Destructive shale gas as an alternative to Russian natural gas: a good idea (or not)?
Europe wants to become more independent of Russian gas. The problem with gas is that it has to be brought from A to B. Russian gas is transported to Europe via various gas pipelines. These gas pipelines enter Europe via Turkey, Ukraine and Belarus, among others, and even run as far as England. There are also Norwegian gas pipelines that make gas flow to Europe. Because of the need for good gas infrastructure, it is difficult to bring other gas to Europe. As an alternative to Russian gas, people often count on liquid American LNG gas that is brought to Europe by large ships. Only there is often something fishy about this gas.
01Counting on liquid gas from the United States
Gas does not only occur in a gaseous state, but can also be liquefied. This is then referred to as LNG or liquified natural gas. To liquefy natural gas, it has to be cooled to extremely low temperatures of -162 °C. The gas then becomes more compact and easier to transport. One hundred litres of LNG corresponds to approximately 55 m³ of gas. This liquid gas can be transported by means of large tankers. The advantage of this is that the companies behind this gas can be much more flexible. They sail to wherever the buyer is willing to pay the most. That drives up the price. With fixed gas pipelines that is not the case, which makes the prices for such gas more competitive.
More and more American shale gas
The United States has understood well that it must produce more if Europe wants to turn its back on Russian gas. In principle, the Americans assume approximately 22 billion cubic metres of gas production per year, but the intention is to raise that to 50 billion in due course. That they can do so at all has to do with a recent turnaround in the American gas landscape.
In the past, the growing economy of the United States was itself dependent on the import of liquid gas. Through the use of shale gas, however, the country has grown into an important exporter. It all happened very quickly, although that is also relative. The technique for extracting shale gas has existed since the 1950s, but only after the turn of the millennium did it become economically and technologically feasible to apply it on a large scale.
Shale gas as an alternative to classic natural gas
A problem with natural gas is that it cannot be found everywhere, or at least not in the way we would like. Natural gas mainly occurs in gas fields, an in principle impenetrable layer in which the gas accumulates and from which we humans can tap it. With shale gas, however, it is proven that natural gas can also be found elsewhere. Natural gas also occurs between the underground layers of rock-hard rocks. Initially it was thought that this natural gas could not be extracted, but with the controversial technique of hydraulic fracking it works exceptionally well.
In the United States, so-called wildcatters, companies with a lot of nerve and money, buy large plots of land under which it is suspected there may well be shale gas. They employ specialised geologists who have to help them make reasoned guesses. These geologists are enormously important, because a financial catastrophe looms if there turns out to be no gas in the ground after all. Bankruptcies are therefore not at all unusual in the sector. Nevertheless, after such a bankruptcy the wildcatters often easily find tens to hundreds of millions of dollars again at the banks that want to sponsor the daredevilry, because the bank knows that there is simply an incredible amount of money to be made from it.
That has also paid off in recent years. Hundreds of thousands of shale gas wells have since been found and shale gas production is incredibly important for the American market, which is absolutely not faced with gas shortages.
Extraction of American shale gas
One of the reasons why in Europe we do not opt for shale gas on a large scale has to do with the way it is extracted: hydraulic fracking. This first involves carrying out vertical drilling for weeks to months. These are very deep drillings, because the rocks to be drilled are often located at depths of 3 to 5 km. Once the desired depth has been reached, horizontal drilling begins in order to drill into the various rocks.
These rock layers are broken through via underground explosions, after which water is pressed through the created shafts with very great force. This water is combined with sand and various chemicals. This combination keeps open the cracks in the rock from which the shale gas then escapes. The so-called fracking can take a few weeks, after which a well remains active for ten to twenty years on average.
The gas that comes up is mixed with water. All of that is then taken to a purification plant. The water can be reused and the shale gas leaves via pipelines to the consumers. In the case of LNG, it is liquefied to transport it to the rest of the world.
02Environmental objections to American shale gas
In the United States, shale gas is available in large quantities. That is also the case in Canada, France, Sweden and the United Kingdom, among others. In the past there was debate about the profitability of shale gas. It was assumed at the time that it was only economically viable if the sales market was nearby. Due to rising gas prices, that has of course changed. Nevertheless, it is still very much an American phenomenon, and that has a lot to do with the numerous environmental objections it faces.
A lot of groundwater needed and being left with polluted water
For hydraulic fracking, not only large quantities of water are needed, but also sand and chemical additives. Count on approximately 300 m³ of water per fracking operation. Over a horizontal length of one kilometre, some thirty such operations are quickly needed, or 9.000 m³ of water. On the other hand, one is left with large quantities of polluted waste water full of toxins. This is injected into disposal wells, underground geological layers where the water is supposedly meant to be able to stay for centuries. At other times, gigantic artificial ponds or tanks are built to store the waste water in. Just as with nuclear energy, one is therefore left with potentially destructive waste that is hard to do anything with.
Ecological disasters cannot be ruled out
Disasters certainly do happen, mostly during the extraction of the shale gas. This is partly because fractures occur in the underground shafts, causing the polluted water to mix with the groundwater and drinking water. Entire rivers can be contaminated in this way. A well-known example of this is the environmental disaster at Opossum Creek in Monroe County (Ohio). On that occasion, the entire aquatic fauna of an entire creek was destroyed. Hundreds of thousands of frogs, salamanders and fish came floating to the surface dead. In some locations, the gas has mixed so heavily with the drinking water that the tap water can simply be set on fire.
