Unconventional Opportunities & Challenges
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Newfoundland & Labrador Hydraulic Fracturing Review Panel Unconventional Opportunities & Challenges Results of the Public Review of the Implications of Hydraulic Fracturing Operations in Western Newfoundland Final Report Dr. Ray Gosine Dr. Maurice Dusseault Dr. Kevin Keough (Chair) Dr. Graham Gagnon Dr. Wade Locke ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The Newfoundland and Labrador Hydraulic Fracturing Review Panel would like to thank the many individuals, groups, and organizations that provided important input to the public review process. This input has been substantial and valuable to our work. We would like to thank the individuals who served as subject-matter experts for the Panel and who completed a “peer review” of a draft of our report. The careful work and feedback from these individuals contributed signifcantly our fnal report. We would like to thank Lorraine Busby for her thorough proofreading of the fnal report and for her suggestions to improve its readability. As a volunteer Panel, we would not have been able to complete our work without the eforts of Don Belanger, whose careful coordination and management of the business of the Panel allowed the members of the Panel to focus our eforts on the substance of our mandate. Also, we wish to thank Memorial University staf and students who provided assistance to the Panel throughout the review process. These individuals include students John Churchill and Carolyn Suley, and staf members Tina Winsor, Melissa Brothers, Tess Burke, Jef Green, Eileen Bruce, and Joanne Samson. We also would like to acknowledge the excellent work by John Devereaux, Kimberley Devlin, Christopher Postill, and staf at Perfect Day for developing the Panel’s website and for creative and production support to the development of our fnal report. Finally, we would like to thank Memorial University of Newfoundland, Dalhousie University, the University of Waterloo, Alberta Innovates Bio Solutions, and the Alberta Prion Research Institute for their support of our participation in this important process. LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS & ACRONYMS 3-D: Three dimensional km: Kilometers AER: Alberta Energy Regulator km2: Square Kilometres ALARP: As Low as Reasonably Practicable m: Metres AIS: Anomalous Induced Seismicity m3: Cubic Metres AM: Adaptive Management MCOR: Marcellus Center for Outreach and BCOGC: British Columbia Oil and Gas Commission Research BBL (bbl): Barrel MM: Million bopd: Barrels of Oil per Day MW: Megawatt CWN: Canadian Water Network ML: Local Magnitude CapEx: Capital Expenditure NEB: National Energy Board CAPP: Canadian Association of Petroleum NL: Newfoundland and Labrador Producers NPV: Net Present Value CBC: Canadian Broadcasting Corporation NLHFRP: Newfoundland and Labrador Hydraulic CCA: Council of Canadian Academies Fracturing Review Panel C-CORE: An applied research and development NSERC: Natural Sciences and Engineering corporation of Memorial University Research Council of Canada CCS: Carbon Capture and Storage O&G: Oil and Gas cm: Centimetres OCCEE: Ofce of Climate Change and Energy C-NLOPB: Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Efciency Ofshore Petroleum Board OpEx: Operating Expenditure C-NSOPB: Canada-Nova Scotia Ofshore Petroleum OWA: Orphan Well Association Board PEEP: Petroleum Exploration and Enhancement CNSN: Canadian National Seismograph Network Program COMEST: UNESCO World Commission on the Ethics PM: Particulate Matter of Scientifc Knowledge and Technology PP: Precautionary Principle COP21: 2015 Paris Climate Change Conference PSAC: Petroleum Services Association of DNR: Department of Natural Resources Canada EL: Exploration Licence REC: Reduced Emissions Completion FES-NL: Fire and Emergency Services – REDB: Regional Economic Development Board Newfoundland and Labrador scf: Standard Cubic Feet FPIC: Free, Prior, and Informed Consent SEP: Strategic Economic Plan GDP: Gross Domestic Product SLO: Social Licence to Operate GHG: Greenhouse Gas TLP: Trafc Light Protocol HAPs: Hazardous Air Pollutants UK: United Kingdom HF: Hydraulic Fracturing UNESCO: United Nations Educational, Scientifc HIA: Health Impact Assessment and Cultural Organization IPIECA: The global oil and gas industry association US (USA): United States (of America) for environmental and social issues USGS: United States Geological Survey IPCC: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate VOBB: Voice of Bonne Bay Change VOC: Volatile Organic Compound LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Google Maps image of area of Western Newfoundland considered by Panel 10 Figure 2 Location of the Green Point shale in Western Newfoundland (provided by Department of Natural Resources) 11 Figure 3 Illustration of conventional and unconventional oil and gas operations (adapted from