% of gas from a drilling field leaks into the atmosphere; the total carbon footprint (the calculations not including emissions from transportation, leveling of the terrain, etc.) can be worse than that of coal. 2.9. Flare – burning of excess gas 18 2.10. Well yield Unlike with conventional gas deposits, where the well yield is practically constant for a long period, even dozens of years, the yield of shale gas wells decreases very rapidly (on the order of several months, or a couple of years). The rapid decrease in yield is the crucial drawback of this method. The yield decreases by 64% per year on average, which in practice means that in 2 years the well is approximately 80% empty and to keep up with production other wells are necessary. And this is another essential and important problem that pushes drilling companies into conflict with water resources and the population, because this method with all its consequences has to be used on large-scale areas by definition. Another problem is that only 1-3 percent of wells in the U.S. are truly profitable. 2.11. Repeated fracking of the horizontal well (re-fracking) Re-fracking is an interesting issue. On one hand, the drilling companies tend to overstate the numbers and frequencies of re-fracking jobs, since overstatement of reserves has been shown to make their lives easier by opening the money ducts and persuading gullible politicians. Some oil and gas PR men claim that wells could be re-fracked as many as 18 times. The company Schlumberger writes in the paper “Refracturing works”: “There are about 200,000 unconventional gas wells in low-permeability sands, coalbed methane deposits and gas shales in the 48 contiguous states of the USA. At least 20%, or about 40,000 wells, could be potential restimulation candidates. “ [4] Even EPA assumed 19 that re-fracturing would occur 3.5 times on average, over the lifetime of unconventional natural gas wells [assumed to be 30 years(!)] and that up to 30% of wells could be re-fracked [5]. On the other hand, the economics of re-fracking is even worse than of fracking itself, because: – Re-fracking jobs cost about the same as the original fracking jobs; – Re-fracking usually does not produce anywhere near the output that the original fracking produced, and oEen does not yield a viable level of production; – Re-fracked wells decline in output faster than the original fracking job. In reality thus very few wells are being re-fracked (currently estimated at 1% as per API/ANGA survey data: hFp://www.epa.gov/climatechange/Downloads/ghgemissions/2012Worksh op/Gillis_Chesapeake.pdf) 2.12. Main damage caused by hydraulic fracturing in the U.S. Based on the information from U.S. news agencies, renowned journals and a list of environmental damage created in a European Parliament study entitled “Impacts of shale gas and shale oil extraction on the environment and on human health (6/2011), we’ve compiled a basic overview of proven environmental impacts of hydraulic fracturing in the U.S. and Canada. We used the map from the server earthjustice.org to demonstrate the scale of the accidents (the flags are mashed together; there are thousands of accidents). 2.12.1. Contamination of drinking water Study of the European Parliament “Impacts of shale gas and shale oil extraction on the environment and on human health“ [6]: “A subsequent study on ground water contamination identified that “there is a temporal trend of increasing methane in groundwater samples over the last 20 seven years that is coincident with the increased number of gas wells installed in the Mamm Creek Field. Predrilling values of methane in groundwater established natural background was less than 1 ppm, except in cases of biogenic methane that is confined to ponds and stream bo>oms. … The isotopic data for methane samples show that most samples with elevated methane are thermogenic in origin. Concurrent with the increasing methane concentration there has been an increase in groundwater wells with elevated chloride that can be correlated to the number of gas wells.” [Thyne 2008] Obviously, there is a clear correlation in space and time: Methane levels are higher in areas with a high density of wells and methane levels increased over time correlating with the increasing number of wells. A recent study from Duke University found that water close to shale gas wells not only contain 6 times more methane than is common, but in some cases contains ethane and propane, which is interesting, because there is no biological source of ethane and propane in the region. (hFp://ecowatch.com/2013/duke-study-gas-water-wells-marcellus-fracking/) In contrast to the above mentioned studies, a typical sound bite from the media goes in the following spirit: “Burning water from the faucet. Yes, you could light water in your kitchen faucet on fire, but your well would have to be drilled through a gas-bearing rock formation and improperly cemented and sealed against gas leaks. (The eternal flames in the Chestnut Ridge Park in New York are one of the examples of natural methane leaks.) But fracking zones are thousands of feet under the underground reservoirs of water; extraction wells use encapsulation by cementing that reaches hundreds of feet underground; sensitive instruments monitor the activity Thanks to YouTube, today unfortunately underground to make sure that the common footage from the U.S. precious gas doesn’t leak into formations closer to the surface or into the atmosphere.” (AC24, November 8,.2012, “Fracking fairy-tales”) 21 This is one of the most common lies of the hydraulic fracturing lobby. There are places in the U.S. where shale gas is extracted even from depths of only 700 m (BarneF), where in reality shale layers overlap with the water environment, which can result in a fast contamination of drinking and surface water. Some shale formations in the Czech Republic reach the surface or are parts of aquifers (Trutnovsko region). We quote RNDr. Vlastimila Dvořáková, a key contributor to the Czech Geological Survey studies for the Ministry of the Environment of the Czech Republic and at the same time president of AAPG for Europe (American Association of Petroleum Geologists: this function and membership is supposedly not in conflict with her role in government services, as stated by the director of Czech Geological Survey, RNDr. Venera) from her speech about the impacts of the hydraulic fracturing method on the environment. It is a transcript from her presentation at the Academy of Sciences on the 14th of November 2012 called “Unconventional gas – future or fiction in the Czech Republic”, from the 36th minute on, where she diverges from her own field of study towards ecology, chemistry and exploration, a field unfamiliar to her: “The method of hydraulic fracturing and impacts on the environment. Currently a problem in our country and the world, I wouldn’t call it a problem, however it is necessary to monitor all the work precisely, it is necessary to prevent the possible impacts on the environment. On the other hand it is necessary to state that all reputable studies, and I emphasize reputable agencies, such as EPA or DEP (note: in the U.S.), studies, that were led by independent experts, have proven no contamination as a result of hydraulic fracturing. Of course nowadays all over the world, and this also applies to us, there are other opinions presented, but they do not use and are not based on reality, but they take out of context parts of the reports mentioned and in the great majority they are used for manipulation of public opinion.” For the sake of completeness let’s add that RNDr. Dvořáková said on the Czech television program ČT 24 that if compliance with the technology is good, the hydraulic fracturing method is safe. But reality, not only in the U.S., is different. There is an increasing amount of evidence on the link between fracking and groundwater contamination that demonstrates that the hydraulic fracturing method is dangerous: – the peer-reviewed studies by Duke University (hFp://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/07/03/1121181109.abstract) 22 – a list of individual cases (hFp://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/amall/incidents_where_hydraulic_f rac.html) and industry documents confirming the challenge of “failed wells“ (hFp://www1.rollingstone.com/extras/theskyispink_annotdocgasl4final.pdf) – specific cases about groundwater contamination in Pavilion, Wyoming, where the EPA's draE report confirmed that its findings are “consistent with migration from areas of gas production“ (hFp://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/20ed1dfa1751192c85257359 00400c30/ef35bd26a80d6ce3852579600065c94e!OpenDocument). – the ongoing US EPA study on fracking and water in general (hFp://www2.epa.gov/hfstudy) Oil and gas regulators in Alberta also confirmed water contamination. The ERCB concluded: “Collectively, Crew [the well owner] and the onsite service company’s personnel did not adequately manage the risks associated with the coiled tubing perforating and propane hydraulic fracturing operations. There were multiple opportunities to recognize that a problem existed, which could have prevented or at least minimized the impact of the hydraulic fracturing operation above the base of groundwater protection.“ (hFp://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/amall/canadian_authorities_leaked_fr.html) Other Canadian scientists have compiled a “catalog” of contamination cases called “The science is deafening – industry´s gas migration”. It is a very informative read: hFp://www.frackingcanada.ca/industrys-gasmigration/ The energy industry claims there's no proof fracking hurts the environment, but it turns out they've made sure there's no proof by paying complainers in exchange for their silence. As Bloomberg reported on June 6, 2013 in the article “Drillers Silence Fracking Claims with Sealed SeFlements”: “In cases from Wyoming to Arkansas, Pennsylvania to Texas, drillers have agreed to cash se>lements or property buyouts with people who say hydraulic fracturing, also known as fracking, ruined their water, according to a review by Bloomberg News of hundreds of regulatory and legal filings. In most cases homeowners must agree to keep quiet. 