2020 Oct 23rd 'Fact Sheet – Shale and Tight Gas Extraction'

 

Fact Sheet – Shale and Tight Gas Extraction

What is the difference between conventional and unconventional gas?

The difference between conventional and unconventional gas is the geology of the reservoirs from which they are extracted and which therefore require different extraction techniques to obtain commercial quantities of gas.

Conventional gas is usually found in relatively large permeable rock reservoirs. In a conventional gas deposit, once drilled, the gas can usually be extracted relatively easily via vertical wells. Conventional gas has been extracted in Australia for many decades.

Unconventional natural gas is found in less permeable deposits or spread more diffusely throughout the rock substrates, not in discrete pockets or reservoirs. This gas is more difficult to extract and therefore requires more specialized (i.e. ‘unconventional’) extraction techniques and processes. The methods required for the extraction of unconventional gas include hydraulic fracturing (fracking), horizontal drilling, multiple drilling, and acidation.

In addition to extra processes such as fracking, unconventional gasfields also involve the industrialisation of entire landscapes (covering considerably larger areas than conventional gasfields). They generally require thousands of wells, vast networks of roads and pipelines, compressor stations, processing plants, wastewater holding dams and treatment plants. 

The three main types of unconventional gas are 

1.  coal seam gas (CSG), - CSG is found in coal seams

2.  shale gas and shale gas is found in shale rocks,

3.  tight gas.- found in low permeability sandstone rocks.

A categorical assessment (1) of peer-reviewed literature published in April 2016 found that out of 685 published papers on the impacts of unconventional gas development, ‘84% of public health studies indicate risks to public health, 69% of water studies show actual or potential water contamination and 87% of air quality studies indicate elevated air pollution’.

Shale and tight gas mining processes require vast amounts of water

 Extraction of shale and tight gas requires high volume, 'slick-water' hydraulic fracturing and usually involves horizontal drilling. This newer type of fracking is far more risky than older fracking techniques previously used in the gas industry.

 Fracking for shale and tight gas is an extremely water-intensive practice. Each well may require up to ten fracks (2) over its production life. The Australian gas industry provides a figure of 11 million litres per shale or tight gas frack  (3)

. Other sources suggest that water use is often much higher (4)

. According to one UN report, a single frack operation on a shale gas well will use between 11 and 34 million litres of water, roughly 360 –1100 truckloads (5)

. Drilling a shale or tight gas well also requires around 1 million litres per well (6)

 1 Toward an Understanding of the Environmental and Public Health Impacts of Unconventional Natural Gas Development: A Categorical Assessment of the Peer-Reviewed Scientific Literature, 2009-2015: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0154164 2 European Parliament, Economic & Scientific Policy Dept, Impacts of shale gas and shale oil extraction on the environment and on human health. 3 APPEA: The Natural Gas Revolution- Natural gas from shale and tight rocks. 4 Kargbo D, William R & Campbell D, (2010) Natural Gas Plays in the Marcellus Shale: Challenges and Potential Opportunities, Vol. 44, No. 15 Environmental Science & Technology; CIWEM UK, 2012 Policy Position Statement ‘Hydraulic Fracturing (Fracking) of Shale in the UK’; 5 UNEP Global Environmental Alert Service: Gas Fracking: Can we safely squeeze the rocks? 6 WA Govt: Natural gas from shale & gas fact sheet: water use & management. Lock the Gate Alliance www.lockthegate.org.au  In the US, towns and pastoral properties that must compete with fracking operators for scarce water supplies have been seriously affected. In Texas, extraction of water for fracking has contributed to serious problems of ground and surface water depletion during drought conditions7 . 

Shale and tight gas mining uses large amounts of chemicals in each fracking operation

 The gas industry is at pains to point out that chemical additives make up only a very small proportion of fracking fluids- ‘approximately’ .5% (8) . 

In reality, the amounts used range from .5 to 2% (9), and while this is a small proportion relative to the large volumes of water used, it translates to very large quantities of chemicals. A typical 15 million litre fracturing operation would use 80 - 330 tons of chemicals (10). 

