Thesis-Anne-Vos-Masters-SBR-and-EU-Law-3

More documents

Recommendations

Info

minor tremors and community disruptions, it could have great impact. However, with regard to all the concerns and risks that come with shale gas extraction, still much uncertainty exist on their actual impacts. Much of the claimed risks and concerns are not yet proven, also due to the fact that there is not much experience (yet) with shale gas in practice. It should also be mentioned here, before discussing the concerns, that many concerns could perhaps be tackled by several (existing or future) measures that could reduce, prevent, manage and/or control certain risks. Finally, the concerns should be put in perspective of the possible economic benefits, as set out before. The following concerns and risks come up most often; concerns regarding the environment, regarding community disruptions and regarding public acceptance. Also, the regulatory framework is often cited as a concern, especially with regard to the question whether this framework is sufficient (to address the other concerns). This will be explored in Chapters 3 and 4. 2.3.1 Environmental concerns The first and most heard concern is that shale gas production could bring many risks for the environment. It has been confirmed by many experts that shale gas productions leads to a larger environmental footprint than conventional gas extraction. 41 This is a consequence of the low permeability and commerciality of shale gas, which require the extraction of more shale gas compared to conventional resources, and the techniques used, which require the use of wide areas and high volumes of water. Especially with regard to the technique of fracking there are lots of environmental concerns. Hereafter, several aspects of the environment will be discussed. These are frequently inter-linked. 42 These environmental risks often include health risks, e.g. if drinking water is contaminated or when the air quality is deteriorated. 2.3.1.1 Water quality and use There are several concerns regarding water, such as the quality of groundwater and surface water, and also the resource of water. First, there is the concern on the contamination of ground and surface waters. During the process of the extraction, fracture fluid is injected into the ground. This fluid consists inter alia of chemical additives. 43 There have been researches conducted on this fluid from which it appeared that this fluid also consists of (depending on the amount and concentrations) cancer-causing agents, toxic substances to freshwater organisms and priority substances under the EU Water Framework Directive. 44 This flow-back water stays for circa 25- 90% in the soil after injected. 45 Here, especially the surface water (and the soil) could be polluted, if this waste water is not well handled. 46 Moreover, this waste water must be treated, since it is not allowed according to the Water Framework Directive to inject flow-back water into geological formations. 47 This would require the setting up of waste treatment facilities. 48 These should be treated very carefully. In the U.S. this waste water is often stored in open ponds which could lead to adverse effects for the biodiversity in the area, air emissions, etc. 49 Also during the fracking and horizontal drilling it should be assured that no leaks or spillage occur. This could occur through pipe-leaks, improper well design, uncontrolled fractures, existing faults, etc. 50 Such a contamination could end up in the groundwater, which is an important source of drinking water in many MS. The Committee of the Regions refers in her draft opinion that it follows 41 E.g. IEA Golden Rules Report (2012); and Commission Communication (2014), p. 5. 42 Commission Staff Working Document Impact Assessment (2014), part 1/4, p. 24. 43 Golden Rules Report (2012), pp. 33-34. 44 Commission Staff Working Document Impact Assessment (2014), part 4/4, p. 4. 45 Commission Communication (2014), p. 6. 46 Commission Staff Working Document Impact Assessment (2014), part 1/4, p. 25. 47 Article 11(3)(j) of the Water Framework Directive. 48 Golden Rules Report (2012), pp. 32-33. 49 Commission Staff Working Document Impact Assessment (2014), part 4/4, p. 5. 50 Commission Communication (2014), p. 6. 14
from the U.S. experience that 6% of the wells leak. 51 However, it should be kept in mind that these risks could be managed and controlled: sites should carefully be selected, pipes and wells should be properly sealed and insulated from the geological formation, etc. But, this is not yet proven successfully and the risks or concerns should not be regarded as acceptable, only because they may be managed in the future. Then again, it should be mentioned here that those risks are not specific to shale gas extraction. However, those risks are magnified by the volume of the water used during the process. 52 This is the next concern regarding water. With regard to water there is next to the contamination fears, also the concern about the large amounts of water consumed. One well uses around 15,000 m3 of water during the (horizontal) drilling process and 11,000 m3 of water (as part of the mixture in the fracture fluids) during the hydraulic fracturing process. From the latter, 57-227 m3 of the fluid consists of chemical additives. Moreover (as stated), the fracturing fluid stays for circa 25-90% in the soil after injected. 53 This water will not take part anymore in the 'hydrologic cycle'. 54 Generally a shale gas-site is around 2- hectare which will accommodate 6-8 wells that all extract areas of around 1-2 km2. 