SHALE OIL & GAS RISK MANAGEMENT AND MITIGATION

Transcription

1 SHale gas Exploration and Exploitation induced Risks This project has received funding from the European Union s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreementno SHALE OIL & GAS RISK MANAGEMENT AND MITIGATION Paolo Capuano, Amra Scarl, Napoli Blackpool - June 7, 2017

2 Introduction The assessment of the environmental footprint of the exploration and exploitation of the energy resources is one of the main challenges of our times. Geo-energy applications such as carbon capture and storage (CCS), the development of unconventional hydrocarbons (in particular shale gas) and to some extent also geothermal operations, can have an impact on the subsurface. Consequently, advanced and cost effective monitoring is vital for the sustainable management of the subsurface and its resources. 2 P. Capuano, Shale Oil & Gas Risk Management and Mitigation

3 Introduction The most imminent challenge for shale gas extraction is to address the associated environmental concerns, in particular through a better understanding and monitoring of: 1. the fracturing process and its environmental effects (including in the long term), 2. the treatment and recycling of flow-back and produced water, 3. and mitigation of induced seismicity and emissions to air (including greenhouse gases) 3 P. Capuano, Shale Oil & Gas Risk Management and Mitigation

4 EU Projects on Shale Gas Environmental Footprint Under the EU call LCE , Understanding, preventing and mitigating the potential environmental impacts and risks of shale gas exploration and exploitation, 4 projects were funded: 1. Fracrisk - Furthering the Knowledge Base For Reducing the Environmental Footprint of Shale Gas Development 2. M4ShaleGas - Measuring, Monitoring, i Mitigating, Managing the environmental impact of Shale Gas 3. STX, ShaleXenvironmenT, Maximizing the EU shale gas potential by minimizing its environmental footprint 4. SHEER - SHale gas Exploration and Exploitation induces Risks ( May 1, April 30, 2018) 4 P. Capuano, Shale Oil & Gas Risk Management and Mitigation

5 SHEER PARTNERSHIP Name Acronym Country AMRA - ANALISI E MONITORAGGIO DEL RISCHIO AMBIENTALE SCARL AMRA Italy INSTYTUT GEOFIZYKI POLSKIEJ AKADEMII NAUK IGF PAS Poland UNIVERSITY OF KEELE KeU United Kingdom HELMHOLTZ-ZENTRUM POTSDAM DEUTSCHES GEOFORSCHUNGSZENTRUM KONINKLIJK NEDERLANDS METEOROLOGISCH INSTITUUT GFZ KNMI Germany Netherland RSKW LTD RSK W Ltd United Kingdom UNIVERSITY OF GLASGOW UG United Kingdom UNIVERSITY OF WYOMING UW United States 5 P. Capuano, Shale Oil & Gas Risk Management and Mitigation

6 SHEER objectives Design, definition and creation of the SHEER database Development of a monitoring execution plan agreed with the PGNiG operator and arrangement of the Polish test site for the collection of a complete suite of data Development and application of methodologies to assess environmental impacts and risks across the different operational phases using data gathered from past case studies and monitoring activities Identification of plausible scenarios of events or chains of events related with shale gas development tthat t may have an impact on the environment and/or the society Development of best practices for assessing and mitigating the environmental footprint of shale gas exploration and exploitation 6 Guidelines for monitoring environmental impacts and for the management of natural risks induced by shale gas exploration and exploitation P. Capuano, Shale Oil & Gas Risk Management and Mitigation

7 SHEER Strategy The objectives are being reached through h aprobabilistic b procedure for assessing short and long-term risks associated with: Groundwater contamination By chemicals contained in flow back, formation, produced and waste waters; Air pollution By migration of fugitive methane through induced and natural fractures and mobilization of radioactive particles and other gases from the underground ro Induced seismicity By fracking and injection of waste water 7 P. Capuano, Shale Oil & Gas Risk Management and Mitigation