23 The strategy keeps data from regulators, policymakers, the news media and health researchers, and makes it difficult to challenge the industry’s claim that fracking has never tainted anyone’s water.” (hFp://www.businessweek.com/news/2013-06-06/drillers-silence-u-dots-dot-water-complaints-with-sealed-seFlements#p1) In 2012, Mr. Aviezer Tucker from the University of Texas at Austin published an article entitled “Why Gazprom spreads myths about shale gas extraction” on the server “Czech position”, that said: “It is also necessary to analyze the chemical composition of water wells before hydraulic fracturing and aEerwards and to detect a possible impact. Such studies in the U.S. have found no signs of contamination.” As mentioned above, there are studies that found contamination. The institute where Mr. Tucker is employed is known especially by the fact that its member, the geologist Chip Groat, was publishing studies favoring shale gas extraction while at the same time receiving money from the industry. This study that tries to prove a negligible effect of hydraulic fracturing was used for public opinion manipulation in Eastern European countries, particularly in Romania. However the most important hazard is not methane contamination, but contamination by fracking fluids or backflow water during spills: European Parliament study [6]: “A detailed analysis was performed in 2008 for Garfield County, Colorado. The ‘Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission’ maintains records of reported spills from oil and gas activities. In the period from January 2003 to March 2008 a total of 1549 spills are referenced. [COGCC 2007; referenced in Wi>er 2008] Twenty percent of the spills involved water contamination. It is noteworthy that the number of spills was increasing. For instance, while five spills are reported in Garfiled County in the year 2003, 55 spills are reported in 2007.” And what does Mr. Eisner write on the server IDNES on November 28, 2012? “Over the 60 years’ history of hydraulic fracturing there is no single case in which the fracturing liquid leaked into drinking water and poisoned someone.” hFp://technet.idnes.cz/bridlicovy-plyn-v-cr-0l6 veda.aspx?c=A121114_151747_veda_mla 24 (the same man said a few months earlier about the situation in the Czech Republic: “In the sixties only one example of fracking fluid contamination of underground water from depths of more than one kilometer is known.” Source: his presentation in front of the environmental commission at the professional seminar “Environmental implications of shale gas extraction” on the 18th of June 2012 at the Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, slide 17). Let’s try to analyze the claims a liFle deeper: it is nothing more than a deliberate manipulation of data, concealment in the case of his article in IDNES. The first quotation from IDNES was used by Mr. Eisner to contradict the explanatory memorandum to our proposed law about contamination of water in the U.S. Mr. Eisner certainly can’t think that no contamination ever occurred. And as if by mistake he answered by experience in the Czech Republic (theoretically about the same method, but practically not, which is something he surely knows.) Laymen reading his statements might think: nothing’s wrong, an expert says so, greens from the street are making trouble again. Why did Mr. Eisner “make a mistake”? How about if Mr. Eisner is first and foremost an industry man whose company Seismik landed contracts with Cuadrilla Resources, as he himself admits? He claims on the IDNES server that he is co-owner of a consulting company Seismik that operates in the U.S., Persian Gulf countries and Great Britain. On the pro-shale gas server Natural Gas Europe he wrote on the 13th of February 2013 that as for his native Czech Republic, his company Seismik was almost famous there, before the Czech government declared a moratorium on hydraulic fracturing (to this day, the 24th of February 2013 the moratorium hasn’t been officially declared) and adds: “We’re sorry that the dialogue about this in the Czech Republic is not more factual and rational. There were three companies granted exploration licenses, but the Ministry of the Environment decided to declare a moratorium, saying shale gas needed a be>er legal framework. This means there will be no exploration in the Czech Republic for 2-3 years.” Maybe his sadness stems from the fact that the planned works in the region of Valašsko, where a sister company of the same company from which he received payment already at least once (?), will not proceed so easily? Let’s close this chapter by mentioning what RNDr. Dvořáková said in her speech at the Academy of Sciences: although a few slides earlier she show a typical compositional profile of shale on a typical sample from Marcellus shale that reaches just a few dozen meters underground, a couple 25 of minutes later she speaks about a “great distance and isolation between shales and water environment”. She suggests again that there is no danger for water and routinely repeats this bogus claim of the hydraulic fracturing lobby. When a moment later she speaks about shales in the Czech Republic, she doesn’t even blink (as a geologist) about a fact she mentions herself: shale formations in the Czech Republic are at a depth of 0 - 2500 m. Therefore the Czech situation might be very different from the one in the U.S. Study of the European Parliament [6]: A more recent study by [Osborne 2011] confirms such findings in aquifers overlaying the Marcellus and Utica shale formations of north eastern Pennsylvania and upstate New York. In active gas extraction areas, the average methane concentrations in drinking-water wells was 19.2 mg/liter with maximum levels up to 64 mg/liter, a potential explosion hazard. Background concentration in neighboring non-gas extracting regions of similar geological structure was 1.1 mg/liter. [Osborne 2011] In total, more than 1000 complaints of drinking water contamination are documented. A report which claims to be based on Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection data records counts 1614 violations of state oil and gas laws during drilling operation in the Marcellus Shale over a two-and-a-half-year period [PLTA 2010], two-thirds of them are “most likely to harm the environment”. Some of them are included in [Michaels 2010]. The most impressive documented accident was the explosion of a dwelling house which was caused by drilling operations and subsequent methane invasion into the house’s water system [ODNR 2008]. The Department of Natural Resources report identified three factors which led to the explosion of the house: (i) inadequate cementing of the production casing, (ii) the decision to proceed with hydraulic fracturing of the well without addressing inadequate cementing of the casing, and, most significantly, (iii) the 31-day period aEer the fracturing, during which the annular space between the surface and production casings was “mostly shut in” (quoted in [Michaels 2010]). In most cases, methane or chloride contamination of water could be shown, while the intrusion of benzene or other fracturing fluids rarely 26 can be proven. However, sampling of drinking water wells in Wyoming by the Environmental Protection Agency in 2009 detected chemicals which are widely used in hydraulic fracturing: “Region VIII earlier this month released its results of water well sampling in Pavillion, WY – requested by local residents – showing drilling contaminants in 11 of 39 wells tested, including the chemical 2-butoxyethanol (2-BE), a known constituent in hydraulic fracturing fluids, in three of the wells tested, as well as the presence of methane, diesel range organics and a type of hydrocarbon known as adameantenes”. [EPA 2009]”. Yes, the same EPA, that according to RNDr. Dvořáková has never found any contamination! European Parliament study [6]: “Many complaints of human illnesses and even animal deaths around the small city of Dish, Texas, forced the Mayor of the city to commission an independent consultant to undertake an air quality study of the impacts of gas operations within and around the city….” The study, conducted in August 2009, confirmed “the presence in high concentrations of carcinogenic and neurotoxin compounds in ambient air and/or residential properties.” And further on: “…Many of these compounds verified in laboratory analysis were metabolites of known human carcinogens and exceeded both, short-term and longterm effective screening levels according to TCEQ regulations.” According to the study, also “numerous complaints had been made to the Town in regards to the constant noise and vibration emanating from the compressor stations as well as foul odors”. “Of particular concern”, according to the study “were reports of young horses becoming gravely ill and several deaths over the years 20072008 with unknown etiology” [Wolf 2009]. Also the region around Dallas-Fort Worth has seen dramatic impacts on its air quality from natural gas drilling in the BarneF Shale, according to [Michaels 2010]. 