M4ShaleGas Measuring, Monitoring, Mitigating, … 20160223 ETSN_UHE...Mitigating, Managing the...
17
www.m4shalegas.eu M4ShaleGas – Measuring, Monitoring, Mitigating, Managing the Environmental Impact of Shale Gas A Project Introduction by the M4ShaleGas Consortium Jan ter Heege (TNO Petroleum Geosciences)
Transcript of M4ShaleGas Measuring, Monitoring, Mitigating, … 20160223 ETSN_UHE...Mitigating, Managing the...
www.m4shalegas.eu
M4ShaleGas – Measuring, Monitoring, Mitigating, Managing the Environmental Impact of Shale Gas A Project Introduction by the M4ShaleGas Consortium Jan ter Heege (TNO Petroleum Geosciences)
Consortium
Project Introduction /2
• 18 Consortium Members
• 10 European Countries
• All members of the EERA JP Shale Gas
10-country Consortium
23/02/2016
External Project Bodies
Project Introduction /3
• External Advisory Board
– Five partners from Europe, U.S.A, and Canada
– Exchange of knowledge and experiences
– Reviews of key project activities and reports
• Industry Panel
– Exchange of knowledge and experiences
– Sharing of data and best practices
23/02/2016
Project Mission
Project Introduction /4
• M4ShaleGas examines potential risks and impacts of shale gas exploration on environment, climate and society.
• M4Shalegas aims to:
– build an extended knowledge base for Europe
– compile an inventory of quantified risks taking into account European geological & geopolitical settings
– formulate scientific recommendations for best practices
– contribute to minimising the environmental footprint of shale gas exploration and exploitation
23/02/2016
4 Scientific Sub-Programs
Project Introduction /5
M4ShaleGas studies the environmental impact of shale
gas exploitation in 4 sub-programs (SP) on the
subsurface, surface, air & climate, public engagement:
SP2
SP4
SP3
SP1
Public engagement and
perceptions of environmental
impacts
Impact of surface activities:
water, soil and well site
activities
Impact of subsurface activities:
hydraulic fracturing, induced
seismicity, well integrity
Impact on air quality and climate
23/02/2016
20 Work Packages on Key Impacts
SP2
SP4
SP3
SP1
Public engagement (lead Warwick U.)
Impact of surface activities: water, soil, well site activities (lead INIG)
Impact of subsurface activities: hydraulic fracturing, induced
seismicity, well integrity (lead TNO)
Impact on air quality and climate (lead LNEG)
M4ShaleGas governance
23/02/2016 /6 Project Introduction
General Methodology
Project Introduction /7
• Review of available data and best practices from U.S.A./Canada
• Collection and review of data from European shales
• Model development, simulations and experimental constraints
• Risk and impact assessment
• Comparison with conventional gas & other energy-related industrial activities
• Develop science-based best-practice recommendations
20
15
2
01
6
20
17
June 2015
November2017
23/02/2016
SP1 – Hydraulic Fracturing, Seismicity & Wells
Project Introduction /8 23/02/2016
• Extent of fracture disturbed zone, risks of leakage along induced fracture networks
• Controls on felt seismicity, properties of faults, classification of shale gas sites
• Risks of well leakage, monitoring and early warning systems
• Monitoring seismicity & seismic network design
• Drilling hazards, well integrity, well and drilling materials and procedures
SP1 – Review US & Canada
Project Introduction /9 23/02/2016
SP2 – Impact on water, soil, and well site
Project Introduction /10
• Baseline monitoring
• Analysis/prediction of waste water compounds
• Methods of waste water treatment
• Use of chemicals in fracturing fluids
• Risk of drinking water pollution
• Logistics of shale gas operations
• Noise and visual impacts
Source: www.drillingcontractor.org
Source: www.thegwpf.org
23/02/2016
SP2 – Review US & Canada
Project Introduction /11
No widespread, systematic impacts on drinking water resources in the US
(but limited data & limited long term studies available)
2015
Locally, groundwater contamination has been related to Marcellus Shale gas development
source: Jackson et al. 2014
source: Llewellyn et al. 2015
23/02/2016
SP3 – Impacts on air quality and climate
Project Introduction /12
• Learning from U.S.A./Canada experiences (left)
• Learning from conventional gas – How different is shale gas?
• Identify causes of emission to air from shale gas activities including fugitive gas emissions and flaring
• PM and NOx air pollution from machinery
• Best practices to minimize emissions
• Establish list of tracers to detect shale gas air emissions or leakage
• Case study on monitoring atmospheric composition source: Pétron et al. 2014
23/02/2016
SP3 – Review US & Canada
Project Introduction /13
• Develop a transparent carbon footprint comparison for shale gas in Europe
• Analysis of the CO2 footprint of gas versus coal
• Leakage of CH4 can off-set a potential benefit (tipping point depends on period of comparing CH4 and CO2 warming potential)
• Tipping point could be within range of actual leakage rates from the U.S.A. (assumptions & uncertainties crucial)
venting vs. flaring?
source: Foster and Perks, 2012
Methane leakage rates key factor for carbon footprint shale gas
23/02/2016
SP4 – Public Engagement
Project Introduction /14
• Experiences in Europe
• Experiences in U.S.A. and Canada
• Learning from related technologies (CCS, oil and gas)
• Public perceptions of shale gas operations (hydraulic fracturing)
• How to best inform and explain to the public?
• How to best arrange public engagement?
Source: Financial Post New Brunswick, October 26, 2012
23/02/2016
SP4 – Review US & Canada
Project Introduction /15
• Literature mainly focuses on awareness, risk/benefit perceptions and acceptability
• Strong focus on quantitative surveys and qualitative interviews
• Generally, higher support in Pennsylvania and Michigan, greater opposition in New York, Maryland, California and Quebec
• Strong focus on US Marcellus, lack of studies in Canada
• Widespread distrust of responsible parties & negative associations with the term ‘fracking’ exist
• Mixed public views of economic benefits versus perceived environmental & social risks
Strong regional variations in public engagement & perceptions towards shale gas in the US
23/02/2016
More Information?
Project Introduction /16
• Project’s website (currently >15 downloadable public scientific reports) – http://www.m4shalegas.eu
• Project Manager
– Holger Cremer (TNO | [email protected])
• Stakeholders & External (advisory) bodies
– Yvonne Schavemaker (TNO | [email protected])
• Project Principal Scientist and SP1 lead
– Jan ter Heege (TNO | [email protected])
• SP2 lead
– Anna Król (INiG | [email protected])
• SP3 lead
– Paula Costa (LNEG | [email protected])
• SP4 lead
– Michael Bradshaw (WBS | [email protected])
23/02/2016
Disclaimer
Project Introduction /17
• This presentation is part of a project that has received funding by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement number 640715
• The content of this presentation reflects only the authors’ view. The Innovation and Networks Executive Agency (INEA) is not responsible for any use that may be made of the information it contains
23/02/2016
