FRACKING RESOURCES:
- List of peer-reviewed published papers, government reports and expert opinion.
- List of NZ local authority decisions/positions.
- – - -
- – - – -
Media release: Taranaki cows grazing on fracking waste?
- – - – -
Hydraulic Fracturing (Fracking)
Prepared by Climate Justice Taranaki, 20 April 2011 For more information, visit: ClimateJusticeTaranaki and Facebook Stop the Drilling in Taranaki
Hydraulic fracturing involves injecting large quantities of water with chemical additives at high pressure into a geologic formation (USA EPA). The pressure exceeds the rock strength, opening or enlarging fractures in the rock. As the formation is fractured, a “propping agent” such as sand is pumped into the fractures to keep them from closing as the pumping pressure is released. As fracturing fluids are returned to the surface, natural gas will flow from pores and fractures in the rock into the well.
Fracking allows access to formerly inaccessible or uneconomic hydrocarbon resources (unconventional). According to Tag Oil, fracking deep in the Mt Messenger formation boosted daily production rates by 365 percent.
Wells used for hydraulic fracturing are drilled vertically, vertically and horizontally, or directionally. Wells may extend to depths several kilometres below the surface, with a horizontal section over 1 km long. Water used for fracturing fluids is acquired from surface or ground water in the local area. A single horizontal well in a shale formation may require 7 – 19 million litres of water to fracture.
Waste (“produced”) water after fracking (15-80% of the original volume) may be disposed of in underground injection wells, discharged into streams after treatment or applied to land surfaces (e.g. land- farming, land-spreading).
Myth Buster
Myth 1: Aquifers (ground water) are not affected because they are very shallow in NZ or they are salty deeper down, and besides, companies encase drill pipes with concrete where they go through aquifers.
Truth: There have been over 1,000 cases of ground water contamination associated with fracking across six states in the US, resulting in serious health problems from brain tumour to respiratory disorder. Leakage of frack fluid and/or methane gas can often be traced back to shoddy cement jobs. The number of horrifice fracking related incidences is spreading across the country.
An Australian government report revealed that half of the gas well heads tested were leaking methane gas. A local rig worker in Taranaki revealed that often when their teams were drilling through aquifers they could suddenly lose all their drill fluid, after which they simply pulled out and drilled again.
Another major issue is the amount of water being extracted for fracking. In Australia, prime agricultural lands and the Great Artesian Basin with its underground water reserves are under threat as 25- 35,000 wells are expected to be drilled in Queensland alone. One project recently approved will extract, at its peak, 170 million litres of water per day. Farmers have reported substantial (2/3 in one case) lowering of their bore water levels. Australia’s peak advisory body on water issues has warned the industry could have a significant impact on surface and groundwater if not managed properly.
Indeed the conditions under which many non-notified resource consents are issued in NZ, e.g. drilling waste discharge is permitted merely 25 or 30 metres from water bodies (any surface water, spring, groundwater supply bore) or property boundaries, are real cause for concern to both human and environmental health.
Myth 2:. The chemicals in fracking fluids are perfectly safe as they are similar to those found in household and food products such as ice cream.
Truth: This claim is extremely misleading. Fracking fluids include chemicals and additives (e.g. viscosifiers, surfactants, pH control agents) as well as biocides that inhibit biological fouling and erosion. Many of these chemicals are known carcinogens (e.g. benzene), neural toxins or harmful to foetal development. The USA EPA explained, “Contaminants of concern to drinking water include fracturing fluid chemicals and degradation products and naturally occurring materials in the geologic formation (e.g. metals, radionuclides) that are mobilized and brought to the surface during the hydraulic fracturing process.”
e.g. BTEX (Benzene, Toluene, Ethyl Benzene and Xylene), volatile components commonly associated with petroleum products, are used in hydraulic fracturing. The fracking process can also release naturally occurring BTEX from natural gas reservoirs. Because of their polarity, solubility and toxicity, BTEX chemicals can enter the soil and groundwater systems and cause serious, acute and chronic health impacts.
Pennsylvania Department of Environment Protection records showed that some public water utilities downstream from plants treating wastewater have struggled with unacceptable levels of trihalomethanes, carcinogens sometimes linked to drilling waste. In Queensland Kingaroy area where coal seam gas exploration has proliferated, carcinogenic benzene and toluene were found in cattle fat.
In Australia, the National Toxins Network found that only 2 out of the 23 most commonly used fracking chemicals have been assessed by NICNAS (national scheme). Moreover, little is known about the cumulative effects of chemical “cocktails” and in the measure of thousands of tonnes.
In NZ, the list of chemicals used in fracking is not yet freely available. Ministry for Environment(MFE) explained that companies are not required to notify them re the use of hazardous substances once they are approved under HSNO Act. Taranaki Regional Council (TRC) and Ministry of Economic Development (MED) both denied responsibility for providing the list. MED’s advice is to contact the companies.
Myth 3: Fracking occurs much deeper underground in NZ than in the US and the rock here is different.
Truth: Fracking occurs at a range of depths depending on the shale formation. e.g. 1,400-1,900 m within the NZ Mt. Messenger Formation (deeper in the Kapuni Sands Formation); 1,000-2,500 m within the US Marcellus Formation (shallower in W Virginia). According to Tag Oil, porosities and permeabilities found within the multiple Kapuni Sands Formation zones are analogous to prolific tight-sand formations found in Germany, Holland, the North Sea and numerous basins in the U.S. and Canada.