2.12.2. Contamination of air, smog situation 27 A comprehensive study on “Emissions from Natural Gas Production in the BarneF Shale Area and Opportunities for Cost-Effective Improvements” was published in 2009…. The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) has established a monitoring program, partly confirming extraordinarily high hydrocarbon vapors escaping from drilling equipment and storage tanks, and significant levels of benzene in some locations [Michaels 2009].” “When you say drilling, oil, gas, panic starts to rise. People immediately imagine the words: horror, accident. But there is no such threat,” said for the newspaper Mladá Fronta Ing. Stanislav Benada…“There are no leaks, all liquids are in containers, extracted rocks are properly disposed of on the landfills,” he added. (Newspaper Echo Valašska: www.echovalasska.cz/echo-zive/Tezbaplynu-z-bridlic-na-Valassku-je-o-krok-bliz-Stat-povolil-britskym-tezarumpruzkum/) The hydraulic fracturing lobby denies accidents, fines. When they do admit accidents, they add the word – rarely. What does it mean “rarely”? For 1000 wells there are on average 2 serious accidents. The odds are then 1:500. Anthony Ingraffea adds: “Every engineering activity carries a risk that something will go wrong. The odds that a bridge will collapse under you is 1:20,000. Astronauts are brave people, because the probability of explosion of their ship is 1:70. But there is a 1:20 chance with the hydraulic fracturing method that there will be a leak on the borehole or that dangerous substances will leak into the groundwater!!” “More than 92 per cent of drilling well blowouts in the last five years (20062010) occurred while drilling the surface hole, all resulting in freshwater flows. Investigation showed that the seven freshwater flows were of short duration and had no significant impact on the public or the environment...” [7] 2.12.3. Accidents 28 Barne0 shale, burning well, one of a dozen accidents per year Explosion in the Atlas-Pit well Blowout at the well Nomac Rig 17, Chesapeake Energy. Subsequent fire lasted for several days and the derrick collapsed. Sweetwater, U.S. 29 European Parliament study [6]: Experiences in the U.S. show that several serious well blowouts have occurred. Most of them are documented in [Michaels 2010]. Excerpts of that reference list are: • On June 3, 2010 a gas well blow-out in Clearfield County, Pennsylvania, sent at least 35,000 gallons of wastewater and natural gas spewing into the air for 16 hours. • In June 2010 an explosion at a gas well in Marshall County, West Virginia, sent seven injured workers to hospital. • On April 1, 2010 both a tank and an open pit used to store hydraulic fracturing fluid caught fire at an Atlas well pad. The flames were at least 100 feet (33 m) high and 50 feet (15 m) wide. • In all of the above-mentioned cases the involved companies were fined. (The hydraulic fracturing lobby in the Czech Republic claims there were no fines in the U.S.). 30 Stanislav Benada is the director of the civic association “Museum of oil extraction and ecology”, the advisor of the company Cuadrilla Moravia s.r.o. and one of the top managers of the company Aurelian (he promotes the hydraulic fracturing method also in Poland, Slovakia and other countries). He didn’t mention his laFer two roles in his leFer to the Senate, but he says this regarding the leakage of wells: “Cementation seals the wells hermetically from the external environment, it is impossible for anything to flow between the layers”, Benada, IDnes). 2.12.4. Leakage of wells One of the most common claims of drilling companies they use to persuade the public about the safety of hydraulic fracturing is that the companies have already drilled and fractured millions of wells without any problems with contamination. True experts know very well that the well integrity is a chronic and unsolved problem in all wells, especially those that are inclined and where the rocks are being crushed under the incredible pressure of 100 MPa. A study of inspection reports of methane leaks found that “in 2010, 111 of 1,609 wells drilled and fracked failed and leaked. That's a 6.9 per cent rate of failure. In 2012, 67 out of 1,014 wells leaked – a seven per cent rate of failure…. Moreover, the seven per cent figure only includes leaks at the wellhead. It does not include leaks that sprouted up in stream beds, water wells, or ponds oEen 2,000 feet away from the well site aEer steady fracking operations.” [8] These leaks occurred mainly aEer well completion. Concrete gets older and steel corrodes, the crust of the Earth moves. According to a study in the Gulf of Mexico and internal documents from Schlumberger the combination of time and geological laws is uncompromising: in the timeframe of 16 years the leakage rate is 60 percent. [8] 31 It is necessary to mention that the Schlumberger statistics use data from wells on the outer side of the continental shelf, in the sea, approximately 300 m from the coast. It would seem that we can’t draw any comparison between the extreme marine environment and less aggressive conditions on land. Surprisingly the statistics are similar, as shown below (at least 50 % of older wells leak both on land and at sea). The statistics are similar also in the case of new wells (sea environment with conventional wells and land environment with hydraulic fracturing). The extreme pressure of the hydraulic fracturing method has high devastation impact on the well integrity. That’s why even legislation in Great Britain treats the wells on land and at sea in the same way. It is also becoming increasingly certain that one of the major hydraulic fracturing proponents, Halliburton, has its share of responsibility in the Deepwater Horizon catastrophe in the Gulf of Mexico. In the Czech Republic, the company HuFon Energy tries to create an impression of respectability and lists Halliburton on its webpages as a reference, a sort of quality guarantee. In January 2012 the news server IHNED.cz brought the news that BP is suing Halliburton. It claims millions of dollars in damages for the oil rig disaster: “At the end of last year BP accused Halliburton of having intentionally destroyed evidence about the oil rig accident that proved weaknesses of concrete products that the company had used for the underwater borehole Macondo of the oil rig Deepwater Horizon.” This news confirms a fact known and concealed by the industry, that even the Halliburton concrete mixtures, supposedly the best in the field, can be faulty and that leakage occurs! At the same time many journalists fail to make this connection, such as Mr. Leschtina, who writes for one of the most widely read newspapers in the country. In his article about hydraulic fracturing “Bridge over burning waters” he completely ignores the cementation track record as well as the geological 32 specificities of the Czech Republic and acts as a cheerleader for the industry [9]. One has to ask if the failure to check facts before influencing public opinion doesn’t have to do with the monetary rewards the industry spends on its PR and other proponents. Another proof that cementation can be faulty was brought by the BBC. (hFp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17448428, minute 8:06 where Brian Grove from Chesapeake speaks about cementation). Further evidence that the bold claim of the Hydraulic fracturing lobby “oil and gas companies have performed millions of fracturings without problems” is a lie is brought by Professor Anthony Ingraffea from Cornell University that had studied nonlinear fracturation of rocks for three decades: “The studies in the field prove clearly that from five to seven percent of all new oil and gas wells leak. As they get older, the percentage of leaking wells approaches 50%. Most of the leaks occur with inclined wells and hydraulic wells (Note: common sense suggests that high pressure, including lateral pressure on inclined wells increase the risk for the well integrity). In fact the leaking of wells has been a common, lasting and chronic problem of wells for decades.” [8] Situation with leaking wells in Alberta, Canada: Based on industry reports to regulators (independent audits state even higher numbers), about five percent of Alberta’s 300,000 oil and gas wells now leak. But a 2009 study by Alberta scientists Stephan Bachu and Theresa Watson found that so-called “deviated wells” (the same kind right angling used for fracturing shale gas and tight oil formations) typically experienced leakage rates as high as 60 percent as they age. Moreover “high pressure fracturing” increased the potential to create pathways to other wells, the atmosphere and groundwater. [8] Other quotes from reports about leaks: Faulty cementation of a 2,000 m deep well caused methane and benzene contamination of surface waters (report of the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission: hFp://cogcc.state.co.us/orders/orders/1v/276.html) It is common that gas and chemicals migrate from deep wells to the surface (Petrobras study): hFp://www.spectraenergywatch.com/wpcontent/uploads/2011/09/From-Mud-to- Cement-article.pdf) 33 According to geologists the bedrock in the Marcellus formation has a large number of faults that allow pollution to migrate vertically into groundwater reservoirs (U.S. Geological Survey study: hFp://www.dec.ny.gov/energy/75370.html) In this very important chapter for the Czech Republic (tectonics, landslide areas, well integrity and groundwater impact), let’s give the word to the “historian” and “political scientist” (that’s how he presents himself on the pages of the server “Czech position”) Mr. Aviezer Tucker. He writes in his article “Why Gazprom is spreading myths about shale gas extraction“: “In connection with hundreds of thousands of wells only four quakes occurred in the U.S., and did not cause any loss of life or property.” According to U.S. Geological Survey, until 2009 Oklahoma typically had about 50 earthquakes a year, but in 2010, 1,047 quakes shook the state. “The average number of M >= 3 earthquakes/year increased in the U.S. midcontinent starting in 2001, culminating in a six-fold increase over 20th century levels in 2011…the seismicity rate changes described here are almost certainly manmade.” [10] A 2011 Oklahoma Geological Survey report states: “Our analysis showed that shortly a=er hydraulic fracturing began, small earthquakes started occurring, and more than 50 were identified, of which 43 were large enough to be located.” [11] Earthquakes are thus a reality linked with the hydraulic fracturing method. As reported by New Scientist, it causes earthquakes of magnitude 4.0 and possibly more (hFp://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2012/01/ohioearthquake-linked-to-frac.html). The quake activity in the U.S. increased by hundreds of percent because of hydraulic fracturing. [12] It is very risky to use the hydraulic fracturing method in tectonically active areas. But the Czech Republic is practically covered with such spots. As we will see further the difference between the geological structure of North America and Europe is one of the key arguments against the deployment of hydraulic fracturing in Europe. To prove the point, drilling one of the first wells in the EU in Britain (Cuadrilla resources) in Blackpool resulted in a magnitude 2.4 earthquake. 2.12.5. Earthquakes 34 The danger is not (with the exception of landslide areas, such as the region of Valašsko) for buildings or lives of the people on the surface. The danger is underground, where the shaking can destroy safeguard measures and compromise well integrity. It can also open tectonic faults and facilitate migration of fracking fluids. Earthquakes caused by hydraulic fracturing are thus not dangerous directly, but in combination with other factors they can cause harm to hundreds of thousands of people. Another study linking hydraulic fracturing to earthquakes: hFp://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/07/30/1207728109.abstract?