At a recent shale gas symposium in South Africa a question was asked “if hydraulic fracturing is so safe, why do drilling operators working in Pennsylvania’s Marcellus Shale Play dispose the backflow out of state in Ohio.” The question was satirically proposed by a rather uninformed anti-fracking environmentalist. His point was to show that even a natural gas producing state wants nothing to do with the disposal of the hydraulic fluid’s flowback (chemical-laced wastewater).
This discussion addresses the attendees question from a chemical perceptive. It is not intended as a review of the relationship between wastewater injection wells and earthquakes. Let it suffice to say that injection well seismicity typically ranges from 1 to 4 on the Richter scale and rarely cause damage. Nevertheless, the industry is minimizing the risk of seismicity by: assessing susceptibility when identifying or permitting injection sites; requiring seismic monitoring at active well sites; limiting well pressure thresholds by decreasing the amount of water pumped into wells and reducing the pressure at which it is pumped; and recycling and reusing wastewater.
Hydraulic fracturing is the process used to stimulate gas production from conventional oil and gas reservoirs. The process requires between 3 to 5 million gallons of fluid per well. The fracturing fluid is a proprietary mixture consisting of at least 98% water and sand with the remaining 2%, or less, of chemical additives, each having a specific function.
Although there are dozens to hundreds of chemicals, which could be used as additives, typically, there are no more than 12 chemicals used in the fracturing process. Most of the additives are commonly used household or personal care items, which pose little or no health risks. However, a limited number are classified hazardous substances.
After stimulation, about 20% to 40% of the fluid flows back to the surface and disposed by any one of a number of options. The four most common disposal options are: recycling for additional fracking, treatment and discharge to surface waters, underground injection, and storage in open air pits.
The answer to his question has nothing to do with Pennsylvania’s supposed dismay of the fluid. The answer is matter of simple geology. Pennsylvania’s tightly formed low-porosity underground geology is not suitable for deep injection disposal wells. (1) Correspondingly, Ohio’s geological underbelly composed of deep, cavernous permeable rock formations are ideally suited for injection well holding tanks.(2)
When injection is the most practical solution, the flowback is injected in deep, up to 10,000 feet, underground porous rock formations and sealed above and below by unbroken, impermeable strata. Ohio is home to 176 injection disposal wells, operated by more than 80 companies. Compare that with just six active wells in neighboring Pennsylvania. “There are over 151,000 injection wells around the country injecting over 2 billion gallons of brine every day.(3) Since the 1960s, there have only a handful of incidents due to direct contact or chemical migration into aquifers.”(4)
Both horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing are established technologies with a significant track record; horizontal drilling dates back to the 1930s; and hydraulic fracturing has a history actually going back as far as 1860’s, when nitroglycerine was used to stimulate shallow, hard-rock oil reserves, it was surprisingly very successful and not so surprising very hazardous and often illegal.
A key element in the emergence of shale gas exploration has been the refinement of cost‐effective horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing technologies. These two processes have allowed shale gas development to move into areas that previously were not accessible, literally your backyard.
The possible harmful effects of the fracking fluid to people and planet cannot be minimized. A 60-year history dictates that hydraulic fracturing is safe. There are few, if any, known cases of anyone being hospitalized or harmed from chemical contact with the fracturing fluid and/or its flowback. Especially, when used in a safe and responsible manner! “Best Management Practices” employed to select sites with the proper geology, construct and cement the casing, and manage the handling, injecting and disposal have just about eliminated problems and complaints.
The dilemma with all this brouhaha over hydraulic fracturing is the lack of concern over:
1. Sodium fluoride found in almost every tube of fluoridated toothpaste, which is far more hazardous and toxic than any of the additives in the hydraulic fracturing fluid.
Sodium fluoride is toxic by ingestion, inhalation and skin contact. “Fluorides are more toxic than lead and only slightly less poisonous than arsenic.”(5) “As of April 7th, 1997, the United States FDA (Food & Drug Administration) has required that all fluoride toothpastes sold in the U.S. carry a poison warning on the label. Another of the little-known facts about fluoride toothpaste is that each tube of toothpaste – even those specifically marketed for children – contains enough fluoride to kill a child.
Fortunately, however, toothpaste-induced fatalities have been rarely reported in the US. In a review of Poison Center Control reports between 1989 and 1994, 12,571 reports were found from people who had ingested excess toothpaste. Of these calls, 2 people – probably both children – experienced “major medical outcomes”, defined as “signs or symptoms that are life-threatening or result in significant residual disability or disfigurement,” see following chart.(6)
2. The environmental impact and water pollution caused by deicing salt. Salt the most commonly used deicing chemical in the United States; it is spread at a rate of approximately 20 million tons per year. “The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) does not regulate road salt but acknowledges that special consideration and best management practices are needed to protect reservoirs and other drinking water supplies near treated highways and salt storage sites from contamination with road salt runoff.”(7)
3. The presence of gar gum in natural toothpaste. Guar gum or hydroxyethyl cellulose is one of the hazardous additives used in hydraulic fracturing fluid to thicken the water in the fracturing fluid to suspend the sand. Neither its identity nor concentration is labeled on most tubes of toothpaste.
4. The use of ethylene glycol in many household products, including antifreeze, deicing products, detergents, paints, and cosmetics. Ethylene glycol is a colorless, odorless, sweet-tasting toxic additive used in hydraulic fracturing fluid to prevent scaling in the drill pipe.
“Ethylene glycol that is released into the environment does not persist since it is degraded within days to a few weeks in air, water, and soil. Reports of fatalities following ingestion of ethylene glycol indicate that a volume of 150–1,500 ml consumed at one time may cause death. In humans, the lethal dose of ethylene glycol is estimated to be in the range of 1,400–1,600 mg/kg. Ethylene glycol vapor concentrations measured in the air at airports during de-icing spray operations ranged from 0.05 to 22 mg/m3. Ethylene glycol has also been detected in airport stormwater. Background concentrations of ethylene glycol in the environment are not available.”(8)
5. The dry cleaning of clothes. “You know that smell on clothes that have been to the dry cleaners? Well, for the first time scientists have measured it and found worrying levels of the toxic chemical used most commonly in the dry cleaning process. Most dry cleaners use an oil-based solvent called “Perc” (short for perchloroethylene) that has been linked to serious health problems, particularly for workers or nearby residents who inhale fumes, or for those drinking water contaminated with the chemical. The chemical is such a potent toxic substance that it’s prompted federal and state hazardous waste cleanups at dozens of Superfund sites around the country, some of them at defunct cleaners that didn’t handle their waste properly. And, not surprisingly, the chemical remains on clothes after they come home from the dry cleaners, and even build up over time if clothes are repeatedly dry cleaned, according to a Georgetown University study that was inspired by a sophomore high school student’s science project.”(9)
6. Throwing something away. If you don’t reuse or recycle that item, it probably will end up in a landfill. Once in a landfill the only thing left for it to do is decompose into carbon dioxide, water, hydrogen, ammonia, carbon dioxide, inorganic acids, and methane. “In 2010, Americans generated about 250 million tons of trash and recycled and composted over 85 million tons of this material. On average, we recycled and composted 1.51 pounds out of our individual waste generation of 4.43 pounds per person per day.”(10)
“Decomposition rates (rate at which it will totally break down into the earth) of items in landfills will vary depending on the amount of sunlight, moisture and air exposure it receives. Some of these time ranges are:”(11):
“Apple core: 1 to 2 months, can take longer in landfills due to lack of microbes
Glass bottles: tens of thousands of years; glass is made from sand and it can outlast most anything
Plastic drinking bottles: hundreds of years; consist of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) which is made from petroleum, which won’t break down.
Plastic bags: up to hundreds of years; newer plastic bags can photo-degrade, but most aren’t exposed to sunlight when in a landfill.
Milk carton: 5 years
Plastic milk jug: 500 years
Aluminum can: 80 to 200 years
Styrofoam: no sign of ever breaking down
Cigarette butt: 1 to 5 years
Newspaper: 2 to 4 weeks, can take longer in landfills due to lack of microbes; will decompose much faster when wet.”(11)
7. The December 2008 report that “one in every three of the more than 1,500 children’s toys tested in time for the holiday shopping season have been found to contain “medium” or “high” levels of chemicals of concern such as lead, mercury, cadmium and arsenic.”(12)
In closing, it’s convenient and easy to point at hydraulic fracturing as another human activity that if not curtailed will destroy humanity. The ascent of man is one of risk management and ultimately doing the right thing. Sure controls, oversight and improvements are necessary when our future is at stake. But let’s deal in facts rather than mindless cut and pastes that naysayers righteously proclaim to an unwary public who go about brushing their teeth, driving behind salt spraying trucks, sitting in aircraft during deicing procedures, sending their clothes to the local dry cleaner, buying toys for birthdays and holidays, and shopping to feed and clothe the family without thinking of the potential harm they are doing to themselves and mother earth. Time to put fracking in proper perspective!
References:
(1) “Environmental Impact of the Marcellus Shale,” Energy Facts PA, http://energyfactspa.com/natural-gas/page/environmental-issues
(2) “Fracking Fluid Soaks Ohio,” Bloomberg BusinessWeek, March 22, 2012; http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-03-22/fracking-fluid-soaks-ohio
(3) “Class II Wells – Oil and Gas Related Injection Wells (Class II),” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/class2/index.cfm
(4) “Avoid injecting wastewater into faults,” The Marietta Times, March 24, 2012; http://www.mariettatimes.com/page/content.detail/id/543023/Avoid-injecting-wastewater-into-faults.html?nav=5006
(5) “The Dangers of Fluoride,” Global Healing Center; http://www.globalhealingcenter.com/natural-health/how-safe-is-fluoride
(6) “Why is there a Poison Warning on Toothpaste?” Fluoride Action Network; http://www.fluoridealert.org/toothpaste.htm
(7) “Transportation: De-icers Add Sweet to Salt,” Environmental Health Perspectives; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2592290
(8) “Background and Environmental Exposures to Ethylene Glycol in the United States,” Center for Disease Control; http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp96-c2.pdf
(9) “Study: Dry Cleaning Chemicals Stick to Clothes,” The Daily Green, http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/latest/dry-cleaning-chemicals-0911
(10) “Municipal Solid Waste Generation, Recycling, and Disposal in the United States: Facts and Figures for 2010, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, http://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/municipal/pubs/msw_2010_rev_factsheet.pdf
(11) “Don’t Throw This Away, Landfill Decomposition Rates,” Ways 2 Go Green; http://www.ways2gogreen.com/DontThrowThisAwayDecompositionRates.html
(12) “Toxic Toy Guide Lists Chemicals Found in Hundreds of Toys,” Environment News Service; http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/dec2008/2008-12-03-01.asp
What’s Your Green IQ?
This is the first for me. Posting an entire article as-is in my blog. Why? A few of the correct answered surprised me. Thought it would be interesting to see how other scored. Answers will appear tomorrow.
This quiz by Colleen Oakley was published in today’s Parade section of the Star-Telegram.
1. On average, how fast do you drive on the highway? (a) 55 mph (b) 65 mph (c) 75 mph
2. When your vehicle needs a bath, do you: (a) Grab the hose and a bucket and do it yourself (b) Go to a car wash
3. What type of driver are you? (a) Aggressive (b) Calm and collected (c) Somewhere in between
4. It’s lunchtime and you’re craving a fast-food burger. Do you: (a) Order at the drive-through (b) Park and head inside to place your order
5. Grilling season is almost here! This summer, you’ll be throwing your burgers and brats onto: (a) An electric grill (b) A charcoal grill (c) A gas grill
6. You’re hosting a cookout and need to stock up on beer. At the store, you fill your cart with: (a) Cans (b) Bottles (c) A keg
7. Okay, you’ve had enough burgers and barbecue. It’s time for a healthy dinner: salmon. At the fish counter, you choose: (a) Atlantic (b) Wild caught from Washington, Oregon, or California (c) Neither; you skip the fish counter and buy canned
8. Now let’s head over to the produce section. With fruits and vegetables, you look for this label: (a) Organic (b) Locally grown (c) I don’t look at labels
9. Your spouse cooked dinner, so you’re on dish duty. Do you: (a) Wash everything by hand (b) Rinse off bits of food, then load the dishwasher (c) Put the dirty dishes straight into the dishwasher
10. After mowing the lawn, what do you do with the clippings? (a) Leave them in the yard (b) Bag them and put them out by the curb
11 When a lightbulb in your house burns out, you replace it with: (a) An incandescent lightbulb (b) A compact fluorescent lightbulb (CFL) (c) A light-emitting diode (LED) bulb
12. You’re cleaning out the medicine cabinet and find a bunch of expired medications. Do you: (a) Flush them down the toilet (b) Toss them in the garbage but recycle the container (c) Return them to the pharmacy
In closing, my score a pitiful 75%; 9 of 12 correct. A “C” at best. How did you do?
Reference:
(1) “How Green Are You,” Colleen Oakley, Parade, Star-Telegram, April 22, 2012 http://www.parade.com/news/2012/04/22-how-green-are-you.html
Need Help – China Content!
I am looking for reliable figures to determine how much content imported from China comprises the installed base of all solar systems in the U.S.
Conditions:
1. Last 5 years
2. In USD
3. Total Cost of all US Solar Systems
4. Total Cost of all components purchased from China
Can anyone assist in finding the answers to these seemingly pragmatic questions?
Feel free to contact me at barry@tbdamericainc.com
Thanks, Barry
GHG on the Rise!
Bottom line! All the brouhaha heard around the world about clean energy hasn’t amounted to a hill of beams.
Why? The 2012 U.S. Greenhouse Gas Inventory Report by the EPA, which summarizes the latest information on U.S. anthropogenic greenhouse gas emission trends from 1990 through 2010 concluded “total U.S. emissions have increased by 10.5 percent from 1990 to 2010. Since 1990, U.S. emissions have increased at an average annual rate of 0.5 percent. Furthermore, “emissions increased from 2009 to 2010 by 3.2 percent.”(1)
The report attributed the increase “from 2009 to 2010 was primarily due to an increase in economic output resulting in an increase in energy consumption across all sectors, and much warmer summer conditions resulting in an increase in electricity demand for air conditioning that was generated primarily by combusting coal and natural gas.”(1)
It’s probably true that without all the strides in wind and solar farms and energy efficiency measures, the trend would be considerably worse. However, it is generally believed within the scientific community that greenhouse gas emissions must be cut in half by 2050 in order to prevent global temperatures from increasing by more than 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit (2 degrees Celsius).
To make matters worse, the U.S. is not alone. In December 2011, The New York Times reported, “Global emissions of carbon dioxide from fossil-fuel burning jumped by the largest amount on record last year, upending the notion that the brief decline during the recession might persist through the recovery. Emissions rose 5.9 percent in 2010…… The increase solidified a trend of ever-rising emissions that scientists fear will make it difficult, if not impossible, to forestall severe climate change in coming decades.”(2)
Even today, The Sidney Morning Herald reported, “Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions continued to rise last year, driven by an increase in vehicle use and gases leaking from coalmines, federal government data show. The nation released 546 million tonnes more carbon dioxide than its land mass absorbed last year, not including the data from changes in land use and logging, which is recorded separately. This is a 0.6 per cent increase on the 2010 emissions figure, still below the nation’s peak in 2008.”(3)
To better understand the trend, this 2002 graph from the EIA presents data on the major global sources of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions by country, from the beginning of the Industrial Revolution to the present, (4). Only skiers and mountain climbers would enjoy such a profile.
