fex | industrie & energie | 131112 | conferentie schaliegas & olie | presentatie | taco...
TRANSCRIPT
Shalegas production in NL: a case studyThe Brabant Case
Taco Hoencamp, shalegas expert Royal HaskoningDHV
Suppose:
� Minister Kamp decides to shale gas exploration drillings
� Production of shale gas is economically viable
� A gas company wants to produce:
Case study Brabant for EBN: 2011/12
1. Shale gas production field:� How does it look like?
2. Which environmental effects?3. Which mitigating measures
possible?4. Participation of the region
� C-MER (19/9/2013): case study example for National Spatial plan shale gas
� Four subjects above in this presentation
Production field shale gas: many sites
Each site: clustering of 6- 10 wells� Vertical well: 3500m deep� Horizontal well: 1500-2500m
� Space between horizontal wells: 400m
� Surface ± 10 – 20 km2
� 1-2 year drilling - 2 month fracking� Production phase 10 to 15 years� Water use
� Drilling: ± 13.000 m3� Fracking with re-use: ± 90.000 m3
� Waste water� Drilling water: ± 13.000 m3� Production water ± 90.000 m3 per year
Finding sites (in the case study): via GIS
� Keep distance from:� Buildings, houses� Roads, railways, canals, rivers� Existing safety zones
� i.e. gas and fuel lines
� Ground water protection areas, drill free zones� Natura2000 areas� Fault lines� Archaeological sites
� Preference for:� Agricultural areas� Near main gas distribution lines
Example 1: Away from buildings,houses
�Distance > 100m
�Difficult criteria
�NL is densely populated
Eindhoven
Example 2: Not in protected areas
� But still very close.
� Appropriate Assessment obligatory� Assess effects
on nature
Example 3: Oil and gas distribution systems
� Not too close� Safety risk
� Not too far� NL- gas
network needed for distribution
Example 4: Preference for agricultural areas
� Preference for� Pasture� Farm land
� Stay away from � Hay (heide)
1
1
1
1
987
6
54
32 2
43
56
2
87
93
4
5
78
3
2
9
8
6
6
9
57
4
Production field - result spatial analysis
� Area around Boxtel� 37 sites� Average surface 10 km2
� Construction in 10-15 yrs� 3 – 5 drilling rigs� Mitigating measures
� Not drilling simultaneously in all areas
� Central gas treatment� Gas pipes buried along
roads to treatment plant
Under the surface it looks likes this
3D-view of Wells
Edited concept Scenario 4
Shale gas phases
� Site preparation� Well drilling� Fracking� Production
� Re-fracking ( after ±10 year)
Possible environmental effects production field
� Traffic disturbance� Waste water storage / transport� Water use� Tremors� Noise and light disturbance� Landscape� Ground water pollution� Also (but not in this presentation)
� Chemicals� Regional Safety� Nature / Natura2000
Traffic disturbance mostly during first 8 years
� A lot of circulating trucks with� Drilling rigs, � Fracking machines, � A lot of water and sand� Waste water and production water� Other (such as chemicals)
� Road network not suitable everywhere: � Small roads for light traffic � Traffic security
� CO2 emissions, tremors, noise
Reduction traffic disturbance: waste water collection
� If you are digging for a gas collection system:� Waste water via pipes� Same trench as of gas
collection lines
� To central treatment plant� Less traffic� Less risks for pollution
� (proper monitoring required)
Reduction traffic disturbance: water supply system
� If you are digging for a gas collection system:� Water supply via pipes� For a large part: same
trench as gas lines� Water company “Brabant
Water”� Water production per year: � 180.000.000 m3
� Of which 40% for industry
� Water use shale gas:� 8.000.000 m3 in 8 year
� 1.000.000 m3 per year
� = 0,5% production of BW
Tremors
� Only with fracking� Not due to subsidence
� In UK: 2,3 Richter scale� More wells, more fracks, more risks� Risk reduction by:
� Stay away from faults: detailed research� Constant micro seismic monitoring� Apply traffic light method
Light
� Light disturbance of drilling rigs / well locations� Already significantly reduced by existing measures� Adapted light: Clear Sky-lamps� Inward directed lightning
� Much less disturbance for flora and fauna� Much less visible from a distance
Groundwater
� Contamination via fracks� Not a real risk� Length fracks maximum 300 m,
horizontal well at > 3000 m depth� Many impermeable layers in
between well - groundwater� Careful with faults
� Contamination via well: possible� Production field many wells, more
risk� Proper well design, many casings� Proper monitoring
Landscape and local solutions
� Site selection based on:� Criteria (as from the case study)
� Additional criteria� Least possible noise disturbance� Safest routes for heavy traffic� Fitting in the landscape� Participation of the region
Fitting in the landscape
Average area covered by a site: 10 – 20 km2
Average distance between sites: 4 – 6 km
Fitting in the landscape
Average area covered by a site: 10 – 20 km2
Average distance between sites: 4 – 6 km
Economics of Brabant shale gas production� Based on:
� Halliburton Notional Field Development� Royal HaskoningDHV calculation of costs� EBN Leeswijzer� Not based on exploration drillings!!
� Capital Investment for 37 sites / 315 wells:� Drilling: € 2.7 - € 3.0 billion� Fracking: € 1.2 billion� Installations, pipe systems: € 0.6 - € 0,7 billion� Totalling € 4,5 – 4,9 billion
� Operational costs for 15 years: € 2.3 – 2.8 billion� Production per year: average 6.000.000.000 m3
� Profit (after taxes) based on € 0,26/m3 gas prize� 16-18% return on investment
Also in the case study (2011!):
� Oil- and gas drillings are controversial in NL: example Waddenzee,
� Shale gas has a bad name:� Mainly due to bad experiences in US� Gas land; The Promised Land� A lot of positive changes now in US
� Conditions for proper participation region:� Openness� Transparency� Include region in spatial planning process� Create Win - Win situations
Transparency and opennessExample: North-South line Amsterdam (metro)� Past:
� A lot of hindrance � Subsidence of houses � No contact with citizens� Project about to stop
� Now: � Openness, transparency� No censorship� Every debate / comments through website� Pro- and Contra- debate on website� Contractor workers show what they are doing� Organised visits to building sites; � Some construction parts permanently accessible
Transparency and openness
� Make risks discussable� Show what you will do when a
risk occurs.
� Open house� Excursions to the
drilling/fracking site� Invite the surrounding citizens:
open days� Visit schools, social clubs
Damage form
Monitoring: essential element of openness
� Measure a lot: � Measure smart and measure thoroughly� Show what you measure
� direct online, no censorship
� To be monitored:� Drilling process: solid waste, energy use � Fracking process: seismic activity, energy use� Waste water: quality / quantity� Traffic intensity� Air, light, noise emissions� Gas production: � And many more
� Independent controller
Win - win situations
� Share profits: regional or Local Fund for investments
� Shale gas followed by use of geothermal heat
� Long term lease of (agricultural) fields for sites� Income guaranty agriculture
Conclusions
Production of shale gas on a regional scale
� A thorough EIA is required:� Some effects seems small, others very large� Many effects can be mitigated� Some effects demand specific measures
� Find solutions together with the region
� Be open with information and discuss risks� (and the measures to contain them)
Conclusion
� Thanks to EBN for making this presentation possible
� Link to RHDHV report on website EBN:http://www.ebn.nl/Actueel/Documents/2012_Shale-gas-production-in-a-Dutch-perspective_Haskoning.pdf
� More information:� [email protected]� [email protected]� www.royalhaskoningdhv.com