8 Environmental effects of hydro-fracturing 8

9 SHEER - Workpackages WP 1 - PROJECT MANAGEMENT AND COORDINATION WP 2 - COMPILATION OF THE SHEER DATABASE WP 3 ON SITE MONITORING WP 4 - ASSESSMENT OF INDUCED SEISMICITY WP 5 - ASSESSMENT OF GROUNDWATER CHEMISTRY WP 6 ASSESSMENT OF THE AIR QUALITY IMPACT WP 7 MULTI-HAZARD AND MULTI-RISK ANALYSIS WP 8 - GUIDELINES FOR BEST PRACTICE AND DISSEMINATION 9 P. Capuano, Shale Oil & Gas Risk Management and Mitigation

10 10 WP2: SHEER Database

11 WP3: Monitoring network at Wysin test site Tab. 2. Monitoring stations and equipment in Pomerania till 17th January 2017, Poland. -17 th January 2017 Płachty Głodowo Chrósty Wysińskie GW Other Overall Surface stations Short-period Broadband Borehole stations 3 3 Groundwater monitoring wells 4 4 Air pollution station

12 WP4: Data recorded at test site A. XXXX, dhgffhdgfjhgdsjfhgdfhdg

13 WP4: Data from test site and past case - Lassie using all stations Potential fracking events? Wysin- 2H Wysin- 3H Borehole stations: 14 June July August September - Lassie using with 6 closest stations Wysin- 2H Wysin- 3H Borehole stations: ti 162 June July August September

14 Analysis of fluid-induced seismicity FIP Fracture initiation test LTI Long-term injection test 6/20

15 Analysis of fluid-induced seismicity Cooper basin, 2003 FIP-1 Injection period During injection periods, seismicity rate seems to correlate with injection rate 7/20

16 Analysis of fluid-induced seismicity FIP-1 'Free response' period During the free response periods, seismicity rate decays with time following a decay function 7/20

17 Back to IS seismic hazard assessment Forecasting seismicity rates in time and space Frequency-size distribution (Gutenberg-Richter) Analysis in the time domain GMPE Analysis in the spatial domain IS seismic hazard assessment 18/20

18 Analysis considering development by multi-stage/well, multi-well/pad, and multi-pad Next steps Updating procedure as the site development progresses in time

19 WP5: Groundwater monitoring and modelling EU AUS USA Review of literature, global risks and EU Basins Canada Assess Shale Basins in EU and develop Generic Risk Settings Data collection, modelling and assessment of the Wysin site in the Baltic Basin Develop Recommendations For Best Practice 19

20 Groundwater Risk Assessment Receptor Pathway Source 20

21 WP6: Air Quality monitoring 21 Methane emissions from the 2015 Aliso Canyon blowout in Los Angeles, CA S. Conley et all Science 18 Mar 2016:Vol. 351, Issue 6279, pp DOI: /science.aaf2348

22 2 WP7- Multi-Hazard And Multi-Risk Analysis Logic structure: Bow-tie approach 8

23 WP8: Dissemination activities SHEER Social Media and Online Group Performance &E Expansion SHEER Newsletter & Website Review Organisation i and advertisement of SHEER s first Stakeholder/ Delegate Conference Key Impacts/ Lessons learned Strong ongoing dissemination, collation and encouragement of all SHEER related research at conferences/events and via publication (with emphasis on open access). d bl / k h ld Dissemination and public/stakeholder engagement achievements 23

24 WP8: Dissemination activities A quarterly newsletter sent out to the SHEER Consortium and stakeholders. A great tool for dissemination, collation and encouragement of all SHEER related research and participant attendance at conferences/events however, needs more content/input from participants. Latest issue sent out via to 328 recipients across academia, industry, governments and the media. Stats of the open rates show that the most recent edition (Issue 5) was opened by 50% of recipients. 24

25 Final remarks The remaining part of the project will be dedicated to: Database completion; Analysis of test case and past cases data; Test the multi-risk approach developed; The preparation of guidelines for the monitoring activities and for the management of risk ikinduced dby shale gas

26 THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION