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