Myth 4: Everything is rigorously controlled by government regulations and the regional council through the Resource Management Act (RMA).
Truth: A recent government review concluded, “…by comparison with leading petroleum producing nations, New Zealand has extremely limited resources, both in terms of technical expertise/experience and in terms of the financial resources available to regulators for activities such as Safety Case verification/acceptance, HSE monitoring and enforcement of compliance.” MED, 2010. Alarmingly, NZ has only one inspector for all its offshore and onshore petroleum installations. Moreover, the MED (Crown Minerals) does not take into consideration HSE (health, safety, environment) issues when allocating permits.
The regional and local councils are responsible for the enforcement of the RMA and in particular the National Environmental Standards set out by MFE. To ensure consistent minimum standards are maintained throughout NZ, councils may impose stricter standards.
The reality however, is very different. In a number of TRC compliance monitoring reports, the council allowed companies (e.g. landfarm operators) to vary their consent conditions because loading limits (e.g. chloride and nitrogen) are seldom complied with. In at least one case, hydrocarbon, sodium and conductivity exceeded the consent limits (BTEX was not tested), barium level was twice that recommended, several incidences were reported, and cows were allowed to graze on a paddock where drilling mud had been applied. Despite all these, TRC concluded that the operation had achieved “a good level of environmental performance and compliance with the resource consents”, and reduced the level of inspections and soil monitoring.
Myth 5: Natural Gas is a clean energy source. It will substantially reduce NZ’s greenhouse gas emission and foreign oil import, and is good for the economy.
Truth: A recent Cornell University study revealed that the greenhouse gas footprint from gas extraction through hydraulic fracturing is far higher because the “fugitive” methane emissions at the fracking sites are greater than releases from conventional gas wells. Fugitive methane is also released from other steps in the process – transport, storage, etc. The study concluded that shale gas ultimately brings climate consequences comparable to coal over a century, and worse than coal over two decades.
Natural gas development from unconventional sources will not reduce our dependence on foreign import because the bulk of gas is destined for export. NZ relies primarily on renewable resources for electricity. Natural gas is little used in transport, so we will continue to import petrol and diesel.
In terms of the economy, tourism earns $18.6 billion a year and thrives on a clean-green image. Our farming communities contribute to the nation’s second largest export earnings while the food and beverage industry, dependent also on a clean and healthy environment, employs one in five workers.
To conclude, gas extraction involving fracking is socially, environmentally and economically irresponsible. It poisons drinking water, soil and air. Such technology is so risky that France, South Africa, Quebec and New York State have imposed a moratorium. In Arkansus where unprecedented increase in earthquakes apparently correlates with years of gas drilling, fracking and deepwell injection of drilling waste, Chesapeake Energy had to shut down two of its injection wells close to a fault line.
Indeed, aggressive drilling, fracking and deepwell injection in seismically active NZ has every likelihood to cause unthinkable disasters. NZ government has the duty of care to look after its people and the precious water and land on which we all depend.
- – - – -
Fracking controversy overseas
- France voted this month to ban fracking because any economic gain would not even be considered in the equation.
- The United Kingdom’s only shale gas drilling project was suspended earlier this year after a small earthquake was registered in the area. The British Geological Survey (BGS) recorded a 1.5 magnitude quake with the epicentre within two kilometres of where gas exploration was taking place near Blackpool, Lancashire. It followed a 2.3 magnitude quake which also occurred near the drilling site at Preese Hall. The BGS said it could not say conclusively if the first earthquake, on April 1, was linked to the fracking for shale gas but the organisation’s website said: “Any process that injects pressurised water into rocks at depth will cause the rock to fracture and possibly produce earthquakes.”
- A $60 million project to extract geothermal energy in Basel, Switzerland, was suspended in 2006 after it generated earthquakes. Geopower Basel paid around NZ$13.2M in compensation for cracked walls and other damage on homes and structures near the project site. The project was permanently shut down in 2009 after a risk analysis concluded that more quakes could follow if the drilling continued.
- Faulkner County in Arkansas, United States, was shaken by thousands of earthquakes for over a year. The Arkansas Geological Survey (AGS) and the Centre of Seismographic Information and Research at the University of Memphis conducted a study, and established a link between the earthquakes and fracking. On February 27, 2011, the area was hit with a 4.7 magnitude earthquake. Seismic activity has significantly decreased after two shale gas operations were closed. Earthquake swarms in the area are not unusual. Such swarms have occurred in the area twice in the past 30 years, well before the gas companies arrived. However, researchers from AGS said that while there is no discernible link between earthquakes and gas production, there is “strong temporal and spatial evidence for a relationship between these quakes and the injection wells”. The town is awaiting a July 26 hearing before its Oil and Gas Commission.
- A study of seismic activity in the Dallas/Fort Worth, Texas, area found that the operation of a saltwater injection disposal well in the area was a plausible cause for a series of small earthquakes that occurred there between 2008 and 2009.
- A six-month New York Times investigation found that water used in fracking can be contaminated with radiation. The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced this month seven sites for its ongoing and congressionally mandated study of the potential impacts of fracking on drinking water.
- In March, Nathalie Normandeau, Quebec’s natural resources minister, imposed a ban on fracking for both gas and oil.