 Industry also maintains that ‘most’ of these chemicals are found in household products (11) but this does not mean they are safe. Fracking compounds used in Australia have also been shown to include many hazardous substances, including carcinogens, neurotoxins, irritants/sensitisers, reproductive toxins and endocrine disruptors (12) . Many of the chemicals used in fracking have never been assessed for their long-term impacts on the environment and human health.

Shale and tight gas mining places water resources at risk

 The gas industry claims that because shale and tight gas extraction involves deeper rock layers, they are safer than gas extraction from shallow coal seams. But according to a European Commission Report (13)  there is an overall high risk of ground and surface water contamination resulting from fracking. 

 US studies have implicated shale gas in the contamination of groundwater with heavy metals, salts and gas  (14) . Contamination can occur from well casing failure due to corrosion, faulty construction or repeated fracturing. Data from one US state shows that 6-7% of new shale gas wells were faulty and leaking gas (15) . After 20 years this failure rate may increase to 50%, as wells corrode and cement casings degrade (16) . 

 Groundwater contamination can also occur if gas and toxic flowback fluids migrate from gas wells into aquifers through natural underground faults or fractures created during fracking operations. Recent research from the USA found higher levels of arsenic and other heavy metals, plus higher salinity, in water bores which were less than 3km from shale gas wells17. Other research has found increased methane concentrations in water bores closer to shale gas wells, creating an explosion hazard  (18) . 

 Surface water pollution can occur when there are accidental spills of fluids or solids at the surface, when well blow outs occur, and through discharge of insufficiently treated waste water into waterways. Studies from Duke University in the US have found high levels of radioactivity in a creek used for disposal of wastewater (19) . 

 There is ever-increasing evidence from across the US of significant depletion and contamination of water resources and waste management issues from unconventional gas operations (20) . 

 7 Frackers guzzle water as Texas goes thirsty: http://nation.time.com/2013/09/29/frackers-guzzle-water-as-texas-goes-thirsty/; Western Organization of Resource Councils: Watered Down: Oil & gas production & oversight in the west. 8 APPEA: The Natural Gas Revolution- Natural gas from shale and tight rocks. 9 Hazen and Sawyer, December 22, 2009. Impact Assessment of Natural Gas Production in the New York City Water Supply Watershed. 10 Ibid 11 APPEA: The Natural Gas Revolution- Natural gas from shale and tight rocks. 12 National Toxics Network: Toxic Chemicals in the Exploration and Production of Gas from Unconventional Sources. 13 Broomfield Mark, Support to the identification of potential risks for the environment and human health arising from hydrocarbons operations involving hydraulic fracturing in Europe. AEA Technology, 2012. 14 Fracking: The evidence, https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B1cEvov1OlyHdzRBRjk4dElfbVE/edit?pli=1 15 Ibid 16 Marcellus Shale Exposed, Antony Ingraffea, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7DK3fODCZ3w; ANTHONY R. INGRAFFEA , PH.D., P.E., FLUID MIGRATION MECHANISMS DUE TO FAULTY WELL DESIGN AND/OR CONSTRUCTION. 17 Fontenot et al 2013, An Evaluation of Water Quality in Private Drinking Water Wells near Natural Gas Extraction Sites in the Barnett Shale Formation. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2013. 47 (17) pp 10032-10040 18 Osborn et al 2013. Methane contamination of drinking water accompanying gas-well drilling and hydraulic fracturing. PNAS, 

Disposal of wastewater from shale and tight gas operations is a serious problem 

According to industry sources, around 30% of the fracking fluid flows back to the surface (21). However, as little as 6 to 8% may be recovered  (22) . 

 Underground water in the drilling area can also come to the surface during gas production. For a typical shale gas well, daily 'produced' water volumes range from 300 – 4,500 litres (23) . 

 In addition to drilling and fracking chemicals, 'flowback' and 'produced' water can contain a range of naturally occurring contaminants from the rocks. These include, heavy metals, naturally occurring radioactive materials (NORMs), volatile and semi volatile organic compounds (VOC’s) and high concentrations of salts (24) . 

