Polish Fracking

[nictoe]

A natural gas storage facility in Husow, Poland, in 2006, when a price dispute between Russia and Ukraine reduced gas supplies that traveled to Poland through Ukraine

Poland dreams of energy independence — through fracking

Eager to end reliance on Russian natural gas, and largely untroubled by environmentalists, Polish officials are embracing hydraulic fracturing to unlock potentially huge deposits beneath their soil.

By Henry Chu, Los Angeles Times

July 15, 2012

GDANSK, Poland — Dreams of freedom from Soviet oppression were nurtured and realized in the shipyards of this seaside city, where the Solidarity movement that helped tear down the Iron Curtain was born.

Now, Poles are having new fantasies of throwing off Russian domination. But this time the road to independence lies more than a mile beneath their feet.

If geologists are right, up to 768 billion cubic meters of natural gas sits trapped in shale deposits deep beneath the surface in Poland, enough to meet the country's needs for the next 50 years and more. The estimates have tantalized Poles with visions of ending their reliance on Russian gas, which warms them through harsh winters but puts them at the mercy of their former masters far more than they would like.

Exploiting these underground resources, though, will mean a lot of noisy, water-intensive and potentially harmful "fracking," or hydraulic fracturing, the process of shooting chemical solutions mixed with sand into the shale to prize it open and release the gas. It's a controversial practice: Concern about ill effects such as groundwater contamination has led to a ban on fracking in countries such as France and Bulgaria and in the state of Vermont.

But here in Poland, officials excited by the prospect of energy independence and largely untroubled by environmentalists are embracing it with a passion.

So are the foreign companies that have stampeded into Poland to stake claims in what one American participant happily describes as a "land grab."

"We only need one of these things to work, and it could be a company-maker," said John Buggenhagen of San Leon Energy, sitting amid rolls of geologic and scientific maps in his Warsaw office. The multinational firm owns the rights to explore 14 "concessions" in Poland, each covering nearly 400 square miles.

Even if all that gas is there — by no means a certainty — it will take years for this fast-growing Eastern European nation to develop production on a scale necessary for achieving self-sufficiency.

Poles consume 14.5 billion cubic meters of gas a year, about 30% of which comes from domestic sources. Nearly all the rest is imported from Gazprom, the state-owned Russian energy giant, which has been known to play hardball with its customers.

In early 2009, at the height of winter, Gazprom withheld gas from Ukraine in a dispute over prices and payment, a shutoff lasting for days that also affected delivery to more than a dozen other shivering European nations. On at least one day in February of this year, Poland detected a sudden 7% drop in supply from Gazprom; some suspect Russia was holding back some of its gas for itself to combat a nasty cold spell.

Such incidents have turned shale gas into something of a mantra for the Polish government.

"Every cubic meter of gas that … doesn't have to be imported is good news," said Michal Golebiowski of Poland's Treasury Ministry. (Overall, the country is still heavily reliant on coal for its energy needs.)

Polish officials have made frequent visits to the U.S. to learn from American successes — and failures — in places such as Pennsylvania and Texas, where hundreds of drilling rigs have proliferated in just the last few years.

But Poland faces particular difficulties. Support services and infrastructure are lacking. More daunting is the fact that the shale deposits, believed to stretch in a wide belt from northwest Poland down to the southeast, lie much farther underground than in the United States, as deep as 2 1/2 miles below in some cases.

That will make drilling much more expensive than in the U.S. Officials contend that Poles would still come out ahead, because they pay about five times more for natural gas than Americans do.

"Any activity that will make for a chance of cheaper energy will be supported by citizens," Golebiowski said.

Not quite all of them.

Marek Kryda, an environmental activist here in Gdansk, is worried that his country is running headlong toward an illusory goal without really counting the cost.

Fracking generates massive volumes of toxic water and huge piles of debris. In the U.S., federal regulators have linked the process to tainted water supplies in Wyoming. A panel of lawmakers in New Jersey approved a bill in June to bar fracking waste from entering the state from neighboring Pennsylvania.

Drilling for shale gas has also been blamed for triggering two tiny earthquakes in northwest England last year, a region not known for seismic unrest. Worried Britons are demanding a fracking moratorium.

In Poland, a recent study of a drilling site by the Polish Geological Institute deemed it environmentally safe. But Kryda is skeptical, saying that the institute is under heavy political pressure to support Warsaw's agenda of weaning the country from Gazprom.

"To say that Poland is dependent on Russian gas is a lie.... Poland is dependent on the price of Russian gas," Kryda said. "We can cut off Russian gas tonight and buy 40% or 50% more expensive gas from Qatar. But Poland is not doing this."

In the Pomerania region, which includes Gdansk, authorities have issued exploration permits for 22 concessions, spread out over an area famed for its beauty, with lakes, forests, verdant farmland, medieval castles and inviting white beaches hugging the Baltic Sea.

Malgorzata Maria Klawiter, a regional official who promotes the hunt for shale gas, said companies could maintain environmental safety, reduce noise and keep the drilling rigs from spoiling the rustic landscape.

