Z doświadczeń uzyskanych w Stanach Zjednoczonych wynika, że staranne zbadanie pięciu krytycznych aspektów związanych z produkcją gazu łupkowego może stworzyć podstawę rozwoju strategii mających na celu zminimalizowanie zagrożeń  dla środowiska i zdrowia:  (1) orurowanie i ocementowanie, (2) oczyszczanie wody ściekowej, (3) odpowietrzanie lub zapalanie, (4) sprzęt i emisje do powietrza oraz (5) zdarzenia sejsmiczne. 

Dla kaźdej z tych strategii ustalono instytucjonalne odpowiedzi mające na celu znaczne zredukowanie ryzyka uszczerbku dla zdrowia ludzkiego i środowiska. Odpowiedzi te oferują koncepcje dla rządu krajowego i samorządów lokalnych w celu umożliwienia rozwoju eksploatacji zasobów gazu łupkowego bez narażania zdrowia ludności oraz jakości środowiska.

Reducing pollution at five critical points of shale gas production: Strategies and institutional responses (Weblink)

---

 

Pełny tekst publikacji nie jest dostępny publicznie. SHIP przedstawia przykład koncepcji autora we fragmencie tekstu odnoszącym się do natępujących aspektów: (1) orurowanie i ocementowanie oraz (2) oczyszczanie wody ściekowej. 

[…]

2. Enumerating five critical points

A wide range of issues and problems have been associated with the development of America's shale gas resources. Highlighting five critical points identifies prominent sources of pollutants that can be reduced by adopting strategies implemented through institutional responses.

2.1. Casing and cementing

A major concern has been deleterious material leaking from shale gas wells, and many of these problems are associated with faulty casing and cementing. A study from Pennsylvania found that 3.3% of violations involved casing and cementing (Considine et al., 2013). Many persons with water wells in proximity to shale gas wells have complained about contaminated water from fracturing fluids (Brantley et al., 2014). Research from the United States shows methane contamination of aquifers (Osborn et al., 2011 and Vengosh et al., 2013). One study showed the concentration of methane in drinking water was related to the distance to a shale gas well and that distance was the dominant statistical factor in these concentrations (Jackson et al., 2013).

Since shale gas in the United States is generally located 1500–2500 m underground, layers of rock strata prevent leakage of contaminants into an aquifer. This suggests that contamination of groundwater should not be a problem unless the wellbore is faulty. Fugitive gas contamination problems are related to poor casing and cementing (Darrah et al., 2014). Research indicates gas migration as occurring after the conclusion of cementing jobs during the transition from slurry to solid cement (Soeder et al., 2014). In addition, faulty casings or cementing of wells can allow gases to migrate to drinking water supplies (Davies et al., 2014). This leads to a conclusion that greater oversight of wellbore integrity involving casing and cementing requirements can reduce contamination problems (Osborn et al., 2011 and Jackson, 2014).

2.2. Handling wastewater

The public is rightfully concerned about water pollution from fracturing fluids, flowback, and produced water. Some feel that U.S. state enforcement efforts are not very robust, violators are rarely penalized, and penalties are so weak that drilling firms find it cheaper to pay occasional penalties rather than comply with the law (Sumi, 2012). Because fluids used to fracture wells generally contain toxic substances, and the fluids exiting a well may contain additional toxic materials from the rock strata, these liquids must be handled carefully (Vengosh et al., 2014, Vidic et al., 2013 and Werner et al., 2015). Vehicular accidents and faulty storage structures may result in the release of toxic materials (Vinciguerra et al., 2015). Given the potent concentrations of selected toxic chemicals, a small spill or leak can have pronounced affects.

Although difficult to calculate, spills and releases of toxic substances associated with oil and gas wells are thought to be between 0.4 and 12.2 spills per 100 wells drilled (U.S. EPA, 2015a). One study suggests that about 3.4% of wells received notices of violations for well construction problems (Brantley et al., 2014). This suggests that efforts to reduce accidents and contain spills are important.