Earthquakes and subsidence
On top of that, the practice also goes hand in hand with earthquakes and subsidence. They are not always caused by the drilling itself, but sometimes also by the disposal wells. In the American town of Youngstown, they in principle never have earthquakes, but since the extraction of shale gas there have often been more than ten a year. From Canada, in turn, there are alarming reports about how the underground rock layers are becoming unstable and how this can cause major earthquakes.
Dumping of waste and dangerous working conditions
There is not only the polluted water; moreover, all kinds of filth also comes up during the drilling itself, and the American extraction companies turn out to be no strangers to scandal. Some companies have already received fines running into millions because they illegally discharge drilling waste into swamps and streams.
Some of this is also simply inherent to the sector. These entrepreneurs take an incredible number of risks and sometimes live on the verge of bankruptcy. It is then not strange that they do crazy things such as dumping waste illegally. In practice, people's lives are often also played with, because safety measures are, after all, particularly expensive. Dozens of deaths have already been found in the United States in the extraction of shale gas.
Shale gas contributes to global warming
Finally, shale gas, just like classic natural gas, is a fossil fuel that contributes to the greenhouse effect and to global warming. These are all reasons why environmental organisations speak out against shale gas. It remains important that we live gas-free in the Netherlands.
03Arguments for choosing American shale gas
Opinions on shale gas are divided in any case. Experts point out that Russian natural gas is not necessarily good for the environment either. The Russians also do not take environmental concerns too seriously and occasionally have to deal with gas leaks. That is catastrophic for the environment, because natural gas in pure form is up to eighty times more harmful to the climate than CO2. Experts indicate that European gas-fired power stations that use Russian gas are therefore just as harmful to the climate as coal-fired power stations. It is not the case that American gas companies never have to deal with gas leaks, but the Americans always try to get those leaks under control, whereas the Russians have no intention whatsoever of doing so.
In addition, the risk of earthquakes is sometimes put into perspective. With natural gas, there is one large porous bubble that carries a greater earthquake risk than the small bubbles found across deep-lying strips. Groningen knows better than anyone that earthquakes also occur with classic natural gas extraction.
Furthermore, with American shale gas one is counting on gas that comes from a democratic country. That is better than sponsoring the wars of a totalitarian regime. And that alone seems to convince European countries to choose American shale gas.
All information about shale gas - EnergieAanbieding.nl
Shale gas is very polluting and is denounced by countless environmental organisations. Nevertheless, it is extracted on a large scale in the United States.
04Frequently asked questions about shale gas
Shale gas is enormously destructive and there are quite a few environmental objections to mention. The objections are now being (temporarily) pushed aside in order to break the dependence on Russian natural gas. In any case, it is only logical that this raises many questions. We therefore answer a number of frequently asked questions about shale gas and shale gas in the Netherlands.
As is often the case, opinions in Europe are divided. A number of countries are in favour of it and other countries are concerned about the negative environmental impact. It is mainly the countries that can produce shale gas themselves and that can derive economic benefit from it that turn out to be in favour. The European Parliament previously decided that it will not immediately ban shale gas extraction, but has designated it as risky by indicating that they “must study and monitor the effect on the environment”. Each EU country chooses for itself which shale gas policy it pursues. Bulgaria and France, among others, have previously decided that shale gas extraction is banned there. Germany has banned it in areas rich in water.
What is Europe's position on shale gas?
Yes, but it is difficult to say how much shale gas that is. In 2013, TNO estimated that there is approximately 200 to 500 billion cubic metres of shale gas in the Dutch subsoil. That is an incredible amount, but pales into insignificance compared with the gas reservoirs of Groningen. These once contained well over 2800 billion cubic metres of natural gas. Of this, approximately 2100 billion cubic metres has already been extracted. Moreover, much of the shale gas in our country cannot be extracted anyway for both technical and economic reasons, let alone because of environmental considerations.
Is there shale gas in the Dutch subsoil?
Yes and no. Anyone who wants to drill for shale gas must have a licence from the Ministerie van Economische Zaken. Whether or not shale gas extraction is permitted in a particular area depends, among other things, on the Milieu Effect Rapportage. In addition to a licence from the Ministry, a drilling firm also needs a concession, and the municipality must also grant a permit. In theory, drilling for shale gas is therefore permitted in the Netherlands, but in practice things are actually different. It is virtually impossible to obtain the right licences. In July 2019, Minister Wiebes of Economische Zaken en Klimaat decided that the shale gas company Cuadrilla may no longer use an existing licence to drill for shale gas in the Noordoostpolder and Boxtel. Moreover, it was decided earlier not to permit drilling for shale gas until at least 2023. Never say never, but at the moment it does not look as though drilling for shale gas will take place anywhere in our country in the short term. There are simply too many objections.
Is drilling for shale gas permitted in the Netherlands?
Shale gas is actually simply a form of natural gas. From a chemical point of view, it is exactly the same fuel. Both consist mainly of methane. Classic natural gas, however, sits like a large bubble in an underground reservoir. Shale gas, on the other hand, sits in lots of tiny little bubbles in the ground.
What is the difference between shale gas and natural gas?
There are various chemical substances that are used. To keep the drilling fluid sufficiently supple at temperatures of 150 °C and under high pressure (+/- 300 bar), polyacrylamide is added, for example. There is still a lot of uncertainty about the consequences of using this substance. In addition, glutaraldehyde is often used. This disinfectant prevents algae formation and blockages. It is a toxic compound that dissolves excellently in water and that you would rather not have getting into the groundwater.
Which chemicals are used for extracting shale gas?
Work out the monthly amount with your usage and feed-in.