%EF%8 2%BCd01 The inevitable impact of shale gas extraction is a large land take for borehole infrastructure, access roads, parking and maneuvering space for trucks, and equipment for processing and transportation of gas. Huge swaths of land are grabbed for pipelines crossing the continent. In wooded and hilly Pennsylvania the strips across forests are up to 50 m wide, with a network of interconnecting roads around platforms. With the lifespan of the field of 10-15 years the destruction of the forests is even more meaningless. Roads to nowhere, abandoned platforms. It will take a long time for nature to claim the land back. The scars will heal for centuries, “payments courtesy of” nature. A crucial part is traffic. It decreases the quality of life of the inhabitants, increases emissions (so far no one has made a precise estimate of the size of the pollution cloud from transportation), the number of accidents that can lead to pollution increases. For one drilling rig and one fracking job (the vertical well and the horizontal well, transportation of large amounts of water and chemicals to the rig, transportation of flowback water somewhere else), thousands of truck trips are necessary. Adding to the load by heavy machinery building the platforms and logging the forests is the pollution hidden behind importation and especially manufacturing of hundreds of tons of chemicals (again partly made from oil) necessary for fracking, chemicals needed for the drilling itself (cleaning of the rigs, for wells and generators). Few people realize that without oil, it is almost impossible to extract shale gas. Oil for gas extraction has a large ecological footprint not when extracted, but also when used for this purpose. 2.12.6. Other impacts on the environment 35 We have to ask the question: isn’t oil more important for humanity, than gas? And isn’t the shale gas issue indicative of the peak in fossil fuel extraction that resembles an institutional mass suicide (without the awareness of its proponents)? Isn’t this a case of the proverbial tail wagging the dog? Needless to say the inevitable impact of the shale apocalypse is damage to the health of inhabitants in the affected areas. Headaches, rashes, decreased immunity, increased cancer rates. Physicians are protesting, the media are reporting about the health impacts and are calling for the ban of this method in the U.S. We can assume that the U.S. population, even aEer the shale gas extraction is stopped, will suffer for generations from this experiment that got out of control. 3. Geology North America Large-scale extraction of shale gas started about 15 years ago in the U.S., where the geological structure is more favorable for this method. The North American continent, as opposed to the European one, didn’t evolve in the last few million years in a dramatic fashion. It can be described as a monolithic block (craton) with layers up to several kilometers thick, most of which are horizontal, without significant deformations or tectonic faults. Layers of permeable and impermeable rocks are oEen layered one upon the other, forming sandwich-like structures. This creates favorable conditions for shale gas extraction. 36 Europe During the time interval mentioned above, the geology of Europe was evolving in a complicated way by a gradual collision of several microcontinents. That’s why its geological structure is far more varied and complicated than in the U.S., with folds and tectonic faults more frequent. It is in general much harder to follow the layers horizontally, which would complicate the eventual extraction or exploration and create more risks to the environment and health of the population. Czech Republic If the technology was deployed on the same industrial scale as in the U.S., where the scale is maximized for the highest yield, then contamination of drinking water via tectonic faults would be almost a certainty. That’s why this method is practically unacceptable for Europe also with regard to population density. Above is an example of tectonic structure in the Protected landscape area Broumovsko in the Czech Republic (one of the potential exploration areas). 37 Faults can be found almost every 100 m, some of them shallow, others reaching a depth of several kilometers. At the same time the Cretaceous Basin of Police – a protected area of accumulation of water (area protected by government regulation) is located here. It is the area where the company HuFon Energy wanted to extract Silurian shale. However, no Silurian shale can be found here. The Ministry of the Environment of the Czech Republic allowed exploration here. If not for the opposition of mayors, there would be already drilling activity in this area! Apicture from the Barrandien, with Silurian limestone and shale reaching to the surface in the Kosov quarry close to Beroun. Silurian rocks are supposed to be the subject of “deep and safe extraction”. However, Silurian rocks in the Barrandien can be found from the surface to a depth of approximately 500 m and are intensely folded everywhere. It is clear that it is not possible to follow the layers horizontally in this exploration area proposed by HuFon Energy. What is the company up to, if hydraulic fracturing is out of the question? The picture above shows the section of geological layers of the original exploration area proposed by HuFon Energy (Trutnovsko region) the size of which was consequently decreased to approximately half the area. What A simplified geological section of the Žacléř strata in the intrasudeten basin, where coal seams used to be mined (Tásler,1979) 38 can be seen here (similarly to the Valašsko exploration area – Cuadrilla) is again how the geological situation is complicated, moreover it is one of the most seismically active areas in the Czech Republic, on average once every 120 years there is a magnitude 6 earthquake. The complicated tectonics reaches in some places several kilometers in depth. Thin bituminous layers sometimes disappear, sometimes reach the surface: following the layers horizontally is difficult. Silurian shales that the company wanted to extract (as stated on their website) can’t be found in the Trutnovsko region. All that can be found are Carboniferous, Permian and eventually Triassic layers. Layers with higher organic maFer content (that are sought aEer by the drillers) are just several decimeters thick, which is a fact known by Czech geologists for approximately 50 years. Extraction in the fashion of American fields is impossible. What are the drillers aEer? Exploration? A ban and subsequent arbitration? Is someone from the government officials cooperating on this plan? Even such thoughts present themselves. Comment regarding the exploration area: A single injection of chemicals in any of the exploration areas (see picture below) can result in damage lasting hundreds of years (the length of the water cycle in the Berounsko region is 20 years, outlasting the drilling cycle, in the Broumovsko region even 5000 years!!) Yet the Cretaceous Basin of Police, protected by government regulations as an area of natural water accumulation (and that overlaps with the protected landscape area Broumovsko), having some of the best water in central Europe, is practically in the center of the originally proposed drilling area (now excluded thanks to opposition). The remaining part in the Trutnovsko region has been analyzed by a court expert on hydrogeology and he excluded safe exploration by the hydraulic fracturing method in this area. Because of the amended application, the Trutnovsko region is in danger that in the third phase of exploration, vertical fracking will be used (using LPG). It is hard to understand 39 how come that Valašsko and Trutnovsko have been approved by the Ministry of the Environment for exploration, because it knew that the last phase of exploration is fracking!! If nothing else, there is “only” the risk of interconnection of aquifers and loss of underground water in the area surrounding the wells. In our opinion the Valašsko region should be excluded from exploration because of the risk of landslides, uFer unsuitability of the terrain, high density of housing and complex tectonics. 4. Environmental impacts – thirteen points This is a summary of arguments that lists the main problems of the hydraulic fracturing method: The method of hydraulic fracturing of rock is a process that combines the work on deep wells with the work with explosives and chemicals. Deep wells are drilled vertically to a depth of a few kilometers. AEer reaching the rock containing gas, the borehole is angled horizontally and drilled up to a distance of one and even more (three) km, where the rock is fractured by microexplosions. Then thanks to diesel compressors, a mixture of water and sand (approx. 99%) and chemical additives (approx. 1%) is injected into the borehole under pressure of up to 100 MPa. The hydraulic pressure disrupts the rock vertically up to 100 m to both sides and horizontally in the layers (that’s where the name of the method – hydraulic fracturing – comes from). AEer the disruption of rock that can sometimes cause earthquakes (1st problem) of up to 4.0 degrees on the Richter scale, the fluid is being pumped back from underground, so that gas can flow upwards from the borehole. All sand that is used to prevent the pores in the shale rock from closing remains underground. Chemicals are used to improve the slipperiness of the rock surface (slipping area), to limit the growth of microorganisms, to reduce corrosion, etc. The chemicals used are oEen toxic, sometimes carcinogenic or mutagenic (for example they can harm the fetus in the body of a mother) (2nd problem). Currently the EPA registers 2500 fracking mixtures from 750 compounds. Despite calls for transparency, the exact mixture composition is still sometimes kept secret and what goes on underground is known only to the drillers. It is estimated that approx. 