Related to these contamination events is the secrecy of chemical compounds used in hydraulic fracturing. Under U.S. state law, firms can decline to specifically identify any toxic compound that they feel is a trade secret (Centner, 2013 and Hall, 2013). The U.S. EPA (2015b) estimates that 11% of all ingredient records were designated as confidential business information, and other research found considerable nondisclosure of all compounds used in fracturing wells (Konschnik and Dayalu, 2016). This creates a situation in which persons may not realize their health maladies are related to a pollutant release from shale gas development. Given the pollutant releases, spills, and accidents that have accompanied shale gas development in the United States, drilling firms may need to make greater investments in suitable precautionary measures to avoid accidents and mishaps. Simultaneously, governments can do more to address damages from contamination events.

[…]

3. Discussion and potential responses

The absence of meaningful oversight of shale gas extraction activities by the U.S. federal government meant that state governments had to become more vigilant in protecting their citizens from health and environmental damages. The American experiences show that limitations imposed by democracy, division of powers among levels of governments, and economic challenges imposed by the 2008 financial crisis contributed to inadequate governmental responses. Over the past few years, citizens have petitioned governments to reduce externalities accompanying shale gas development and U.S. state governments have taken steps to provide greater protection for public health.

The identification of five critical points from which too many pollutants are discharged enables local policy-makers to address definitive pollution issues with strategies geared toward achieving reductions of pollutant releases. Moreover, industry can evaluate strategies and become more proactive in developing mechanisms to protect the public and the environment from damages. For each of the five critical points, two or more strategies are identified for responding to unnecessary discharges of pollutants and institutional responses are presented to assist governments in meeting their responsibilities in protecting people and the environment.

[…]

3.1. Reducing damages from casing and cementing

While most governments have already set out fairly comprehensive regulations that are appropriate for ensuring quality casing and cementing (Illinois Hydraulic Fracturing Regulatory Act, 2013), they may be able to do more by enacting, overseeing, and enforcing additional cementing and casing regulations to protect drinking water supplies (Table 1). Specialized provisions can mandate more strict regulation, such as compliance with American Petroleum Institute standards, so that firms cannot legally engage in lesser practices. In placing responsibilities on drilling operators, Texas mandates the use of best currently available technology for some situations and that all potentially productive zones be isolated and sealed off (Texas Administrative Code, 2016).

Two funding ideas are being employed to respond to casing and cementing problems (Dana and Wiseman, 2014). State law can require drilling firms to have mandatory insurance liability coverage. A requirement for restoration bonds can collect funds for subsequent use in restoring damaged environments.

Another idea to address potential water pollution from faulty casing and cementing is to adopt a legislative provision establishing a presumption on liability for new wells being drilled. In Pennsylvania, the legislature adopted a presumption that pollution of water near new oil or gas well within a time frame is presumed to come from drilling the oil or gas well (Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, 2016). These ideas show that, through more comprehensive provisions assigning responsibilities and liability, governments can help firms further reduce contamination events and damages related to faulty cementing and casing.

3.2. Reducing damages from wastewater

More exacting regulatory provisions can lead firms engaged in drilling activities to take actions that should reduce contamination events and damages from wastewater (Table 2). One major proposal to facilitate timely responses to exposure to hazards is greater disclosure of the chemical compounds used at a well site. In 2015, the U.S. federal Bureau of Land Management adopted a regulation to limit the non-disclosure of chemical compounds used at wells on federal lands (U.S. CFR, 2015). While the listed details of this regulation do not require disclosure of all compounds, a person will need to sign the affidavit justifying non-disclosure. This may encourage firms to release additional information.