The following world map shows CO2 emissions for 2009 by country.(5) From highest to lowest, the top 10 bad boys for pure CO2 emissions is China, United States, India, Russia, Japan, Germany, Canada, South Korea, Iran and the United Kingdom. There is a large disparity in emissions between China (7,710 metric tonnes) and the UK (520 metric tonnes). A difference of about 1,400%!
The Guardian reported, “on pure emissions alone, the key points are:
- China (#1) emits more CO2 than the US (#2) and Canada (#7) put together – up by 171% since the year 2000
- China generates 23.6 % of global total annual emissions.
- The UK (#10) only produces 1.6 % of global total annual emissions.
- The US has had declining CO2 for two years running, the last time the US had declining CO2 for 3 years running was in the 1980s
- The UK is down one place to tenth on the list, 8% on the year. The country is now behind Iran, South Korea, Japan and Germany
- India is now the world’s third biggest emitter of CO2 – pushing Russia into fourth place
- The biggest decrease from 2008-2009 is Ukraine – down 28%. The biggest increase is the Cook Islands – up 66.7%.”(5)
By per capita emissions, “a different picture emerges where:
- Some of the world’s smallest countries and islands emit the most per person – the highest being Gibraltar with 152 tonnes per person
- The US is still number one in terms of per capita emissions among the big economies – with 18 tonnes emitted per person
- China, by contrast, emits under six tonnes per person, India only 1.38
- For comparison, the whole world emits 4.49 tonnes per person.”(5)
In closing, the trend is obviously going the wrong way. Much more must be done. But what! The 17th Conference of the Parties (“COP17”) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) ended in failure last December. The Kyoto Protocol, which lacked agreement by the U.S. and China, is slated to expire in 2012. What will happen to cap-and-trade, carbon credits and carbon markets in a Post–Kyoto world.?
The real question is – do American’s in the public and private sectors have the resolve, wherewithal and leadership to finally make a difference. Rhetoric says “Yes,” performance says “NO.”
Does it really matter that 2011 tied for the 10th-hottest year since records began in 1850?
Does it really matter that the 13 hottest years on the books all have occurred in the last 15 years?
Does it really matter that Arctic sea ice has also shrunk to record-low volumes?
Does it really matter that “it is estimated that 20 to 30 percent of plant and animal species will be at increased extinction if global temperature rises more than 3.6-5.4 degrees Fahrenheit?(6)
Does it really matter that in the not too distant future humanity may find it difficult to survive on planet earth?
References:
(1) “Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks:,” EPA, April 15, 2012, http://epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/downloads12/US-GHG-Inventory-2012-Main-Text.pdf
(2) “Carbon Emissions Show Biggest Jump Ever Recorded,” The New York Times, December 4, 2011, http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/05/science/earth/record-jump-in-emissions-in-2010-study-finds.html
(3) “Greenhouse gas emissions still on the rise,” The Sydney Morning Herald, April 18, 2012, http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/greenhouse-gas-emissions-still-on-the-rise-data-shows-20120417-1x5m4.html
(4) “Global Greenhouse Gas Data,” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/globalghg.html
(5) “World carbon dioxide emissions data by country: China speeds ahead of the rest,” The Guardian, January 31, 2011 http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/31/world-carbon-dioxide-emissions-country-data-co2
(6) “Heat, Livers and Herbivores: Climate change and wildlife,” The Science Times,” Thursday, March 29, 2012 http://thesciencetimes.blogspot.com/2012_03_01_archive.html
Like this:
Where Has Energy Independence Gone?
The good news, the U.S. is reducing its consumption of foreign oil. The bad news, the Titanic may make it to port before the U.S. becomes truly energy independent. This is meant not to disrespect the 1,514 who died sailing in the Titanic 100 years to the day.
November 7, 1973 is a day that should live in infamy. On this day, President Richard M. Nixon announced “Project Independence,” a sweeping initiative to achieve energy self-sufficiency for the United States by 1980.(1)
“The idea of energy independence was first conceived in response to the 1973 Arab oil embargo. The embargo abruptly cut-off U.S. oil imports from the Middle East causing severe fuel shortages and gas rationing. Oil prices tripled, the price of gasoline quadrupled and a new American vulnerability was exposed — America’s dependence on imported oil as a primary source of energy proved to be a weakness that could be exploited to influence or subvert U.S. foreign policy; threatening to disrupt the economy and eventually impoverish the USA by transferring billions of dollars to foreign national treasuries in exchange for oil.”(2)
Fast track to 2012, “the chart below shows both the consumption and the domestic supply of liquid fuels in the U.S. in millions of barrels per day. The difference between these amounts, the area shaded in yellow, indicates the amount of liquid fuel the U.S. imports to make up the difference between demand and domestic supply. By 2035, the U.S. Energy Information Agency expects the U.S. will only need to import 36 percent of its oil.”(3)
Source: U.S. Energy Information Agency
Credit: Melanie Taube/NPR
The following chart from O&G Next Generation, shows the source of oil imports as of June 2009,(4) Though, somewhat dated, the U.S. is shown to import less than 15 percent from the Gulf, oil imports are live and healthy.
So what got us into this grandiose oxymoron in the first place anyway? “Prior to 1950 the U.S. had absolute energy independence. In 1950 the USA was producing over 50 percent of the world’s oil, enough for all of its own needs with plenty left over for exports. But the post-World War II U.S. economic boom eventually created demand for more oil than U.S. wells could produce.