55 Hence, the volume of water used is enormous, particularly compared to conventional resources. In North America, most of the operators used local water since the transport of water is very expensive. 56 This volume of water used in the process, especially in areas where there is water scarcity, could "lower the water table, affect biodiversity and harm the local ecosystem. It can also reduce the availability of water for use by local communities and other productive activities, such as agriculture. And all more so if this takes place in areas where other energy sources are already drawing on the available water." 57 Here, water management plans might help by mitigating, preventing and controlling those effects and ensure efficiency of the used water. 58 But again: still large amounts of water are needed. 2.3.1.2 Air emissions During the process of the shale gas exploitation, but also due to the needed transport, fugitive methane emissions can arise which could lead to air pollution and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. This could have adverse effects for the local air quality and climate surrounding the site. In the US such emissions have been reported during shale gas extractions. The Commission notes that these emissions may be prevented and mitigated by good practices. 59 If not, the GHG emissions per electricity unit (generated by shale gas) would be 4-8% higher than per electricity unit generated by conventional resources. 60 This could be explained by two reasons. First, the techniques used for shale gas extraction require heavy diesel engines. 61 Second, together with the flow-back water arises the emission of 'encapsulated gas' of which methane is the main component. Methane is a more powerful GHG than carbon dioxide. This emission may however be mitigated or removed if separators are used at the wellhead. 62 51 Draft Opinion of the Committee of the Regions, Local and regional authorities perspective on shale/tight gas and oil (unconventional hydrocarbons), 103 rd plenary session, 7-9 October 2013, p. 7. 52 Buchan (2013), pp. 5-6; see also IEA Golden Rules Report (2012), p. 35. 53 Commission Communication (2014), p. 6. 54 Commission Staff Working Document Impact Assessment (2014), part 1/4, p. 26. 55 Legal Assessment (2012), p. 3. 56 Commission Staff Working Document Impact Assessment (2014), part 4/4, p. 8. 57 Commission Staff Working Document Impact Assessment (2014), part 1/4, p. 25; IEA Golden Rules Report (2012), pp. 31-32. 58 Commission Communication (2014), p. 6. 59 Commission Communication (2014), pp. 6-7. 60 Commission Staff Working Document Impact Assessment (2014), part 1/4, p. 25. 61 Golden Rules Report (2012), p. 38. 62 Buchan (2013), p. 6. 15
Page 1: Shale gas extraction: In line with
Page 4 and 5: Index 1 Introduction p. 7 1.1 Shale
Page 6 and 7: 7 Conclusions and Recommendations p
Page 8 and 9: to spread in the European Union. It
Page 10 and 11: 2 Context In this chapter some back
Page 12 and 13: the EU could produce more gas itsel
Page 16 and 17: 2.3.1.3 Seismicity The risk of seis
Page 18 and 19: 3 Current European legislation on s
Page 20 and 21: As mentioned, Article 191(2) TFEU s
Page 22 and 23: the EIA Directive comes into play.
Page 24 and 25: project might have significant effe
Page 26 and 27: difficult to assess later on what p
Page 28 and 29: facilities used to receive such was
Page 30 and 31: Commission of the compensatory meas
Page 32 and 33: Operators carrying out any occupati
Page 34 and 35: On 18 September 2013, a day before
Page 36 and 37: once, by a maximum of 6 months. A d
Page 38 and 39: can occur is the infiltration of wa
Page 40 and 41: location near a sensitive area, suc
Page 42 and 43: establish an inpassingsplan. This i
Page 44 and 45: 4.6.2 Water As noted in Chapter 2,
Page 46 and 47: 4.7 Extraction permit The procedure
Page 48 and 49: 4.9 Overview problems From the anal
Page 50 and 51: 5 General (environmental) principle
Page 52 and 53: as a ground for invalidation). 211
Page 54 and 55: scale or effects of the proposed ac
Page 56 and 57: orders. Here, unilateral actions by
Page 58 and 59: 5.3 General principle: transparency
Page 60 and 61: emarkable that the CJEU also someti
Page 62 and 63: An important Dutch law which focuss
Page 64 and 65:
follows after the subject is raised
Page 66 and 67:
alance conflicting policies; the me
Page 68 and 69:
prevailing social and political val
Page 70 and 71:
It should be kept in mind, accordin
Page 72 and 73:
concerning energy projects, in whic
Page 74 and 75:
practice this distinction is less v
Page 76 and 77:
national legal system, such as the
Page 78 and 79:
application for sustainable develop
Page 80 and 81:
6 Application of principles to shal
Page 82 and 83:
The second justification concerns t
Page 84 and 85:
Finally, it could also be questione
Page 86 and 87:
Hence, these principles are really
Page 88 and 89:
As set out in Chapter 5, the princi
Page 90 and 91:
On the other hand, it should be rea
Page 92 and 93:
this zone is made available. Also,
Page 94 and 95:
With regard to the second part of t
Page 96 and 97:
7.1 Conclusions Some remarks can be
Page 98 and 99:
Gas is currently in development. In
Page 100 and 101:
national interest and an imperative
Page 102 and 103:
safeguarding of the drinking water,
Page 104 and 105:
• Prechal & De Leeuw (2008) S. Pr
Page 106 and 107:
• Q&A on the shale gas initiative
Page 108 and 109:
• Case C-117/02 Commission v Port
Page 110:
Websites • http://www.eia.gov •
show all

Thesis-Anne-Vos-Masters-SBR-and-EU-Law-3

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?