"We can hide the facilities so that they look like little houses maintained in the local architectural style," she said. "Our current goal is to determine if shale gas occurs in commercial amounts, and if so, will the extraction bring a reasonable profit. It may turn out either way."

Critics believe the estimates are exaggerated. Energy giant Exxon Mobil announced in June that it was abandoning its exploration efforts in Poland after two of its wells yielded disappointing results.

Buggenhagen of San Leon Energy said some players barreled in with inflated hopes, especially after a U.S. government study suggested that Poland's shale gas reserves could amount to 5.3 trillion cubic meters. The Polish Geological Institute's recent estimate of 768 billion cubic meters is a fraction of that.

"There was an unrealistic expectation in the financial markets that we were going to drill a few wells and this was going to be the next Barnett Shale," said Buggenhagen, referring to a massive reserve discovered in Texas.

The initial hype has tapered. But many remain convinced of Poland's promise.

"I think there's outstanding potential," said Buggenhagen, who considers Poland his No. 1 priority. "It's the heartbeat of our company."

[Jaga]

Not sure about fracking in Poland now. Poland is not Canada and cannot sacrifice so much land for exploration. There was so much pollution due to mining, fracking would do it again....

+++after a U.S. government study suggested that Poland's shale gas reserves could amount to 5.3 trillion cubic meters. The Polish Geological Institute's recent estimate of 768 billion cubic meters is a fraction of that.+++

The newest conspiration theory is that the oil is still there in abundance but somebody is hiding it.

[JJ]

December 28, 2012

san-francisco

California Fracking Disclosure Rules Leave Some Environmentalists Unsatisfied

Posted: 12/27/2012 12:31 pm EST | Updated: 12/27/2012 1:32 pm EST

SAN FRANCISCO -- Underneath much of Central and southern California sits the single largest deposit of shale oil in the United States, boasting a motherlode of some 15 billion barrels of oil.

While the Monterey Shale's unique geology has prevented energy companies from unleashing a new West Coast energy boom, California regulators have begun to take the first steps in regulating hydraulic fracturing (or "fracking"), a controversial practice decried by environmentalists and the most promising solution for retrieving said oil.

The process of injecting a mixture of water, sand and other chemicals into a well in order to stimulate the flow of oil or natural gas, fracking is especially helpful in accessing energy deposits in shale formations that would otherwise be out of reach using traditional methods.

Kassie Siegel of the nonprofit Center for Biological Diversity, which is in the process of suing the state for doing what it calls an insufficient job of regulating fracking, argues that the practice has the potential to do irreparable harm to the environment. She notes that a quarter of all the chemicals used in fracking are known carcinogens, and some people living near fracked wells have reported health ailments like vomiting, nausea and seizures.

On the other hand, industry representatives have pointed to a recent year-long study conducted in Southern California's Ingleside Oil Field that found no negative health, air quality or seismic effects from the fracking occurring there. The study, paid for by Plains Exploration & Production Company as part of a lawsuit against the energy producer, has been criticized by environmentalists for not looking at the long-term heath effects of fracking.

Earlier this month, the California Department of Conservation's Department of Oil, Gas & Geothermal Resources (DOGGR) released a preliminary set of regulatory guidelines for all fracking activities occurring in the state.

During a phone conference with members of the media last week, state regulators noted that many of the rules they're planning to put in place mandate practices already standard across the energy industry. However, one area headed for change is the requirement that companies disclose all the chemicals they use in fracking.

The new rules mandate that all chemicals used in the fracking process be disclosed within 60 days after the completion of fracking and that the state be notified 10 days before fracking occurs.

Presently, energy producers aren't required to tell anyone where or when they're using hydraulic fracturing, although many companies have started to do so on a voluntarily basis through industry-run site FracFocus.org after state regulators asked them to do so earlier this year. Under the new regulatory regime, reporting chemicals on FracFocus would become mandatory.

FracFocus now lists information for just over 600 fracked wells in California. According to Western States Petroleum Association Spokesman Tupper Hull, a recent survey found that of the 47,000 active wells, only 628 utilize hydraulic fracturing.

Some environmentalists have questioned the wisdom of relying on a private, industry-run website to host this information, especially when said site isn't required to comply with Freedom Of Information Act requests. However, on last week's conference call, regulators explained that the state retains the ability to extricate itself from FracFocus at any time and build its own site if they feel FracFocus isn't doing an adequate job. It would likely take California at least three years to get its own version of FracFocus online, whereas the industry site is ready now and has been hosting voluntary disclosures for over a year.

"When the companies voluntarily disclosure info, we're happy," said Scott Anderson, a senior policy advisor at the Environmental Defense Fund. "But voluntary disclosure is insufficient."

Surprisingly, over the past year or so, many of the companies engaging in fracking have come to the same conclusion as Anderson. When Wyoming adopted a mandatory disclosure rule in 2010, the state imposed it over significant industry opposition. However, as Anderson explained, the industry has come to see mandatory disclosure as a way to overcome some of the widespread hostility toward fracking. "There's no reason for people to trust data that's doled out by these companies on a voluntary basis," he explained.

This newfound openness toward letting the whole world know about precisely which chemicals they're pumping into the ground isn't exactly universal--it stops at a line marked "trade secrets."