A second idea to reduce damages from wastewater is to allow local governments to enact controls they feel are necessary to protect their citizens. Local governments were formed to enable citizens to address matters of local concern and may be in the best position to quickly respond to a problem (Centner and Kostandini, 2015). U.S. state governments should not be preempting local controls as has occurred in New York and Ohio (New York Environmental Conservation Law, 2015 and Ohio Revised Code Annotated, 2015).

Third, a certification program may be adopted with a provision that precludes discharges of wastewater. The certification program offered by the Center for Sustainable Shale Development (2015) precludes direct or indirect intentional discharges of shale wastewater to surface water except as provided by their standard (Table 2). Another idea is to increase severance tax collections and use the funds to respond to negative externalities (Rabe and Hampton, 2015). Governments can select the recipients of the funds to address those issues most worthy of financial assistance (Colorado Revised Statutes, 2015).

[…]

References

Brantley et al., 2014

S.L. Brantley, D. Yoxtheimer, S. Arjmand, P. Grieve, R. Vidic, J. Pollak, G.T. Llewellyn, J. Abad, C. Simon

Water resource impacts during unconventional shale gas development: the Pennsylvania experience

Int. J. Coal Geol., 126 (2014), pp. 140–156

 

Center for Sustainable Shale Development, 2015

Center for Sustainable Shale Development, 2015. Performance Standards and Regulatory Standards Across the Appalachian Basin. Pittsburgh, PA. 〈https://www.sustainableshale.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/CSSD-COMPARISON-TABLE-3.1.15.pdf〉 (accessed 23.02.16.).

 

Centner, 2013

T.J. Centner

Oversight of shale gas production in the United States and the disclosure of toxic substances

Resour. Policy, 38 (2013), pp. 233–240

 

Centner and Kostandini, 2015

T.J. Centner, G. Kostandini

Local governments want authority to address problems: the case of horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing in the United States

Land Use Policy, 49 (2015), pp. 7–235

 

Colorado Revised Statutes, 2015

Colorado Revised Statutes, 2015. Sections 39-29-109, 39-29-110

 

Considine et al., 2013

T.J. Considine, R.W. Watson, N.B. Considine, J.P. Martin

Environmental regulation and compliance of Marcellus Shale gas drilling

Environ. Geosci., 20 (2013), pp. 1–16

 

Dana and Wiseman, 2014

D.A. Dana, H.J. Wiseman

A market approach to regulating the energy revolution: assurance bonds, insurance, and the certain and uncertain risks of hydraulic fracturing

Iowa Law Rev., 999 (2014), pp. 1523–1593

 

Darrah et al., 2014

T.H. Darrah, A. Vengosh, R.B. Jackson, N.R. Warner, R.J. Poreda

Noble gases identify the mechanisms of fugitive gas contamination in drinking-water wells overlying the Marcellus and Barnett Shales

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 111 (39) (2014), pp. 14076–14081

 

Davies et al., 2014

R.J. Davies, S. Almond, R.S. Ward, R.B. Jackson, C. Adams, F. Worrall, L.G. Harringshaw, J.G. Gluyas, M.A. Whitehead

Oil and gas wells and their integrity: Implications for shale and unconventional resource exploitation

Mar. Pet. Geol., 56 (2014), pp. 239–254

 

Hall, 2013

K.B. Hall

Hydraulic fracturing: trade secrets and the mandatory disclosure of fracturing water composition

Idaho Law Rev., 49 (2013), pp. 399–435

 

Illinois Hydraulic Fracturing Regulatory Act, 2013

Illinois Hydraulic Fracturing Regulatory Act, 2013. Public Act 098-0022

 

Jackson, 2014

R.B. Jackson

The integrity of oil and gas wells

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 111 (2014), pp. 10902–10903

 

Jackson et al., 2013

R.B. Jackson, A. Vengosh, T.H. Darrah, N.R. Warner, A. Down, R.J. Poreda, S.G. Osborn, K. Zhao, J.D. Karr

Increased stray gas abundance in a subset of drinking water wells near Marcellus shale gas extraction