Rodgers, 2015) 13 Figure 4 Illustration of vertical extent of an unconventional oil and gas well (Fracfocus, 2016) 14 Figure 5 Chemical constituents of a hydraulic fracturing fuid (Ferrer & Thurman, 2015) 15 Figure 6 Comparision of vertical and horizontal drilling (Anadarko, 2015) 22 Figure 7 Illustration of multiple wells drilled on multiple well pads (Statoil, 2010) 22 Figure 8 Google Maps view of hydraulic fracturing sites in Lycoming County, Pennsylvania 28 Figure 9 Google Maps view of drilling operation at a site in Lycoming County, Pennsylvania 28 Figure 10 Wellhead ready for hydraulic fracturing 29 Figure 11 Illustration of equipment operating on well pad during hydraulic fracturing of a well (Fracfocus, 2016) 30 Figure 12 Pumping trucks and other equipment on well pad 30 Figure 13 Horizontal well illustrating stages of hydraulic fracturing (Dusseault, 2016) 31 Figure 14 Illustration of fractured zones and drainage radius (Dusseault, 2016) 31 Figure 15 A producing well pad containing 10 gas wells near Williamsport, Pennsylvania 33 Figure 16 Locations of petroleum wells in Western Newfoundland (Hinchey, et al., 2014) 44 Figure 17 Location of the Green Point shale 45 Figure 18 Refolded folds and faults along coastal outcrop of the Green Point shale (Burden, 2016) 47 Figure 19 Cross section of subsurface geology across Port au Port Bay (Hinchey, et al., 2014) 47 Figure 20 Seismicity map of Eastern Canada (Eaton & Krebes, 2016) 49 Figure 21 Map of Port au Port Bay area (adapted from Google Maps) 52 Figure 22 Licence areas associated with the Green Point shale (Shoal, 2015G) 55 Figure 23 Society of Petroleum Engineers defnitions of reserves and resources (SPE, 2007) 56 Figure 24 Illustration of onshore-to-ofshore horizontal wells in Port au Port Bay, (adapted from Dusseault, 2016) 57 Figure 25 Google Maps image of existing conventional oil well at Shoal Point 58 Figure 26 Green Point shale scenario production profles (Rodgers, 2015) 59 Figure 27 Economic analysis assumptions (Rodgers, 2015) 60 Figure 28 Summary of economic results for wastewater treatment option (Rodgers, 2015) 63 Figure 29 Summary of economic results for deep well disposal of wastewater (Rodgers, 2015) 65 Figure 30 Expenditures and direct employment: Deep well disposal option 67 Figure 31 Expenditures and direct employment: Of-site treatment option 68 Figure 32 Direct, indirect and induced employment: Deep well disposal option 69 Figure 33 Direct, indirect and induced employment: Of-site treatment option 70 Figure 34 Direct, indirect and induced gross domestic product (GDP): Deep well disposal option 71 Figure 35 Direct, indirect and induced gross domestic product (GDP): Of-site treatment option 72 Figure 36 Federal and provincial taxes associated with expenditures during construction and production (adapted from Ecotec, 2016) 73 Figure 37 Direct, indirect and induced employment associated with $100 million of expenditure on road construction (Ecotec, 2016) 74 Figure 38 Direct, indirect and induced employment associated with $100 million of tourism expenditures in Western Newfoundland (Ecotec, 2016) 75 Figure 39 Existing roads around Port au Port Bay (adapted from Google Maps) 76 Figure 40 Summary of tranportation activity during construction and production 77 Figure 41 Summary of concerns raised in submissions by individuals, (adapted from Storey, 2015) 81 Figure 42 Summary of concerns raised in submissions by groups/organizations, (adapted from Storey, 2015) 82 Figure 43 Well pads and wind turbines, Lycoming County Pennsylvania 83 Figure 44 Long Island Solar Farm at Brookhaven National Laboratory (adapted from BNL, 2011) 84 Figure 45 Illustration of potential pathways for contamination of drinking water aquifers (Vengosh, et al., 2014) 89 Figure 46 Illustration of well casing and cementing (Dusseault, 2016) 91 Figure 47 Illustration of the diferent layers of well casing and pathways for gas and fuid leakage (CCA, 2014) 91 Figure 48 Environmental risk management framework proposed by the Council of Canadian Academies Expert Panel on the environmental impacts of shale gas development (CCA, 2014) 97 Figure 49 Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) Trafc Light Protocol (TLP) for the Duvernay Zone (AER, 2015B) 149 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 PANEL MANDATE AND REPORT STRUCTURE 9 1.1 Mandate 9 1.2 Panel's Focus on the Green Point Shale 9 1.3 Report Structure: A Reader's Guide 10 2 HYDRAULIC FRACTURING TERMINOLOGY 12 2.1 Conventional versus Unconventional Oil and Gas 12 2.2 Well Stimulation Using Hydraulic Fracturing 15 2.3 Use of the Terms Hydraulic Fracturing, Hydraulic Fracturing Operations and Unconventional Oil and Gas Operations in This Report 16 3 WORK OF THE REVIEW PANEL 16 4 OVERVIEW OF THE PUBLIC REVIEW PROCESS 17 4.1 Website 17 4.2 Information Gathering 17 4.3 Public Consultations Sessions and Meetings with the Panel 18 4.4 Public Opinion