10 % of the natural gas cannot be captured and escapes into the atmosphere and groundwater (and further into the 40 atmosphere), which accelerates climate change (3rd problem), especially with the industrial-scale applications in the U.S. In the Czech Republic, given the complex tectonic structure of the rock, the amount of gas leaking from rock would be much higher. In the U.S. the method has been used for a number of years, but in more favorable geological structures. Thanks to massive subsidies and quantitative easing aEer 2008, the wells started to approach human seFlements. In thousands of cases people lost their drinking water. It is oEen contaminated by methane, so when you expose an open flame close to the water tap, the water can burn. A number of exploding water wells have been described, even an explosion of a house (4th problem). There is a vast agricultural land grab (5th problem) and land is oEen contaminated (6th problem) when drillers illegally dump used water in the fields. Drilling is tied to the creation of thousands of m3 of toxic waste (heavy metals) (7th problem), sometimes even with risky amounts of radioactive substances from deep rock layers that leach in the so called flow-back water pumped back from the ground (8th problem). Radioactivity can be one of the most risky factors, especially in the Czech Republic, even if pure water is pumped underground. The landscape can be changed by drilling beyond recognition (conflict with landscape character – (9th problem), as evidenced by hundreds of satellite images from the U.S. One drilling field with high yield can contain up to 6 drilling rigs, each the size of 2 to 3 hectares. Networks of pipelines and roads between the rigs disrupt the system of ecological stability (10th problem). For each well, thousands of truck trips are needed and risks of accidents during the transportation of dangerous chemicals increase (11th problem). According to reliable sources from the U.S. accidents caused by human error, lack of technological discipline or the danger of the method itself amount to 1 to 2 % of the total number of wells. In the case of the U.S. thousands of documented cases are known. The statistics are clear: for 1000 wells on average 2 of them explode. If we include other risks, the odds of an accident in the U.S. rise to 1:28 (explosions and burning of gas from the well, explosions of technological liquids, accidental leakages of drilling fluids to surface water, contamination of soil, etc.) – (12th problem). 41 The method of hydraulic fracturing of rock is enormously demanding on water consumption and water becomes degraded during injections and disappears from circulation (13th problem). It should be noted that if an accident happens and groundwater is contaminated, it is likely that remediation will not be possible. Parts could be remedied at enormous cost that would be covered by all taxpayers in the Czech Republic, instead of the foreign companies that cause the accident. Adding to the 13 impacts on the environment, we can say that in economic terms the cost estimates of remediation of damage caused by shale gas extraction contaminating large areas go up to hundreds of billions of CZK, which is a big economic problem. Symbols of two exploration areas of Hu>on Energy Statement of the scientific council of the Coalition STOP HF: Due to the complicated geological conditions in the Czech Republic it is impossible to predict migration routes of fracking fluids once injected underground. Monitoring the movement of injected fluids, as some researchers working for drilling companies have suggested, is logical nonsense and a hazard to human health. There is a high risk of contamination that would come to light only aEer a considerable length of time. The remediation could be very costly, maybe impossible! The estimated shale gas reserves in the Czech Republic are in the single digit percentages of energy needs. This share of consumption can be covered by savings or by alternatives from renewable sources. The Czech Republic doesn’t need shale gas. 42 The conclusions of the scientific council of the Coalition STOP HF from May 2012 were confirmed several months later by the national energy conception of the Ministry of Industry of the Czech Republic and by Report No. 2 of the Czech Geological Survey. Does shale gas exploration make sense? Former president Klaus and others are inclined to want to “know what we are walking above”, as Minister Chalupa stated. The Coalition STOP HF has this to say: • both on the national level and in the exploration areas, geological research has been done for dozens of years and therefore the Czech Republic has one of the highest degrees of explored areas not only in Europe, but in the world, • the presence of large plates of intact rock that would allow potential shale gas extraction is not realistic from a geological point of view, • the geological survey already cost hundreds of millions of CZK. It is true that not all data has been processed yet (some data is not even published in databases), but it appears that based on geological data available, in conjunction with hydrogeological facts, shale gas exploration in all exploration areas by hydraulic fracturing presents too high a risk and does not make sense with respect to the small shale gas reserves in the Czech Republic, • a few exploration wells have no potential to alter significantly the current knowledge and models of geological structure. 5. Climate change context On the 2nd of January 2013, the renowned journal Nature published an article entitled “Methane leaks erode green credentials of natural gas” that casts another shadow of doubt on shale gas extraction. The subheading of the article “Losses of up to 9% show need for broader data on U.S. gas industry’s environmental impact ” shows clearly that the U.S. had released the genie out of the boFle and it is becoming clearer and clearer what it is doing to the environment. Let’s focus now on “only” one of the thirteen impacts on the environment – the atmosphere: Several groups of scientists from the U.S. confirm that methane emissions (a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2) are more than twice higher (up to 9%) during natural gas extraction (including shale gas) than acknowledged by drilling companies (up to 4%). 43 Mr. Leo Eisner, in the article “Let’s not ban shale gas extraction” (hFp://technet.idnes.cz/bridlicovy-plyn-v-cr-0l6-/veda.aspx? c=A121114_151747_veda_mla) writes, refuting claims by environmentalists: “(the environmentalists claim that)… at least 10 percent of extracted shale gas can’t be captured and it leaks into the atmosphere and groundwater and then again into the atmosphere. I don’t know where the authors took the number from, but if that was the case, the air in the surrounding areas of existing wells would be highly explosive and catastrophes would happen every day. In reality leakages are comparable to conventional extraction that nobody wants to ban.” In the spring of 2012, the scientific council of the Coalition STOP HF published estimates of shale gas leakages in the U.S. of 10% of all the extracted volume on shale gas fields. It seems therefore that shale gas extraction has a substantial share of the leakages during oil and gas extraction. It is understandable because conventional extraction (clearly defined gas “pockets”) can be seen as spot contamination with relatively preventable natural gas leakage. Of course even here improvements can be made (each unnecessary leakage of methane cumulates in the atmosphere and when the climate is out of balance, each ton of methane has a worse impact than if it was in balance) and burning flares on gas or oil fields are a clear sign that this scourge should be prevented as well. Another argument in favor of switching of power plants in the U.S. from coal to natural gas is therefore in doubt. It turns out that the carbon footprint of a coal power plant is smaller than that of a natural gas power plant only if the cumulative rate of leakages on the drilling field is less than 3.2% of extracted volume, which in practice means that shale gas wells have a higher footprint. It should be emphasized that the carbon footprint from both of these non-renewable sources is unacceptable, both in the light of accelerating global climate change and of the dwindling reserves of these precious raw materials for the chemical industry! In this context it is noteworthy to mention the claim of the hydraulic fracturing lobby that is behind statements of CEP – Center for Economics and Politics – and other shale gas proponents (Mr. Eisner, Miroslav Zajíček – advisor to the Minister of the Environment, RNDr. Dvořáková – Czech Geological Survey) in the Czech Republic that state that shale gas extraction is beneficial in terms of climate protection, especially because of the lower carbon footprint of gas power plants in comparison to coal power plants. 44 6. Economics (yield analysis, social aspects, jobs) In contrast to shale gas, the economics of conventional gas extraction depends mainly on the ability to produce the commodity. Since the yield of the wells can be more or less stable even for decades, it is relatively easy to predict the reserves, the price and estimate the future in this sector. However to apply the logic of conventional gas to shale gas could lead to misleading results, because the underlying technology and geological conditions are different. If the geology of shale layers is favorable to natural gas extraction (as in the U.S.), it doesn’t automatically mean that the yield from a similar deposit in the same type of rock on a different continent has to be the same. Let’s take Poland as an example. There is shale gas in Poland, however tight sand above the shale layers is so “scaFered” that the wells don’t work in the same way as in the U.S.: the sand simply buries new fissures in the rock and the yields are limited. This even led the EIA (the U. S. Energy Information Administration – a department that has been suspected of overestimating reserves and opening doors to investors) to reconsider the estimates of reserves in Poland. In the beginning, the estimates were 300 years of independence on natural gas imports. As a consequence the north and east of Poland had been divided between companies in a shale gas race. The new estimated reserves fell to 20 years. The interpretation of this PR debacle in the Czech Republic was that someone made a mistake in placing a decimal point. It is therefore clear that economics of shale gas and production stability is influenced by more factors than in the case of conventional natural gas. The key factor is the yield of the well that decreases in time very rapidly (in a timeframe of months or a couple of years). 45 The rapid drop in yield is the main disadvantage of the method. The yield drops exponentially (the steepness of the curve depends on the saturation of the shale by gas and the thickness of the shale layer), the average drop in production is a whopping 64% per year. The most significant decrease in yield is in the first 16-21 months. Statistically the most prevalent are the 3 curves from the boFom, the typical curve for the U.S. is at b=0.60. And this is another essential and important issue that will lead to conflicts between the drillers and the population, because the rapidity of yield decrease means that the method can be applied only on vast areas and the number of wells must expand continually. Really profitable wells in the U.S. can be found only in five drilling areas. In practice only about 1 – 3% of currently active wells are profitable *. *EIA U.S. Energy information Administration: Review of Emerging Resources: U.S. Shale Gas and Shale Oil plays, July 2011 * Mark Anthony - seekingalpha.com How Much Natural Gas Do We Have LeE? The Real Natural Gas Production Decline. In practice this means that the well is in 2 years approx. 80% empty and the remaining production doesn’t cover the costs of its ongoing maintenance. To maintain at least the existing level of production, it is necessary to continually increase the exploration areas by at least 30% per year in the case of fields that have a “good” yield, otherwise it is even more! To compensate for the yield decreases, suitable wells are fracked repeatedly, which is however also a capital-intensive operation. In practice both approaches are being combined with all the consequences for profitability, population and landscape. Maintaining the same level of production (companies are forced to keep drilling in order to pay interest on loans) is financially demanding and the companies are struggling to keep up paying loans, while at the same time compensating for production decreases. The situation can in principle be compared to the bubble that formed in the case of Enron. Coalition STOP HF had estimated in the summer of 2012 that this shale gas Ponzi scheme (fueled by massive subsidies from the U.S. government and by loans from banks that jumped on the bandwagon) will 46 pop somewhere around the year 2015. Just recently (February 2013) the Post Carbon Institute published a study by the renowned geologist David Hughes called “Drill Baby Drill” that demonstrates clearly (see graph below) that the breaking point in shale gas production in the U.S. will occur in the year 2016 when the Bakken and Eagle Ford plays will show signs of depletion. These facts, contrary to the claims of the “Czech” hydraulic fracturing lobby, cause the large companies in unconventional extraction to become increasingly indebted. Currently, the company Chesapeake, a supposedly healthy leading hydraulic fracturing company in the U.S., is carrying a debt on the order of 20 billion U.S. This drives the companies into the exploitation of still larger and larger areas to keep production and to repay debt. The reality looks as follows (the density of wells in the BarneF formation, U.S.): Jobs? The hydraulic fracturing lobby emphasizes, as always during land grabbing, that they are going to improve the social situation and create new jobs. According to the same claims they were supposed to create hundreds of thousands of jobs in the Czech Republic. In fact one well needs approximately 40 employees (mostly specialists, so the locals would be out of this market that is notorious for the high risk and mortality) that travel from one well to another. The deserted platform needs only minimal maintenance. In the hypothetical situation of hundreds of wells in the Czech Republic only a few thousand jobs could be theoretically created. The impact of this sector on new jobs is thus negligible. However it could have an important adverse impact on the old jobs in tourism and services. The other effect could be the brain drain from the newly created industrial areas, as smart people want a higher quality environment. 47 To conclude the topic of economics: the Coalition STOP HF, based on several studies and results of analysis, suspects that the business models of hydraulic fracturing companies that are being presented to the banks are based on faulty assumptions, namely the linear production of the shale gas plays. If that is the case, the popping of the shale gas bubble will have large disastrous consequences. 7. Political context The shale gas issue became, not only in the Czech Republic, a hot potato in the political baFle that the hydraulic fracturing lobby fuels cunningly in the spirit of the moFo: promise, divide, bribe, rule. For some time, the Czech Republic has become a toy in the hands of multinational corporations that dominate this business. The hydraulic fracturing lobby is very well organized; the groups usually don’t fight against each other, but divide influence and territory. The misleading PR is financed by large sums of money around the world, wherever and 48 whenever needed. In the Czech Republic the PR campaign of HuFon Energy was led by the company Grayling and we were facing the oEen manipulative campaign for approximately half a year. The colonization of countries by the hydraulic fracturing lobby follows approximately the same paFern: they aFempt to “buy” the government, the most influential political party, key ministries. What differs is only the details of the local propaganda, since the arguments are tailor-made and based on the PR analysis of countries. What did the Czech Republic case demonstrate? AEer president Obama “bought the Polish government” in May 2011, the hydraulic fracturing lobby spread its nets all around central Europe and during a secret meeting in Prague the shale gas “advisors” of Obama started a campaign in the Czech Republic. We don’t know to this day who was present at the meeting. The participants were prohibited to speak about the event; they could not say any names. We only know what they were supposed to “do” (Euro: hFp://www.datex.cz/clanek_110802_4.htm) Consequently the Ministry of the Environment was doing the exact things that it was supposed to. Coincidence? Is it a coincidence that grants from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs were flowing to the political science institute of Masaryk University in Brno that de facto opened this topic in the Czech Republic? Is it a coincidence that advisors to the institute were a few consultants that we suspect of being connected to the hydraulic fracturing lobby in the Czech Republic? Is it only a coincidence that some of the Czech “experts” diverge from their fields of study and present speeches about the promises of shale gas and harmlessness of the method? Is it a coincidence that the geologist of the Ministry of the Environment from the Czech Geological Survey and at the same time the president of American Association of Petroleum Geologist for Europe released the first pro-industry report that ignored the studies from other countries that were raising concerns about the method (the report was not made public for a long time, although the Ministry of the Environment was guided by it). Is it a coincidence that the sources for study no. 1 are publications of AAPG that also organized “training” of hydraulic fracturing “experts” who aFended the meetings for example in Warsaw? Is it a coincidence that the geologist connected to AAPG publicly beliFles the consequences of the hydraulic fracturing method by words and symbols 49 that are invented by paid PR agencies instead of adhering to the Czech Geological Survey study no. 2 about hydraulic fracturing in the Czech Republic, which is more objective because it was made by real experts? Is it a coincidence that the Ministry of the Environment keeps using Ing. Benada as a consultant, even though he is director of the “Petroleum Museum” and an entrepreneur in the oil industry sector, and Mr. Eisner, a person with clear industry ties, while there are dozens of highly qualified experts in the Czech Republic that unlike the above mentioned people have no personal interest in promoting shale gas extraction? Is it a coincidence that the Minister of the Environment first claims that he will introduce a bill to stop hydraulic fracturing, then backs up and allows a possibility of exploration and finally, at odds with documents from his own experts, he claims that he will not support the law to ban hydraulic fracturing and that he doesn’t want to ban exploration forever? Is it only incompetence or is it coordinated action? Is it only confusion and misuse of the name of former president Klaus that CEP publishes a manipulated booklet “Shale gas, energy revolution?” authored by Ing. Benada, Mr. Eisner, Miroslav Zajíček, Václav Klaus, Tomáš Chalupa, Vlastimila Dvořáková, Oldřich Petržilka and others? As wriFen before, most of these people have industry ties. To allow having his name listed among these people, Minister of the Environment Tomáš Chalupa crossed the boundaries of civility and perhaps even legislation. It is a fact that his name is there, among the lobbyists, regardless of what he wrote. That’s one of the reasons why we published this booklet, to counterbalance and put forward arguments that we think people are entitled to know. One more piece to the puzzle: the Assistant Director of the above mentioned Energy Institute affiliated with the University of Texas at Austin Mr. Aviezer Tucker published on the Czech news server an article that claims the opposition to shale gas extraction is a PR campaign financed by Gazprom. Why doesn’t he stick to his field of study of political science and philosophy and why does he initiate a smear campaign? Why would Gazprom spread myths about shale gas when this company was one of the pioneers of shale gas extraction, namely in Bulgaria? The article by Aviezer Tucker is pure hydraulic fracturing lobby propaganda. It pretends to be objective, to defend values. However it is manipulative. 50 On the other hand it can explain why Texas tycoon Mark Bush, Jr. applied for a license to explore for conventional gas in an area of 1,341 km2 in the middle of the Czech Republic, east of Hradec Králové, where 340 towns and villages are located, while all experts and even the hydraulic fracturing lobby acknowledge that no conventional gas can be found there, only possibly some shale gas in the southern part of the area. It is not about politics, it is about resources. It is not about the leE or right political party, one or the other can be used by corporations for their aims motivated by profit. The corporations running the hydraulic fracturing lobby were probably not expecting such a resistance in the Czech Republic. Poland was the testing ground (as the study by Masaryk University in Brno confirms) and because hydraulic fracturing is embraced there, a second rate player (HuFon Energy, in cooperation with Cuadrilla) entered the Czech Republic. The only sensible political link is: the hydraulic fracturing method can’t be massively applied anywhere in the world without long lasting and unpredictable damage to the environment. It is thus a nonpolitical problem and should be banned globally because of the inherent hazards. 8. An example of experiences of mayors in the Czech Republic Ing. Šárka Endrlová, mayor of the city of Beroun, wrote: “On the 6th of March 2012, the department of the environment of the City Council of Beroun received a request from the company Basgas Energia Czech, s.r.o., Prague 2, to issue, in accordance with § 18 of the Water Act, a statement regarding water protection zones in the area of interest, in order to claim the exploration area “Berounka” for exploration of oil and combustible gas in the Paleozoic shales of the Prague basin. The application concerns 22 municipalities (note: the administrative proceeding conducted by the Ministry of the Environment regarding the approval or disapproval of the exploration area “Berounka” hasn’t been to this day officially ended and without a deadline it is still waiting for a possible complementation by the drilling company and a subsequent yes or no of the Ministry) of which 13 municipalities belong to the Berounsko region, 9 to Prague – West and their area covers 93 km2 of the area of interest of the multinational corporation HuFon Energy and its sister company 51 Basgas Energia Czech. This company expressed interest in the exploration in the Prague basin and asked the Ministry of the Environment for a permit to explore and to evaluate future drilling for 5 years. That’s when it all began for us in Beroun. At that point we were complete laymen, ignorant of the issue, completely uninformed. I started to study the available information from all possible sources; I was contacted by experts, environmental activists as well as representatives of the drilling companies in various “forms”. Based on an evaluation of all available data, the administration of the city of Beroun quickly agreed on a staunch and very clear “no” to the exploration and extraction of shale gas by the method of hydraulic fracturing on the territory of Beroun and its surroundings. Our own citizens began to ask what they could do to oppose the drilling in the center of the protected landscape area. A petition “STOP HF Bohemian Karst” was initiated and it collected over 25,000 signatures that were handed over to the Petitions CommiFee of the Senate. In this way we joined the activities of the national Coalition STOP HF which had set itself the goal to promote the adoption of a law in our country, respectively a series of amendments to laws aiming for a complete ban of extraction of any commodities by the hydraulic fracturing method on the whole territory of the Czech Republic. The city of Beroun became a member of the coalition. The marathon run that thus started and which we didn’t expect at all is far from over and it faces the lack of support from the competent ministries and the government of the Czech Republic. It is sad that despite the fact that all 22 municipalities in the potential exploration area “Berounka” are opposed to drilling, despite the fact that as local government and individual citizens we stand united, despite the support of regional politicians, despite the support from the association of regions, the Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic etc., all of this is not sufficient for our lawmakers. Finally, one year from the submission of the application by the company Basgas Energia Czech s.r.o., let me ponder about what would be happening today if we hadn’t done all that we did. If we had waited idly with our hands on our laps, people that don’t live here and who are not interested in our children and water would decide about us and our territory. Maybe that already today, near the Karlštejn castle or in the protected landscape area Bohemian Karst, we would already have to watch drilling rigs.” 52 9. Legislative situation in the Czech Republic The applicable legislation about prospecting, exploration and extraction of deposits of minerals that include all types of oil and combustible natural gas (hydrocarbons), as well as all types of coal and bituminous rocks, includes in particular: - Law no. 44/1988 Coll., on the protection and use of mineral resources (mining law), as amended, - Law no. 61/1988 Coll., on mining activities, explosives and state mining administration and Law no. 62/1988 Coll., on geological works, as amended. The rules for the creation of the State Energy Policy are regulated by Law no. 406/2000 Coll., on energy management, as amended. However, the applicable legislation doesn’t regulate and therefore ban the use of the technology of hydraulic fracturing of rock, respectively fracking during the prospecting, exploration and extraction of unconventional deposits of combustible natural gas. This method is the one used today on a large scale to extract shale gas and other hydrocarbons. The administrative status of the individual exploration areas: Trutnovsko: new application, postponed till January 2014 (preliminary procedure EIA) Berounsko: contrary to administrative procedures but essentially correctly the process is interrupted without specification of deadlines Valašsko: Proceedings suspended, pending completion of the application with the deadline September 20, 2013. 10. Propaganda methods of the hydraulic fracturing lobby In the Czech Republic, we are facing a wide range of dirty tactics. They can be roughly divided into several groups. Expertise (“the sky is pink“ method, repeating made up statements to make it seem that scientific facts are in doubt) • false manipulative data including paid studies, • questioning of scientific facts, • concealment of scientific information and knowledge, 53 • aFributing higher weight to data that are in favor of fracking, • pseudoscientific data. Economics • creation of economic bubbles (painting of rosy pictures), • misleading examples (boom in the U.S. means it will happen in Europe), • false assumptions, • diverting aFention from needed changes (for example transition to renewable energy), • make believe that fossil fuels are the only way to go. Politics • aFempts to corrupt decision makers in the country, • aFempts to use local political fights in favor of fracking, • aFempts to influence national icons. Administration • direct infiltration (or influence) of key Ministry positions (for example Ministry of the Environment, of Industry, of Foreign Affairs), • direct infiltration (or influence) of key positions in state institutions (Czech Geological Survey, Ministry of the Environment), • pressure on first-instance authorities. Institutions • influencing activities of specialized departments or institutions, university departments, etc. (grants, inviting key “experts” on trips to foreign countries, promising jobs). Media • laundering of dirty information: misleading press releases with an agreed scenario of how to proceed: for example the PR service of the hydraulic fracturing lobby creates a misleading press release for an expert institution (with or without its knowledge) that publishes it, the chief editor of the media server is contacted by the PR agency and promises to publish the content. The misleading press release is published without fact checking, facts are not relevant, only “two sides of the story” maFer. The PR agency copies the release from the main media server and with the words “so that you have objective information” distributes it to all the journalists they target. In 54 this way the made up news is “cleaned up” through a respected source that everybody trusts and no one checks whether the news is based on facts. The news in the meanwhile spreads like an wildfire to other servers. For example the fake news was published at 8:10 on the server, at 18:00 all journalists in the country had it, it was adopted by TV news and another 15 servers republished it, thus adding to its “credibility”. • bribing journalists so that they write a misleading article, • bribing journalists so that they publish fake news or PR. Personal a0acks, devaluation of the counterparty • if none of the above works, the counterparty becomes the target of aFack, doubt is cast on its intentions, knowledge, etc.. In particular: • claiming that the counterparty does it for money (thus whoever is opposed to fracking must be an agent of Gazprom), • claiming lack of expertise of the counterparty (you are the people from the street, we are the experts), • labeling of the counterparty (PR agencies are great at this, if someone is opposed to fracking; they are automatically labeled an “ecoterrorist”, “extreme right member” or “leEist”. The above is done either at once or gradually, according to structured timing and based on psychology. 