Firms in states with mandatory disclosure rules, such as the ones proposed in California, are able to avoid releasing information about certain compounds by saying that making this information public would put them at a competitive disadvantage against other drilling firms.

The California rules would allow the state to challenge trade secrets claims and require immediate disclosure if a heath professional declares a medical emergency.

In an editorial published a few days after the release of this new set of regulations, the Sacramento Bee came down strongly in favor of the state demanding the strongest level of disclosure possible:

As valuable as fossil fuels are, California groundwater is a much more treasured resource, and it needs to be protected. We don't allow food companies to withhold the fact they might be adding carcinogenic chemicals to their recipes. Why should we allow oil companies to do the same with fracking?

California must insist on full disclosure on fracking chemicals. If regulators think they lack the authority to order such disclosure, then the Legislature will need to pass legislation to make it the law of the land.

Siegel came out even more forcefully. "These draft regulations would keep California's fracking shrouded in secrecy and do little to contain the many threats posed by fracking," she said in a statement. "These regulations are going to have to be completely rewritten if the goal is to provide real protection for our air, water, and communities."

Formal discussion of the fracking rules will begin early next year. During that process, regulators plan on meeting with both environmentalists and industry representatives and will host a series of town hall discussions with members of public in oil-producing areas across the state.

[kowalskil]

Thank you for sharing. What is less potentially-harmful fracking industry or nuclear industry? That will probably be the main topic of upcoming debates.

Ludwik

[gobose]

Nuclear is the cleanest and safest form of energy production. It produces almost ZERO pollution with ZERO deaths caused by its production. Amazing! The environment around a reactor remains in pristine condition and is an attraction for wildlife and fauna. An environmentalists dream form of energy production.

Solar is an environmental nightmare. The list of toxic ingredients contained in a panel is a page long and its manufacturing process is one of the dirtiest of all man made products. Many cities in China have become environmental dumps from this manufacturing process with all kinds of ailments resulting from solar panel construction.

Fracking, as I have stated before is truly a God send for North America. A gift from God. This completely safe form of energy retraction has provided us with enough fuel to supply the USA for over 200+ years! No wonder Obama is a HUGE supporter.

[JJ]

BBC News Business

8 May 2013 Last updated at 18:19 ET

North American firms quit shale gas fracking in Poland

Two North American energy firms have ended their shale gas fracking operations in Poland.

Talisman Energy of Canada and the US oil company Marathon said they were pulling out of what is seen as potentially one of the largest sources of shale gas in Europe.

Marathon said it decision was based on "unsuccessful attempts to find commercial levels of hydrocarbons".

Poland had hoped the shale gas deposits would replace imports from Russia.

The departure of the two companies represents a major blow to the country's ambitions.

"Poland's shale gas exists only in the media, because in reality nothing happens," said Grzegorz Pytel, energy expert at Sobieski Institute, a Polish think tank.

Talisman said it was selling its Polish operations to the Irish group San Leon Energy.

Oisin Fanning, executive chairman at San Leon Energy said: "There is still significant and continued industry interest in the Baltic Basin shale gas play, and we expect the results of our fracking programme to attract further interest from potential farm-in partners."
Disappointing results

Of the world's major energy companies, Chevron of the United States and Italy's ENI are still active in Poland's shale gas sector. The US giant Exxon pulled out last year, after disappointing drilling results.

More than 100 shale gas exploration licences have been issued by the government in Warsaw and over 40 test wells have been drilled. But few expect any to start producing gas before 2015 at the earliest.

Excitement over the potential for a Polish shale gas fracking bonanza reached its height two years ago, on the back of a report by the US Energy Information Administration which estimated reserves at 5.3 trillion cubic metres, enough to cover domestic demand for 300 years.

Cold water was poured on that last year, by the Polish government itself. The original estimate was slashed by almost 90% last year, to a figure that would still be enough to supply Poland with gas for decades, rather than centuries.
Politics over business

The reluctance of firms like Talisman and Marathon has placed a question mark over the commercial viability of the estimated reserves.

Because of this, the biggest holders of shale gas concession in Poland are companies controlled by the state, notably the energy group PGNIG.

Because the government is so enthusiastic about shale gas fracking and the potential freedom from Russian imports that it might bring, some of the state-controlled companies involved in the sector are not traditionally associated with energy exploration, including the oil refiner PKN Orlen and the copper miner KGHM.

This has prompted concerns from some minority shareholders in these companies that the government is placing political desire ahead of business knowledge.

Meanwhile, companies complain of entangled environmental red tape and a lack of a tax law relating to shale gas, which makes business planning problematic.

Fracking, which is basically fracturing layers of rock far below the earth's surface in an effort to to get the gas and oil locked up in them, has attracted much controversy in recent years.

Proponents claim the industry could unlock vast new amounts of previously inaccessible reserves. Opponents say the environmental impacts, such as the contamination of ground water, are potentially devastating.

So far, local reaction in Poland has been subdued to the infant shale gas industry. But international environmental groups are building up their presence in the country and have started to take a close look at the fracking that's already going on.