Between 1950 and 1973 (the year of the embargo) U.S. oil imports had grown from near zero to about 32 percent of U.S. oil consumption.”(2) Other factors behind the increase include “predictions that the U.S. will exhaust it’s supply of oil in as little as forty years, an ever increasing demand from population growth, new uses found for the resource, and an increase in demand for a resource to increase living standards.”(5)
By 1994, the U.S. was importing more oil than it produced. In 2010, oil imports will provide about 60 percent of all oil consumed in the USA.”(2) The United States remains as one of the world’s largest importer of crude oil, although oil imports declined by 10% since 2006.
In closing, the question is can America wait till 2035 or beyond to become energy independent? The hope of 1980 is long gone. Today, incentives for alternate energy are thin. Few if any congress man/women, democrat, republican, tea party member would campaign to increase foreign imports of oil. So what is it? Possibly our government just does not give a dam.
References:
(1) “Address to the Nation About Policies To Deal With the Energy Shortages,” The American Presidency Project, Richard Nixon, November 7, 1973: http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=4034#axzz1s3rdILHB
(2) “American Energy Independence,” Ron Bengtson, AmericanEnergyIndependence.com, September 2010, http://www.americanenergyindependence.com/aei-intro.pdf
(3) “Foreign Oil Imports Drop As U.S. Drilling Ramps Up,” Elizabeth Shogren, NPR, January 24, 2012, http://www.npr.org/2012/01/24/145719179/foreign-oil-imports-drop-as-u-s-drilling-ramps-up
(4) “Oil Imports to the U.S.,” O&G Next Generation, http://powerfulinfographic.com/?p=288
(5) “Oil Consumption in North America,” Jason J. Churchill October 25, 2000, http://maps.unomaha.edu/peterson/funda/sidebar/oilconsumption.html
Like this:
Fracking Gets a Fair Shake!
For anyone who thought this piece has to do with hydraulic fracturing or wastewater injection related seismicity, sorry to disappoint. That topic will be covered in a future article. The plan is to post a series of pieces that demystify concerns over; • human health and safety, • the environment, • fresh water reserves, • air quality, and • seismic activity.
To start off, a report by Jazz Shaw, “EPA backs off on fracking contamination claims in Texas” in Hot Air, April 1, 2012, presented recent finding about allegations linking methane contaminated to shale gas production.
Shaw stated:
“….. the EPA has backed out of a lawsuit (involving alleged contamination of ground water by energy exploration efforts) and said that their claims cannot be backed up by the evidence.”
“….. the agency told a federal judge it withdrew an administrative order that alleged Range Resources Corp. had polluted water wells in a rural Texas county west of Fort Worth.”
“….. the EPA sued Range for not complying with its order (to supply water to the affected residents, identify how gas was migrating into the aquifer, stop the flow and clean up the water), Range appealed, arguing that the agency’s analysis was inconclusive. It pointed to nearby water wells that were known to contain high concentrations of gas long before it began drilling.”
“….. it’s also true that you can do that (setting water on fire from natural gas coming up from wells) in homes with in-ground wells all over Pennsylvania and Virginia in places where no drilling has taken place.”
“….. last year that gas most likely seeped into the aquifer from a shallow pocket of gas nearby, not the Barnett Shale, thousands of feet underground, from which Range was producing gas.”
The answers lay in the fact that modern shale gas development is technologically driven and must be treated as such. Unproven cost cutting measures and process deviations are unacceptable. 60 plus years of experience tells us, shale gas can be safely managed and controlled.
In closing, it’s acknowledged that EPA’s change of position, will not detract the greedy, sensationalists and uninformed from its anecdotal attack on the shale gas industry. Our litigacious society supports such actions. Sooner or later the beneficial economic and environmental impact will out way false claims of “fracking fire in the sink. Done right, shale gas production is a low risk proposition.
Fracking Toothpaste
Natural gas production, from hydrocarbon rich shale formations, known as “shale gas,” is one of the most rapidly expanding trends in onshore oil and gas exploration and production today. A key element in the emergence of shale gas exploration has been the refinement of cost‐effective horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing technologies.
These two processes, along with the implementation of protective Best Management Practices, have allowed shale gas development to move into areas that previously were not accessible. New gas developments bring change to the ecological and economic landscape. With these changes have come questions about the ability of the technologies to adequately protect the people and the planet. This proposition has taken on almost religious overtones by the media, industry critics and concerned citizens.
Forget for a moment the profound economic impact that shale gas development has on: • creating jobs, • reducing consumer cost of natural gas and electricity, • increasing federal, state and local tax revenue, • stimulating economic growth, and • reducing GHG emissions and smog.
Without exception there were problems with hydraulic fracturing. Modern shale gas development is technologically driven and must be treated as such. Unproven cost cutting measures and process deviations are unacceptable. Investigations into the complaints of water contamination concluded that the problems were avoidable and traced to: • inferior casing and cementing, • insufficient separation between gas-bearing rock and water supplies, and • lack of oversight and adherence to best management practices.
No question, regulations must be imposed to ensure adequate oversight and selection of qualified and trained operators that employ best management practices when handling, injecting and disposing fracturing fluid. Nevertheless, the industry is not standing still. To the rescue are new “green” fracturing additives, better ways to treat and recycle the waste water, and new technologies that reduce water consumption in half.