11. Experiences of the civic sector from 17 EU countries The experience from the Czech Republic has been more or less described above. The experience of other countries can be found in the following FOEE report: hFp://www.foeeurope.org/foee-unconventional-and-unwanted-the-caseagainst-shale-gas-sept2012 12. Role of the EU European institutions walk on a tightrope between the principle of subsidiarity and decisions on the EU level. The studies from the European Parliament published so far have impressive quality, however the parliament is the target of intense pressure from lobbyists. Good examples are the reports by Bogusław Sonik (EPP) for the ENVI commiFee [13] and 55 by Niki Tzavela (EFD) for the ITRE commiFee [14]. While reading the comments and amendments of the report “Environmental impacts of shale gas and shale oil extraction activities” by Bogusław Sonik [15] it is plain to see what a long and difficult path the text underwent. The first version of the report for the ENVI commiFee was in line with the Polish euphoria about shale gas and in favor of drilling. AEer a long and arduous struggle the report was reshaped into a much more acceptable compromise that was voted on during the plenary in Strasbourg on November 21, 2012. On the same day the plenary voted on the Tzavela report that is much more in favor of the industry. The beginning of the debate about the reports was marked by controversy about the exhibition about shale gas that lobbyists prepared and that was perceived as an inappropriate last-minute aFempt to put pressure on the MEPs. However the opposition to shale gas drilling that drew aFention to the risk of hydraulic fracturing, is also present. We should emphasize especially the work of Czech MEPs Jiří Maštálka (GUE/NGL) and Pavel Poc (S&D): thanks to their own intense work and the diligence of their assistants and thanks to the help of nongovernmental organizations and other MEPs from all across Europe the Sonik report was made more objective. From the Czech MEPs the Coalition STOP HF would also like to thank Miloslav Ransdorf (GUE/NGL) that raised pertinent questions regarding the geological structure of EU and the U.S., the impacts on ground water and rapid depletion of the wells. It will be up to the European Commission now as to how it will deal with the whole issue. The European Parliament reports that are mentioned above have in no way legislative power. Such authority is in the competence of the Commission. As the Commission opened a public consultation entitled “Unconventional fossil fuels (e.g. shale gas) in Europe”, it is a good indicator that it will take a stand. Based on the public consultation data and the two Parliament reports the Commission can propose legislation that would regulate for example the environmental aspects of shale gas extraction. It cannot directly regulate drilling, because this competence belongs to the individual member states that keep the right to decide in this area. But the EU can decide about the environment, so it is possible for example to ban the hydraulic fracturing method because it is dangerous and is therefore clearly in contradiction with the second paragraph of Article 191 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union [16], which states: “Union policy on the environment shall aim at a high level of 56 protection taking into account the diversity of situations in the various regions of the Union. It shall be based on the precautionary principle and on the principles that preventive action should be taken, that environmental damage should as a priority be rectified at source and that the polluter should pay.” And if the Commission doesn’t prepare legislation, as EU citizens we have the right to ask the Commission to do so through the European Citizens’ Initiative. It is a rather new procedure that came into effect in 2012 and pending the fulfillment of conditions it allows EU citizens to ask the Commission to develop legislative proposals. The Coalition STOP HF is ready to use this possibility. 13. Protection of the public interest vs. drilling for mineral resources The issue of hydraulic fracturing raises the question how it is possible that without suspecting anything, one day you wake up in the middle of some exploration area. And even if you disagree, as an individual, there’s nothing you can do about it. The answer is not to let things go so far. To be active, informed, to develop a well-functioning civil society. Asking the government to protect its citizens against the interests of multinational business importing dirty technology shouldn’t be utopia. The public interest is the responsibility of the government, although not always 100%. It turns out that a very necessary and useful law is the Czech law no. 114/1992 Coll. on the protection of nature and landscape, which still allows the civil sector to be one of the parties in the administrative proceedings. 57 14. Ecological footprint, change of the tax system, damage prevention The example of the shale gas controversy shows that a society based on constant growth in the environment of a definite size is unsustainable and self-destructive. Eventually quick and effective steps towards the green economy, for example changes in tax incentives or inclusion of negative externalities in the prices of services and goods, will be necessary. Also legislation to protect ecosystems of the planet will have to be adopted on a global level. 15. Vision to the rescue – society without growth and oil As Serge Latouche shows, it is possible to save the planet and humanity by having a no-growth economy. It is sure that fossil fuels are being depleted and we will be running out of them. Shale gas is no revolution or salvation for mankind, it is a curse. It is a symbol of senseless dependence on oil and oil corporations. It is a symbol of waste and destruction of the planet and therefore of our health on an incredible scale. It is a symbol of the efforts of oil moguls to postpone the end of the fossil fuel economy by blocking the necessary and faster transition towards renewable sources. But mainly it is a textbook example of stupidity of the technocratic approach to the world that assumes that whatever footprint we make, the planet can deal with it along with us. But if we as humanity will not learn to live with a small carbon footprint, we have no chance to survive. The shale gas controversy is a model example of the institutional suicide of industrial civilization based on oil that ignores the fact that clean soil, air or water can’t be manufactured or bought on a large scale. These are public goods number one and we have to find a way to persuade the industrial lobby, governments or individuals to respect it, so that we can protect nature around the world, that the planet is only a larger part of our body, that we are the planet. 58 16. Conclusion Usually to conclude, the author writes up some clever summary. But it is up to you, dear reader, to make up your own mind. Because this story is about this dilemma: Either there will be clean water, or not. I have some further questions, let’s try to find answers in the near future along with the Coalition: Why don’t the Czech media check facts? Are the Czech media really balanced, do they give equal space to both sides? How come state and government institutions are not able to effectively defend their citizens? What mechanisms does the government have to protect citizens from the manipulative campaign of multinational capital, do they exist and does the government want them to exist? Is the mining law sufficient? How dirty are our lives, or what is the ecological footprint of an average Czech person? Will there be someone who wants to solve this with us? In the GUE/NGL group of the European Parliament, we have found such a partner. The MEPs of this group, through their work, defend us, the citizens of EU, and our rights. We only hope that GUE/NGL will continue to support our cause, not only in our fight against hydraulic fracking, but in the pursuit of a beFer European Union, a European Union for us, its citizens and not for institutions or capital. An updated list of studies demonstrating the harmful impacts of hydraulic fracturing can be found at: hFp://stophf.cz/dokumenty/vedecke-studie 59 17. List of resources [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] 60 Decision of the Ministry of the Environment of the Czech Republic, IVSS VI, no. 1348/550/11-Ru, 94892/ENV/11, JUDr. Emil Rudolf Main conclusion from the Report for the U.S. congress, April 2011 grist.org/article/2011-02-28-piFsburgh-drinking-water-radioactivefracking-natural-gas-times/ hFp://www.slb.com/~/media/Files/resources/oilfield_review/ ors03/aut03/p38_53.pdf hFp://www.wri.org/publication/clearing-the-air European Parliament study ‘Impacts of shale gas and shale oil extraction on the environment and on human health’ (IP/A/ENVI/ST/2011-07) ERCB report, hFp://www.ercb.ca/sts/ST57-2011.pdf hFp://thetyee.ca/News/2013/01/09/Leaky-Fracked-Wells/ hFp://dialog.ihned.cz/komentare/c1-55729350-jiri-leschtina-mostpres-horici-vody hFp://www2.seismosoc.org/FMPro?-db=Abstract_Submission_12&sortfield=PresDay&-sortorder=ascending&-sortfield=Special+Sessio n+Name+Calc&-sortorder=ascending&-sortfield=PresTimeSort&sortorder=ascending&-op=gt&PresStatus=0&-lop=and&-token.1=Sh owSession&-token.2=ShowHeading&-recid=224&format=%2Fmeetings%2F2012%2Fabstracts%2Fsessionabstractdetail .html&-lay=MtgList&-find hFp://www.ogs.ou.edu/pubsscanned/openfile/OF1_2011.pdf hFps://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/ aFachment_data/file/48330/5055-preese-hall-shale-gas-fracturingreview-and-recomm.pdf Report on the environmental impacts of shale gas and shale oil extraction activities from September 25, 2012 (2011/2308(INI)) Report on industrial, energy and other aspects of shale gas and oil from September 25, 2012 (2011/2309(INI)) Environmental impacts of shale gas and shale oil extraction activities from November 21, 2012 (2011/2308(INI)) hFp://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do? uri=OJ:C:2010:083:0047:0200:en:PDF 18. List of abbreviations EU EP ENVI – European Union – European Parliament – Environment, Public Health and Food Safety commiFee of the EP ITRE – Industry, Research and Energy commiFee of the EP GUE/NGL – Confederal Group of the European United LeE/Nordic Green LeE in the EP S&D – Socialists and democrats in the EP EPP – Group of the European People's Party in the EP EFD – Europe of Freedom and Democracy 61 62 Gauche Unitaire Européenne/Gauche Verte Nordique European United Left/Nordic Green Left Groupe Parlementaire • Parliamentary Group PARLEMENT EUROPEEN • EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT www.guengl.eu MUDr. Jiří Maštálka Jiří Malík and the team of the Coalition STOP HF Shale gas Energy hope or dirty business? Not for sale Published with the support of the GUE/NGL Parliamentary Group in the EP Number of copies: 1000 Teplice nad Metují – Brussels 2013