Shell Oil is trying to take the lead in onshore shale gas and oil development with the unveiling of a set of five “Global Onshore Tight/Shale Oil and Gas Operating Principles.”
Operating principles are a framework for how Shell says it and other companies should protect water, air, biodiversity and the communities where they drill for and produce natural gas and oil.
The principles include safe well design and completion standards, water protection and reuse goals, air quality and emissions prevention measures, limits on the physical footprint of operations, and community engagement.
The move is being made in response to a growing backlash against natural gas drilling, which some regulators, residents and environmental activist say has been linked to a growing number of ground and surface water contamination incidents.
“We understand there is concern around the development of shale gas, and we must give the public more knowledge of how we operate,” said Marvin Odum, president of Shell Oil. “People have asked the industry for transparency; we have listened and are responding.”
Shell’s five onshore tight and shale gas operating principles include:
1) Safe well design – use of two or more barrier layers between the well’s interior and rock walls, as well as steel casing and cement to protect and isolate potable groundwater zone from oil and gas production stream; public disclosure of chemicals used in hyrdraulic fracturing process; routine well safety reviews; and emergency response plans.
2) Protection of groundwater and reduction of water in process– potable groundwater aquifers isolated from well completion and production activities; groundwater supplies tested for safety before and after operations; non-potable water used in hydraulic fracturing and wastewater reccyled whenever possible.
3) Emissions reduction — work toward testing sites for “fugitive” emissions from drilling and hydraulic fracturing operations, eliminate routine venting where allowed, employ less-polluting equipment and make greater use of clean fuels like natural gas in engines.
4) Surface impact –work to reduce “footprint” of drilling and completion operations, minimize impact on local livestock and wildlife, partly by limiting activities during certain time periods; install oil and gas gathering systems and pipelines to reduce trucking; return land to original state once operations concluded.
5) Commmunity engagement — improve transparency of operations, share local socio-economic reports, hire locally and identify opportunities for local investment and partnerships.
Brett:
You removed the link.
Even more importantly you failed to mention the biggest thing in the document, the move towards elimation of the mud/frac/flowback towards a hard container system.
Now, on one hand, the type of incidents involving pits are probably less than the total amount of gas spilled filling lawnmowers (and a toddler apparently died of this in Houston… gasoline lawnmowers are NASTY) so on one hand the environmental benefits are small.
On the other hand, many of the incidents that are getting citations in PA are mud pit (frac pit, flowback pit) related. While a tiny spill in west texas is just no big deal (just like most gas spills with evil gasoline lawnmowers) it starts to be a big deal in populated regions.
There is also a growing body of evidence that shows that the plastics involved in mud pit liners can cause endocrinal disruption in humans. In a place where you have a lot of running water you probably don’t want to have these sort of chemicals laying around, although the BIGGEST threat in this regard is introduction into the ecosystem of estrogen compounds that humans freely take (nobody is clamering about this, but it is a serious and known source of endrocrinal disruption agents into the environment).
In short, these proposals go WAY beyond anything proposed to date and address pretty much every known legitimate issue involving protection of our precious surface water, including endocrinal disruption.
Do you think BP will ever follow those principles?
Shell isn’t even a player in onshore shale. Where do they get their standing to even comment? Major oil company posturing and PR is all it is
George S,
“Shell isn’t even a player in onshore shale”. Huh, where do you get your facts? Do you just make them up? Shell is one of the biggest players in Onshore shale gas with huge holdings in Marcellas (Pennsylvania,etc), Haynesville (Louisiana), and Eagleford (Texas), and Pinedale (Colorado. A simple google search would’ve kept you from making a misinformed point.
Re: Shell fracturing article
I and other effected people prefer that you address catastrophic critical HAZOP [Hazard & Operation Safety] review items, likelihoods, & SPECIFIC clean up associated with such as: earthquakes; contamination of aquifer, ground formations, waste, & drinking water supplies with self introduced & disturbed natural occurring elements et al; underground & aboveground cave-ins & disturbances and geological items, etc. (I presume Shell & ALL OTHER fracturing companies do conduct this important mandated safety review).
Let me add sadly that
1. Shell’s name is worse than mud in many parts of the world particularly in underdeveloped areas such as Africa where pools of Shell’s oil contaminate the ground and where Shell has not improved the living standards and quality of life of the indigenous people.
2. The oil industry has a poor environmental and public record. Gas stations formerly contaminating drinking water with leaking single walled underground storage tanks, and reluctance of or no clean up methods. Formerly using single hulled & non compartmentalized oil tankers. The recent gushing of oil in the Gulf of Mexico. Etc. In each of these the Oil industry stated & swore repeatedly that there was no danger to the environment & people contrary to the outcry of the public.
3. One can go on & on.
My heart bleeds that we waste such precious resources by burning them in the air instead of relegating them to other precious items such as more important starting material for improving our quality of life