To put the issue of shale gas development into proper perspective, let’s take a comparative bottom-line look at hydraulic fracturing, oil production and coal mining.
First question is how many people were hospitalized due to methane contaminated water and/or the hydraulic fracturing fluid, a mixture consisting of at least 98% water and sand with the remaining 2%, or less, of chemical additives, each having a specific function. MIT reported there were only 42 complaints of contamination out of 15,000 shale wells drilled in the Texas based Barnett Shale formation – a 0.3% problem.(1) An unofficial posting by “Frack Check WV,” cannot substantiate any hydraulic fracturing related health problems.(2) The posting does mention a few unsubstantiated hydraulic fracturing related severe health claims.
More ludicrous is the human health and safety risks from ethanol. “According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) in 2010 in the United States there were an estimated 10,228 people who died in drunk driving crashes, accounting for 31% of all traffic deaths.(3) Funny yet or maybe not so funny, 70% ethanol may cause liver, kidney and heart damage. Potential health effects include:
• Ingestion: May cause gastrointestinal irritation with nausea, vomiting and diarrhea. May cause systemic toxicity with acidosis. May cause central nervous system depression, characterized by excitement, followed by headache, dizziness, drowsiness, and nausea. Advanced stages may cause collapse, unconsciousness, coma and possible death due to respiratory failure.
• Inhalation: Inhalation of high concentrations may cause central nervous system effects characterized by nausea, headache, dizziness, unconsciousness and coma. Causes respiratory tract irritation. May cause narcotic effects in high concentration. Vapors may cause dizziness or suffocation.
• Chronic: May cause reproductive and fetal effects. Laboratory experiments have resulted in mutagenic effects. Animal studies have reported the development of tumors. Prolonged exposure may cause liver, kidney, and heart damage.
On the other hand, “Daily Finance”(5) reported that according to Minerals Management Service,
….. “since 2001, 69 oil workers have been killed on the job, with more than 1,300 injuries and around 800 fires.”
….. “the number of oil drilling fatalities doesn’t even come close to the number of coal mining fatalities in America.”
….. “since 2001, there have been more than 60 deaths per year in coal mines, with annual injuries in the tens of thousands.”
Now to the topic of our discussion, everyday household fluoridated toothpaste. It’s suggested that most of us practice and teach our children proper oral hygiene and brush at least one time per day, if not more. The “Fluoride Action Network”(6) reported:
….. “the FDA (Food & Drug Administration) has required that all fluoride toothpastes sold in the U.S. carry a poison warning on the label.”
….. “the label states, “WARNING: Keep out of reach of children under 6 years of age. If you accidentally swallow more than used for brushing, seek professional help or contact a poison control center immediately.”
….. “each tube of toothpaste – even those specifically marketed for children – contains enough fluoride to kill a child.”
….. “Poison Center Control reports between 1989 and 1994, 12,571 reports were found from people who had ingested excess toothpaste. Of these calls, 2 people – probably both children – experienced “major medical outcomes”, defined as “signs or symptoms that are life-threatening or result in significant residual disability or disfigurement.”
One final note, the label of a popular toothpaste states: “Active ingredient – Sodium fluoride 0.243%.” No other ingredients are specified. One would think that it would be somewhat important to know the composition of the remaining 99.757%. Direct searches using for example “toothpaste ingredients” did not provide hits giving the other ingredients. A roundabout search found that some toothpaste may contain: sorbitol, a liquid that keeps toothpaste from drying out, is a laxative that could cause diarrhea in children; and sodium lauryl sulfate, an ingredient that makes toothpaste foam, can also be a diarrheic.
In closing, the witch hunt over hydraulic fracturing can be surmised in one word “HYPOCRISY.” This is another great example of the imbalance of the balance of justice. Every day society holds back the shale gas industry is another day more dollars are exported for foreign oil, the environment is further harmed with dirty coal, and the hole gets deeper and darker.
To the extent that hydraulic fracturing has resulted in few if any substantiated health problems, is a proven technology with a 60 year history, occurs thousands of feet below overlying aquifers and hard non-porous rock, and employs a fluid with publically disclosed chemical additives; alcohol and toothpaste unequivocally pose a much higher risk to human health and safety.
Maybe if the hydraulic fracturing operators take a stiff drink when they report to duty and substitute fluoride for one of the additives, the uniformed critics will lay down their empty wand and finally accept “fracking” as the proper way to achieve good shale gas hygiene?
References:
(1) “The Future of Natural Gas,” MIT Energy Initiative, Interdisciplinary Study, http://web.mit.edu/mitei/research/studies/naturalgas.html
(2) “The Human Story,” Frack Check WV, http://www.frackcheckwv.net/impacts/the-human-story/
(3) The Century Council, “Drunk Driving Fatalities – National Statistics,” http://www.centurycouncil.org/drunk-driving/drunk-driving-fatalities-national-statistics
(4) “Ethyl Alcohol 70%,” Material Data Safety Sheet, http://www.nafaa.org/ethanol.pdf
(5) “Oil and coal worker fatalities aren’t worth limited energy savings,” Daily Finance, http://www.dailyfinance.com/2010/04/30/oil-and-coal-worker-fatalities-arent-worth-limited-energy-savin/
(6) Fluoride Action Network, http://www.fluoridealert.org/toothpaste.htm
What Shale Gas Means to Southern Africa
INTRODUCTION
Shale Gas is a rather unsexy but game changing opportunity. How do I know, because, I can talk with firsthand knowledge of its impact on the community. The reason being, I live smack-dab on top of the Barnett Shale formation, the first great shale gas play in the U.S. and, for that matter, the world.
