View Article as Single page
Shell supports regulation promoting the publication of fracing fluid chemicals, Brinded said, noting that typically water accounts for 99% of fracing fluid with chemical additives accounting for only 1%.
"Indeed, we would like to see regulations that promote transparency and public engagement by the tight gas industry in relation to all of its activities," Brinded said. "That doesn't just mean how we build and design wells or how we protect water sources, but also what we do to prevent excessive lorry traffic on local roads, to avoid disturbing livestock, or to mitigate light pollution at night."
Water, emissions concerns
He acknowledges the public's concerns about whether fracing involves unsustainable consumption of freshwater volumes.
"Operational practices can keep water consumption to a minimum," he said, adding Shell specifically designs its operations to minimize the use of potable water used in gas operations, sometimes recycling water.
Although shale gas production can require twice the water volume used in conventional gas production, Brinded noted that the production phase accounts for only a small fraction of the total amount of water used to generate electricity.
"The water intensity of conventional gas-fired power is far lower than nuclear and all other fossil fuels. So across the entire lifecycle, from production to use, shale-gas fired-power still uses half the volume of fresh water per megawatt hour consumed by coal and nuclear."
Moreover, the volume water used in the production of US shale gas is "a tiny proportion of overall water consumption," he said.
The US Department of Energy has studied the water use of the Marcellus play, he said. At peak gas production, the maximum water use represented less than 0.8% of the total used in the area overlying the play in New York, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia.
Brinded said another public concern is that GHG emissions from shale gas operations far exceed not only those from conventional gas, but even those from coal. He believes that by displacing coal-fired power, gas is the quickest, cheapest way to cut GHG emissions.
"Now, there's no doubt that the question of emissions is a complex one, and that further research is required," Brinded said.
He noted a Cornell University report sparked controversy, and he said that report "greatly exaggerated the emissions released during the production and distribution of shale gas. For example, it overlooked the steps taken by the industry to contain the amount of methane released during production."
Cornell University researchers also used a 20-year timeframe to study the global warming potential of methane in the atmosphere while scientists commonly consider a 100-year horizon to be more relevant in assessing climate change.
"Other studies take a more measured view," Brinded said. "For example, the IEA found that on a well-to-burner basis, emissions from shale gas exceed those of conventional gas by as little as 3.5% in the best case scenario and by 12% in the worst. At Shell, we manage our operations to keep emissions to the lower number.
"We also measure, catalogue, and report emissions to the relevant authorities. And remember: It's in our economic interest to capture as much gas as possible."
Brinded believes that across the lifecycle, GHG emissions from shale gas-fired power would be around half of the GHG emissions from coal.
"It's true that there are environmental and operational challenges associated with the production of tight gas. And it's imperative that the industry does its utmost to address them," Brinded said. "But, it's also true that the industry has the expertise to manage these risks, especially if governed by well-targeted and strictly implemented regulation."
Displaying 2/2
View Article as Single page
More Oil & Gas Journal Current Issue Articles
More Oil & Gas Journal Archives Issue Articles
View Oil and Gas Articles on PennEnergy.com