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 110 (2013), pp. 11250–11255

 

Konschnik and Dayalu, 2016

K. Konschnik, A. Dayalu

Hydraulic fracturing chemicals reporting: analysis of available data and recommendations for policymakers

Energy Policy, 88 (2016), pp. 504–514

 

New York Environmental Conservation Law, 2015

New York Environmental Conservation Law, 2015. Section 23-0303

 

Ohio Revised Code Annotated, 2015

Ohio Revised Code Annotated, 2015. Sections 1509.02, 1509.07

 

Osborn et al., 2011

S.G. Osborn, A. Vengosh, N.R. Warner, R.B. Jackson

Methane contamination of drinking water accompanying gas-well drilling and hydraulic fracturing

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 108 (2011), pp. 8172–8176

 

Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, 2016

Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes. 2016. Title 58, section 3218

 

Rabe and Hampton, 2015

B.G. Rabe, R.L. Hampton

Taxing fracking: the politics of state severance taxes in the shale era

Rev. Policy Res., 32 (2015), pp. 389–412

 

Soeder et al., 2014

D.J. Soeder, S. Sharma, N. Pekney, L. Hopkinson, R. Dilmore, B. Kutchko, B. Stewart, K. Carter, A. Hakala, R. Capo

An approach for assessing engineering risk from shale gas wells in the United States

Int. J. Coal Geol., 126 (2014), pp. 4–19

 

Sumi, 2012

L. Sumi

Breaking All the Rules: The Crisis in Oil and Gas Regulatory Enforcement. Earthworks' Oil and Gas Accountability Project

Earthworks, Washington, DC (2012)

 

Texas Administrative, 2016

Texas Administrative Code, 2016. Title 16, sections 3.13, 3.32, 3.46, 3.9; title 30, section 106.352

 

U.S. CFR, 2015

U.S. CFR (Code of Federal Regulations), 2015. Title 40, §§ 60.5365, 60.5375; title 43, § 3162.3-U.S. EPA, 2015a

 

U.S. EPA, 2015a. Assessment of the Potential Impacts of Hydraulic Fracturing for Oil and Gas on Drinking Water Resources (External Review Draft), EPA/600/R-15/047a, June 2015, Washington, DC. cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/hfstudy/recordisplay.cfm (accessed 23.02.16.)

 

U.S. EPA, 2015b

U.S. EPA, 2015b. Analysis of Hydraulic Fracturing Data from the FracFocus Disclosure Registry 1.0. EPA/601/R-14/003, March 2015.

 

Vengosh et al., 2013

A. Vengosh, N. Warner, R. Jackson, T. Darrah.

The effects of shale gas exploration and hydraulic fracturing on the quality of water resources in the United States

Procedia Earth Planet. Sci., 7 (2013), pp. 863–866

 

Vengosh et al., 2014

A. Vengosh, R.B. Jackson, N. Warner, T.H. Darrah, A. Kondash

A critical Review of the risks to water resources from unconventional shale gas development and hydraulic fracturing in the United States

Environ. Sci. Technol., 48 (2014), pp. 8334–8348

 

Vidic et al., 2013

R.D. Vidic, S.L. Brantley, J.M. Vandenbossche, D. Yoxtheimer, J.D. Abad

Impact of shale gas development on regional water quality

Science, 340 (2013), pp. 826–835

 

Vinciguerra et al., 2015

T. Vinciguerra, S. Yao, J. Dadzie, A. Chittams, T. Deskins, S. Ehrman, R.R. Dickerson

Regional air quality impacts of hydraulic fracturing and shale natural gas activity: Evidence from ambient VOC observations

Atmos. Environ., 110 (2015), pp. 144–150

 

Werner et al., 2015

A.K. Werner, S. Vink, K. Watt, P. Jagals

Environmental health impacts of unconventional natural gas development: a review of the current strength of evidence

Sci. Total Environ., 505 (2015), pp. 1127–1141