 The large volumes of waste water produced from shale and tight gas mining are likely to be reinjected into aquifer formations, partially ‘treated’ and reused or released into waterways, or trucked to holding ponds for storage and ‘evaporation’  (25) .

Shale and tight gas operations can have serious consequences for human and animal health

Whilst the gas industry maintains that unconventional gas extraction is safe and ‘clean’, there is a rapidly growing body of research from overseas that highlights the impacts of shale and tight gas operations on land, water and human health. Communities living near gasfields in the US have reported serious health effects following the commencement of unconventional gas operations (26) . Some of the public health effects of unconventional gas development that US researchers have documented, as outlined in The Compendium of Fracking Risks (27) include: 

 Increased rates of hospitalization for cardiological complaints, cancer, skin conditions, and urological problems. 

 Increase in frequency of health symptoms reported by residents as distance between households and gas wells decreased; with rashes and upper respiratory problems more prevalent among persons living less than one kilometre from drilling and fracking operations. 

 Increase in infant deaths to six times the normal rate over three years.  Congenital heart defects, and possibly neural tube defects in newborns, associated with the density and proximity of natural gas wells within a 10-mile radius of mothers’ residences. 

 Reductions in average birthweight and length of pregnancy as well as increased risk for low birthweight and premature birth associated with proximity to fracking operations. 

 Residents living adjacent to coal seam gas operations around Chinchilla Queensland also report a range of health symptoms, including serious respiratory ailments, nose throat and eye irritations and neurological illnesses. 

 A 2012 case study in the US also found serious evidence of harm to domestic stock from shale gas drilling waste contamination, including cattle deaths, stillbirths and reproductive problems  (28) .

 19 Warner et al, Impacts of Shale Gas Wastewater Disposal on Water Quality in Western Pennsylvania, Environ. Sci. Technol., 2013, 47 (20), pp 11849–11857 20 Western Organization of Resource Councils: Watered Down: Oil & gas production & oversight in the wes; Fracking: the evidence, https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B1cEvov1OlyHdzRBRjk4dElfbVE/edit?pli=1; Hansen, Mulvaney & Betcher, Water resources reporting and water footprint from Marcellus Shale development in West Virginia & Pennsylvania. 21 APPEA: The Natural Gas Revolution- Natural gas from shale and tight rocks. 22 Hansen, Mulvaney & Betcher, Water resources reporting and water footprint from Marcellus Shale development in West Virginia & Pennsylvania 23 Bill Chameides, “Natural Gas, Hydrofracking and Safety: The Three Faces of Fracking Water,” National Geographic, September 20, 2011. 24 Ibid 25 National Toxics Network: Toxic Chemicals in the Exploration and Production of Gas from Unconventional Sources. 26 Centre for Environmental Health: Toxic and Dirty Secrets: The Truth about Fracking and Your Family’s Health. 27 http://concernedhealthny.org/compendium/

Economic/Employment Impacts of Unconventional Gas Extraction (29)

 While gas companies continually spruik the promise of more jobs for local communities as a justification for unconventional gas development, in actual fact the oil and gas industry is one of the smallest employers in Australia, employing less than 0.2% of the Australian workforce.

  The majority of gas industry jobs are required for the short construction phase only, they are not ongoing, as modern gas fields are highly mechanized and need very few people to operate them. Local employment opportunities are minimal with the majority of skilled workers being brought in from elsewhere with fly-infly-out workforces.

  Those employed locally are usually skilled workers poached from local industries that have spent years training them, often leaving these industries short of labour and unable to compete with gas industry wage rates. 

 Recent large scale coal seam gas developments in Queensland have failed to deliver on the promised economic benefits, with many existing businesses and entire industries badly affected by loss of skilled staff to the gas industry and increased costs of labour, rent, transport and goods and services. 

 With the 4 year construction phase of the CSG production gasfields in Queensland now coming to an end, the gas ‘boom-towns’ of Dalby, Roma and Chinchilla has seen a crippling economic down turn with associated job losses and loss of revenue for local businesses who had initially benefitted from the boom. 