Also, I must confess, that most of my career in the energy industry has been with renewables, mostly with hydrogen, waste-to-energy, biomass, solar and wind. So by design, I am not in love with fossil fuels. But what I am, is a realist. As I search for the best energy solution today, I keep coming back time-and-time again to Natural Gas.
So today, I will take you on a brief journey that begins with opportunities and challenges and ends with clarity and solutions.
MY NEIGHBORHOOD
As I previously mentioned, I live within the Barnett shale formation, which has about 6,000 operating wells out of 15,000 drilled. My house is a very short distance, about 4 tenths of a kilometer (0.4 km /1/2 mile) from a recently completed well.
These pictures were taken mid-November 2011. As you can make out, the pad site is relatively large, about 1.7 hectares (4.3 acres), and has sufficient space for future expansion.
What’s most obvious is the temporary 10 meter high (32’) sound and screening wall, surrounding the entire site. For security purposes, there is only one access point with a battery of warning signs. Everything looks well-organized and properly managed.
This photo was taken a month later. The rig is gone, and the site is fairly barren except for the 3 or 4 remaining wellheads.
Once the delivery pipelines are connected to the wellheads, the sound wall will be dismantled after construction of a 3 meter high decorative masonry fence around the entire pad. At that point, the site will blend in and actually enhance the curb appeal of the neighborhood.
#3 – SHALE GAS: VISION for Today
This conference is all about your vast shale gas energy opportunity; it’s not a fantasy but a vision that can benefit the entire region today, not tomorrow.
Natural gas production, from hydrocarbon rich shale formations, known as “shale gas,” is one of the most rapidly expanding trends in onshore oil and gas exploration and production today.
What you have is an abundant domestic resource base estimated to about 485 Tcf of technically recoverable shale gas resources. In fact, you’re sitting on the 5th largest shale reserve in the world. An excellent position to be in!
Secondarily, natural gas is clean; in fact the cleanest of all fossil fuels. Certainly, being an organic compound, it has a carbon footprint. But as you can see from this chart – its emissions levels of CO2, CO, NOx, SO2, particulates and mercury is anywhere from 40% to 100% cleaner than coal. (click – remove chart and bring down top)
Furthermore, the economic impact from developing shale gas has a multiplier effect far beyond just the supply chain from wellhead to exports.
This “Shale Gale” as we call it in the U.S. has the potential to support more than 1.6 million jobs and generate about $933 billion in tax revenues over the next 25 years.
#4 – WHAT CAN SHALE GAS DO
So what can shale gas do for you?
First and foremost, as with any energy source, shale gas must be produced in a manner that prevents, minimizes and mitigates environmental damage, the risk of accidents and protects public health and safety.
Now, using the U.S. as an example, natural gas has transformed the outlook of U.S.’s energy mix.
It’s had a profound economic impact on: • creating jobs, • reducing consumer cost of natural gas and electricity, • increasing federal, state and local tax revenue • stimulating economic growth • and reducing GHG emissions and smog
Specifically, U.S. shall plays:
• contributed about $77 billion to the nation’s economy in 2010
• supported 600,000 jobs.
• introduced higher paying jobs, higher than those in manufacturing, transportation and education
• and added about $1,000 in disposable income per household.
#5 – APPLICATIONS
Natural gas has gained wide acceptance not only because it is a cleaner-burning, and more easily transportable energy source, but because it is competitive to other fossil fuels.
This chat compares the value of various fuels, each normalized to 1 million BTUs.
In this respect, at 20 cents per therm for natural gas, which is its current trading price, the comparative cost for:
for electricity is 8 tents of a cent per kWh,
for bituminous coal 63 dollars per ton
for fuel oil #2 better known as, home heating oil, about 0.28 cents per gal
and for propane about 18 cents per gallon
What this means, if you are paying higher for anyone of these fuels, than that shown in the chart, using natural gas, will save you money.
With improved distribution channels and technological advancements, natural gas is being used in ways never thought possible.
Natural gas has many applications, commercially, in the home, in industry, and even in the transportation sector!
Industrial uses include providing the base ingredients for such products as plastic, fertilizer, anti-freeze, and fabrics.
And well known to your country, is the conversion of natural gas into synthesis gas for production of liquid hydrocarbon fuels.
And because of the attributes mentioned above, natural gas has replaced coal as the preferred source for electrical generation and heating in homes, businesses and industrial furnaces.
In terms of exports, it is projected that the United States will become a net exporter of liquefied natural gas in 2016.
#6 – The Triple Bottom Line
When you put these benefits together, you get what is called the Triple Bottom Line, an integration of values for measuring success: success in terms of economic, ecological, and social benefits.
To Southern Africa, shale gas is an endeavor of national social responsibility.
This is in regards to: People – in terms of an improvement towards labor, the community and region Planet – in terms of benefits towards the ecology and the environment and Profits – in terms of real economic benefits enjoyed by the residential, commercial and industrial sectors
It’s pretty magical to develop a resource that benefits these somewhat conflicting constituencies
#7 - CROSSROADS
Now, you’re at a crossroad.