Further Reading Further detailed information collated from peer reviewed research into the environmental and health risks from fracking and unconventional gas operations can be found in these reports: -Compendium of Scientific, Medical, and Media Findings Demonstrating Risks and Harms of Fracking -New York State Public health review of Hydraulic Fracturing for Shale Gas Development 28 MICHELLE BAMBERGER, ROBERT E. OSWALD, IMPACTS OF GAS DRILLING ON HUMAN AND ANIMAL HEALTH. 29 The Australia Institute: Be Careful what you Wish For: http://www.tai.org.au/content/be-careful-what-you-wish

2020 Oct 22nd THE IMPORTANT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SHALE OIL , UNCONVENTIONAL OIL SHALE AND CONVENTIONAL CRUDE OIL

1.   Oil Shale (not known to be found in the Canning Basin or the wider Kimberley).

Oil shale in the US for example is where they put furnaces into the earth to speed up the process of 'kerogen' becoming oil.

Kerogen is solid, insoluble organic matter in sedimentary rocks. Consisting of an estimated 10¹⁶ tons of carbon, it is the most abundant source of organic compounds on earth, exceeding the total organic content of living matter 10,000-fold.  Upon heating, kerogen converts in part to liquid and gaseous hydrocarbons. Petroleum and natural gas form from kerogen.

Oil shale is the dirtiest process of all. 

2.   Unconventional shale oil 

The sedimentary layers in the Kimberley like the 'Goldwyer formation' where Theia Energy are positioned, the 'kerogin' has already been through the process to become oil.

At the Theia site the minute droplets of oil which are tiny droplets like a pin prick on a hair are already oil not 'kerogen' and locked within the shale. With shale having low porosity and permeability (porosity being the tiny spaces whilst the permeability is the ability for it to flow so fracking is required to open those fractures and allow that flow.  

3.  Conventional crude e.g. Buru Energy are extracting at Ungani.

2020 Oct 22nd ENVIRONMENT RISKS OF SHALE OIL

 Environmental Risks of Shale Oil Development esp. in the US. (Shale Oil is NOT FOUND IN THE CANNING BASIN of the Kimberley BUT 'OIL SHALE' IS)

What is shale oil? 

Shale oil is a type of unconventional oil found in crude form. It’s trapped inside of shale rocks that requires hydraulic fracturing. In some cases the oil to be extracted from oil shales through a heating process. Oil shales refer to organic-rich sedimentary rocks that hold large quantities of kerogen, which can be turned into oil by combustion under high temperatures. 

This brief reviews the environmental risks associated with crude oil

A key driver for economic extraction of oil from shale formations was technological changes in hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling. 

Hydraulic fracturing process involves creating fractures in tight formations by injecting high-pressure fluids into the wellbore, which can be done at multiple points horizontally (See Figure 1 below). Horizontal drilling increases the contact area of the well with a shale oil reservoir that is hard to access. Hydraulically fractured horizontal wells are responsible for 69% of new wells drilled in the US, according to the Energy Information Agency (EIA). Figure 1: Hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling in shale formations

More than half of technically recoverable shale oil resources are located in the US, Russia, China, Argentina and Libya, the EIA estimates. 

Shale oil production in the Bakken Play (North Dakota, Montana), the Eagle Ford (Texas) and the Permian (Texas, New Mexico) placed the US as the world’s largest crude oil producer over the past decade. 

The shale revolution has been promoted by the industry as an energy game changer, reducing dependency on imported oil in the US.2 1 

Oil produced from shale formations and oil shales requires different processes, although they have similar-sounding names. 

Shale oil production from shale rocks is more common and less expensive than extracting oil from oil shales. 

To this date, oil shale production was piloted in Estonia, the US, and Jordan, but it is not economically feasible at large scale yet. 

Shale oil production has already been proven economic in multiple shale plays in the US, despite diminishing economic returns over the lifetime of oil wells. 2 See Hughes (2013) article published in Nature, debunking the economic potential of shale oil revolution. 

BNEF finds oil output is generally high immediately after the well is drilled but declines to 5% of initial production within 2 years. 

Environmental risks associated with shale oil production.

 Shale oil exploration and production stages can lead to a number of environmental damages in the vicinity of the drilling site. 

Key environmental considerations include 

blowouts and 

• spills at the drilling site, 
• increased methane emissions from flaring and venting, 
• water stress, 
• wastewater spills from containment ponds, 
• well casing failures and leakages to drinking water supplies.

 The following sections will focus on water quality issues and methane emissions associated with shale oil production. 

ENVIRONMENTAL RISKS ILLUSTRATED ABOVE

Water quality issues linked to fracked shale wells.

After the hydraulic fracturing process, wastewater flows back to the surface, containing brine (salt), toxic chemicals and radioactive materials. 

This flowback water is a mixture of fracking fluid and formation water, which is recycled to be reused in fracking, disposed at off-site storage facilities or injected into deep wells. 

Over the ground surface, wastewater treatment is a major issue as the scale of production increases. 

In 2011, a New York Times investigation found 1.3 billion gallons (4.9 billion litres) of wastewater was produced from fracked wells in Pennsylvania between 2008 to 2010, far above the reported amount disclosed by companies. 

Most of wastewater was carried to municipal sewage treatment plants not equipped to treat toxic materials found in flowback water, and some of this treated water was discharged into rivers that supply drinking water.

Below the surface, well integrity failures might result in spillage of flowback water, oil and gas to aquifers. 

Well cementing and casing prevents oil, gas and fluids from groundwater resources, if the well is constructed and maintained properly. 

A study of 8030 wells inspected between 2005 and 2013 in the Marcellus Shale found that 6.3% had issues with well integrity. A Duke University study found that four states - Colorado, Pennsylvania, North Dakota and New Mexico - experienced the most accidental wastewater spills from shale production. 

The magnitude of shale oil drilling in Nth Dakota - more than 9700 wells over the last decade - led to “the highest spill rate with 4,453 incidents, followed by Pennsylvania at 1,293, Colorado at 476 and New Mexico at 426”. 

75% to 94% of spills happened during the first three years of the well life, and 50% of spillage were related to storage and moving of fluids via flowlines, the study estimates more than half of hydraulic fracturing wells lies in 2 to 3 km proximity of domestic groundwater wells, increasing the risk of contamination in the case of well failure or accidental spills. 

As testing of private water wells is voluntary, contaminated drinking water goes unnoticed by the property owner. 

A Duke study of drinking water wells in the vicinity of fracked wells found elevated levels of methane contamination in Pennsylvania and upstate New York, while no evidence for drinking water contamination with brines and fracturing fluids was detected. 

Methane emissions and wasted gas from shale oil production.

 Shale oil and gas boom in the US and Canada led to a significant increase in global methane emissions over the past decade, a new Cornell study finds. 

More than half of the total increased fossil fuel emissions mainly came from shale gas production (and some from shale oil), it suggests. This spike in methane emissions matter because methane is a major contributor to greenhouse gas emissions, responsible for a quarter of today’s global warming. Methane is 84 times more potent than carbon dioxide in the first two decades after it is released to the atmosphere. 

Deep reductions in methane emissions is needed to limit global warming to 1.5°C, according to the IPCC report. 

Natural gas is sometimes produced as an unwanted byproduct from oil production. Oil producers flare the unwanted gas or vent directly into the atmosphere, when there is not enough pipeline capacity. 

In 2018, global gas flaring grew by 3% to 145 billion cubic meters of gas due to a 48% increase in shale oil production in the US, equivalent to annual total gas consumption in the Central and South America, the World Bank finds. 

Gas flaring and venting become a common practice in the Permian and Bakken basins, with a combined 12 billion cubic meters of wasted gas per year, exceeding the annual gas demands of Israel, Colombia and Romania. In the Permian Basin, seven companies flare 5.1% of average gas output, with BP being the second worst offender after SM Energy, according to Rystad.

Spills associated with transportation of fracked oil.

Crude oil spills has detrimental impacts on land, water and air. 

Crude oil contains volatile organic compounds (VOCs), such as benzene, that could evaporate into the air immediately after the spill, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) which stays in the environment long after the spill and contaminate land and water resources. 

There is no safe way to transport oil. The industry claims that pipelines are the safest form of transporting oil. 

While pipelines are the second-worst when you compare the amount of oil spilled by trucks, they are the worst when it comes to environmental impacts to the land, wildlife and water resources. 

In the US, pipeline incidents spilled more than 76,000 barrels of oil per year between 1986 and 2013, resulting in almost $7 billion in damage. 

1327 pipeline leaks were recorded in North Dakota from 2006 through 2014, spilling 41,672 barrels of to the landscape. 

The largest pipeline spill of fracked oil occured in 2013, contaminating 13 acres of wheat field with over 20,600 barrels of oil - equivalent to about six football fields- in northwestern North Dakota. Yet, only a third of oil was cleaned in three years after the spill. The leaked segment of pipeline had not been inspected in eight years prior to the incident. 

Oil trains are not safe either. Derailment of train cars carrying fracked oil have increased since the Bakken production began. In 2016, the 96 unit Union Pacific train carrying Bakken oil from North Dakota derailed in Mosier, Oregon. 16 cars of the train were derailed and several cars caught fire, spilling 42,000 gallons of fracked oil. 

2020 OCT 20th - 'UNCONVENTIONAL FRACKING of GAS FROM SHALE'

 

UNCONVENTIONAL FRACKING of GAS FROM SHALE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7DK3fODCZ3w&feature=youtu.be&fbclid=IwAR2rcEIy7IthNlbHWZLFDPqVmOY3jVTNJSCQ4Fkh4qaOcXJtOIwa8DutYcA

SUMMARY OF THIS LECTURE BELOW - 2012

(Shows Fracturing of shale for gas in the US)

(Shale oil is not known to be found in the Kimberley)

Shale is sedimentary rock

Shale oil is an unconventional oil produced from oil shale rock fragments by pyrolysis, hydrogenation, or thermal dissolution. These processes convert the organic matter within the rock (kerogen) into synthetic oil and gas. ... The refined products can be used for the same purposes as those derived from crude oil.

Shale oil is a substitute for conventional crude oil; however, extracting shale oil from oil shale is more costly than the production of conventional crude oil both financially and in terms of its environmental impact. Deposits of oil shale occur around the world, including major deposits in the United States.

Environmental impact of the oil shale industry includes the consideration of issues such as land use, waste management, and water and air pollution caused by the extraction and processing of oil shale. Surface mining of oil shale deposits causes the usual environmental impacts of open-pit mining. In addition, the combustion and thermal processing generate waste material, which must be disposed of, and harmful atmospheric emissions, including carbon dioxide, a major greenhouse gas. Experimental in-situ conversion processes and carbon capture and storage technologies may reduce some of these concerns in future, but may raise others, such as the pollution of groundwater.^[1][2]

What is the difference between unconventional and conventional gas?

Because they are easier and less expensive to produce, conventional  (one Well /one path) oil and gas were the first targets of industry activity using low pressure ... By contrast, unconventional (multi Wells and path) resources are trapped in reservoirs with low permeability, meaning little to no ability for the oil or natural gas to flow through the rock and into a wellbore.  It requires 4 technologies to retrieve the gas using high pressure.

The layer of shale might be 1500 metres down to the shale layer which might only be 30 metres thick.  The drilling then goes horizontally to follow the shale in either direction.  The lateral is at least as long at the vertical and often longer.  The longest lateral drilling is about 3000 metres.  The casing is about 6 inches diameter.

Fluid is used to fracture the rock.  HYDRAULIC means FLUID.

You need an incredible amount of pressure to force 6 million gallons of fluid through the 6 inch casing.  This creates friction by the water flow so chemical is added to reduce the friction to make it ‘slick water’ which flows more easily.

Showing drilling laterally and then fracturing left and right vertically and horizontally.  The spacing in only a foot or two between the yellow fracture lines.

Fractured using water, chemical and sand

Convention gas uses 10’s of 1000’s of gallons of fracturing fluid but with unconventional fracking it uses millions of gallons of fluid.

SHALE GAS MEANS YOU DRILL EVERYWHERE RIGHT ALONG AND ACROSS THE LAYER OF SHALE

·       FRACKING HAS BEEN DONE SINCE 1947 BUT ONLY ONE PART OF IT – MODERN FRACKING IS JUST RECENT TECHNOLOGY

·       THE FIRST HORIZONTAL DRILLING WAS 1991

·       SLICK WATER 1996

·       MULTI SLICK WATER FRACTURING 2002

·       MULTI WELLS AND CLUSTER DRILLING 2007

SUBSEQUENT ISSUES WERE NOT PLANNED FOR:

·       REGULATIONS WERE NOT READY

·       THE REGULATORS WEREN’T READY

·       WASTE FACILITIES WERE NOT IN PLACE

·       NOT ENOUGH TIME TO CONSIDER THE IMPACTS ON THE ENVIRONMENT AND OUR OWN HEALTH.

·       A DATA BASE NEEDED TO BE DONE OF WHERE THE WELLS WERE BEING DRILLED

·       A DATA BASE TO DOCUMENT VIOLATIONS

·       A DATA BASE FOR WASTE DISPOSAL

·       WHAT IS THE IMPACT OF 100,000 UNCONVENTIONAL SHALE GAS

FREQUENCY OF ACCIDENTS OF FAULTY WELLS (SAID TO BE ‘RARE’)

·       GAS MIGRATION OUTSIDE THE CASING OF THE WELL CAN COME IN CONTACT WITH DRINKING WATER IN THE LAYERS ABOVE THE SHALE – ‘METHANE’ CONTAMINATION OF WATER WELLS ETC.  METHANE ALSO MIGRATES INTO THE ATMOSPHERE WHERE IT BECOMES A POTENT GREENHOUSE GAS.

·       METHANE GAS WAS FOUND BUBBLING UP IN TROUT RIVERS COMING FROM OVER 1 KILOMETRE AWAY.

·       THE METHANE GAS AND OTHER HYDROCARBONS DON’T JUST BUBBLE UP IN RIVERS – IT BUBBLES UP ANY PLACE AND YOU WON’T KNOW.  YOU CAN’T SMELL IT.  YOU CAN MEASURE IT IN THE ATMOSPHERE AND IT WAS FOUND TO BE A LOT.

WHY DO WELLS FAIL?

·       THE CASING CAN FAIL

·       THE CONCRETE SURROUNDING THE  CASING CAN FAIL

·       NEW WELLS HAVE A FAILURE RATE OF 1 OUT OF 20

·       OFSHORE: THE OLDER THE WELLS THE MORE LEAKAGE UP TO 1 OUT OF 2.  EVENTUALLY ALL WELLS LOOSE THEIR INTEGRITY.

·       ONSHORE 4 - 5% LEAK – for 100,000 Wells drilled, that’s 5000 LEAKING WELLS WHICH IS SIGNIFICANT.

·       CONTAMINATION OF DRINKING WATER BY METHANE, HAUDRAULIC FLUIDS, HYDROCARBONS

·      A typical large Frack job (16 Wells on one pad of 1 to 2 square miles underneath the surface) requires

o   417 million gallons of water,      

o   78,000 tons of sand

o   8 million gallons of fracking chemicals

o   500 frack intervals

o   10,000 foot laterals

o   40,000 HP for fracking pumps

 

 

2020 October 19th Fracking in the N.T. article in the Australia by Nick Cater

The Australian 21st Oct 2020 by Nick Cater An article in the Australian Newspaper - summary below:

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/commentary/gas-is-fracking-hell-to-protesters/news-story/2fb1fb147cf8d41f666b5d7149751886

Kyalla 117 is the first of two new Origin Energy appraisal wells to be drilled and fracture stimulated in the Beetaloo Basin.

The Northern Terrritory elected a pro-gas Labor administration and an even more pro-gas opposition.

Origin Energy and other companies have stakes in the hydrocarbon-rich Beetaloo Basin 600km south of Darwin.

In fact, the traditional owners of this sparsely populated land have given their blessing to this and other projects. Under agreements painstakingly brokered by the Northern Land Council, they will receive a percentage of revenue.

The threat to the environment is, (it is claimed is) , non-existent because Energy companies have to jump through hoops to receive environmental approval under the strict rules imposed by the NT government. Sacred sites have been identified and ruled out of bounds.

Three innovations in the last quarter-century made the extraction of shale gas possible and profitable.

1.    The use of slick water, water mixed with sand and small quantities of household chemicals to open microscopic cracks releasing hydrocarbons.

2.    The ability to drill around corners for several kilometres and

3.    The technology to transport liquid gas economically by sea turned shale gas into a lucrative commodity.

The Beetaloo shale was deposited one and a half billion years ago and lies in largely unbroken strata up to 2km below the surface.

Geoscience Australia calculates the quantity of gas at 250 trillion cubic feet, more than 30 times the gas extracted from Bass Strait and 15 times the capacity of the Browse Basin offshore and north of Broome.

Shale gas has rewritten the business model of the energy sector, and could change the business model of the NT. Darwin could be transformed from a government-funded service centre for Indigenous misery to the new Dallas, or at the very least something resembling Perth, a city where lawyers, accountants, engineers and truck drivers live comfortably on the back of mining.

The shale revolution in the US has been unstoppable. Cheap gas is rapidly replacing coal in generating electricity. Chemical manufacturing and other energy-intense industries have returned on shore,

With gas comes oil. In the past 10 years, US oil production has risen from seven million to 17 million barrels a day, 50 per cent more than Saudi Arabia.

The science behind fracturing is well established. A three-year study by CSIRO published early this year found fracking had no impact on air or water quality. Standard water treatment techniques reduced levels of geogenic chemicals — contaminants from geological formations — within acceptable limits and water recovered to its pre-fractured state within 40 days.

The NT government ended its moratorium on hydraulic fracturing in 2018 after a scientific study found drilling for shale gas was safe and lucrative, injecting up to $17bn in the NT economy and creating more than 500 jobs.

Yet the complexities of land ownership remain one of the biggest barriers to extracting the wealth buried hundreds of metres underground. In the US the formula was simple, since minerals belong to the landowner.

In Australia, where royalties accrue to state governments, securing consent of landowners for a rig to be placed on their property is somewhat harder.

The solution is to grant landowners a share of royalties, the formula effectively applied in the NT.

Yet the process of identifying the rightful owners is far from simple. In the Beetaloo Basin it falls to the Northern Land Council to figure it out.

2020 Oct 15th Kimberley fracking project 'unlikely' under WA onshore gas export ban

 

A Kimberley oil and gas fracking project that has gained the support of traditional owners after more than a year of negotiations is unlikely to go ahead under a WA gas export ban, the proponent says.

Key points:

• Proponents say gas projects in WA's Kimberley are jeopardised by the onshore gas export ban
• The WA Government says exemptions will be granted only in exceptional circumstances
• Karajarri Traditional Lands Association chief executive Martin Bin Rashid says the project represents an opportunity for traditional owners

Karajarri native title holders in the West Kimberley signed an Indigenous Land Use Agreement with Theia Energy just two weeks after the WA Government announced an onshore gas export ban in August.

The revised WA domestic gas policy prevents gas extracted from land-based reserves from being sold outside of Western Australia.

Theia Energy's agreement with Karajarri allows for drilling and fracking a well in the Great Sandy Desert as part of a project that proponents hope will become a major oil and gas producer.

Karajarri Traditional Lands Association chief executive Martin Bin Rashid said at the time that the agreement offered economic benefits while ensuring the protection of the environment.

FULL STORY: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-10-15/wa-gas-export-ban-impacts-kimberley-exploration/12761302?fbclid=IwAR00SSCATZpxXTjkF9nKzBiRf8ZBXjH2uhnjr1t1jz5SfnJiUyKEXPtvglk