A crossroad of how to balance the tremendous quantity of undeveloped resources, with the complexity of developing an infrastructure to support demand, while protecting the community and the environment
From a supply side, once developed, you will have sufficient resources to satisfy current domestic requirements. However, to make this work, there must be a broader market for the gas, both domestic and international.
Here we see South Africa’s energy mix.
Clearly, your economy is heavily dependent on coal, and at the other end of the spectrum; we see that natural gas plays a very minor role.
This is a logical outcome of your vast coal deposits and limited natural gas and petroleum supplies.
This chart illustrates South Africa’s coal production, consumption and exports from 1950 to 2007.
The upper “red” curve shows South Africa’s total coal production, with the white area, below, your coal export market.
The upper black curve, designates your country’s total coal consumption; primarily consisting of liquid fuel manufacturing and electricity generation, in the orange and tan sections, respectively.
Clearly electricity generation is the country’s primary consumer of coal. Therefore, this sector can immediately benefit by developing your shale plays. As the demand for electricity grows, new gas-fired electrical power generation stations can replace the need for coal-fired plants.
In the U.S., the Levelized cost of gas-fired stations is about 6.6 cents per kWh verses 9.5 cents for coal-fired plants. A double benefit by using natural gas – cheaper and cleaner electricity production!
Long-term opportunities to stimulate demand include developing an infrastructure supporting natural gas fueled vehicles.
You’re now proceeding slowly with due caution. Your dilemma is how best to manage the risks to the community, environment and economy while developing a valuable asset and markets.
#8 – DEMYSTIFY
Let’s depart for the moment and clarify issues raised by industry critics and concerned citizens.
New gas developments bring change to the environmental and socio‐economic landscape, especially where gas exploration is a new activity. With these changes have come questions about the nature of shale gas production, and the ability of the current regulatory structure to adequately protect the people and the planet.
Purported issues include its impact on:
• human health and safety
• the environment
• fresh water reserves
• air quality, and
• seismic activity.
All valid concerns to think first and drill later!
To these ends, regulatory agencies, policy makers, and the public need an objective source of information on which to address these issues.
Now let’s, step forward and demystify a few critical aspects of development and separate fact from fiction.
# 9 – The Process of Shale Gas Development
In order to make sound decisions about exploration, it is important to understand the development process.
As you can see from this slide, the process begins with mineral leasing and permitting followed by the more obvious phases of site preparation, drilling, completion, and hydraulic fracturing, then finally to plugging, abandonment and restoration.
The drilling process from site prep to production, is relatively short, averaging about 3 months per well.
In fact, the hydraulic fracking phase is the shortest of all events, lasting only a couple of days.
The entire process up to workovers, can take several years. The rate liming step is typically, the initial phase, of mineral leasing with its negotiations of lease terms between the mineral owner and mineral developer.
Though permitting can be an arduous and uncertain task. At the end of the day, the permit may even be withheld, by anyone, of a number of regulatory agencies including the local government.
# 10 – The Big Picture
Downstream, natural gas goes through a series of selling, transmission and distribution processes, before reaching the customer.
This sets the stage for both opportunities and challenges. Opportunities, in terms of, jobs, economic value, and government revenue! And downstream challenges in developing an adequate infrastructure and stimulating demand.
This requires, developing:
• processing plants,
• compressor stations
• storage facilities both above and underground • pipelines,
• compressor substations (every 80 to 160 km)
• an underground network of smaller pipelines called “mains” then finally to
• even smaller lines called “services” that go directly to the end-user
And in the case of the export market, expanding and building natural gas liquefaction plants.
#11 – Hydraulic Fracturing
A key element in the emergence of shale gas exploration has been the refinement of cost‐effective horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing technologies.
These two processes, along with the implementation of protective Best Management Practices, have allowed shale gas development to move into areas that previously were not accessible.
Both horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing are established technologies with a significant track record; horizontal drilling dates back to the 1930s and hydraulic fracturing has a history actually going back as far as 1860’s, when nitroglycerine was used to stimulate shallow, hard-rock oil reserves, it was surprisingly very successful and not so surprising very hazardous and often illegal. Definitely would have enjoyed seeing that from a distance.
Anyway, let’s begin with hydraulic fracturing, simply because it’s essential to shale gas production and central to many controversies over its development.
The fracturing fluid is a proprietary mixture consisting of at least 98% water and sand with the remaining 2%, or less, of chemical additives, each having a specific function.
Although there are dozens to hundreds of chemicals, which could be used as additives, typically, there are no more than 12 chemicals used in the fracturing process.
Most of the additives are commonly used household or personal care items, which pose little or no health risks. However, a limited number are hazardous, and only one routinely used additive, ethylene glycol, is poisonous if swallowed in sufficient quantities. It is important to note that ethylene glycol is widely used as automotive antifreeze agent .
To this end, the ingredients of the fracturing fluid must be transparent. Legislation should be put in place to: have the operators disclose the makeup of the fluid. Also, of prime importance, are the corresponding regulations to ensure proper injecting and disposal methods.
#12 – Groundwater Protection
Pure, clean groundwater! Nothing can replace it. This is why fresh-water aquifers need to be protected through obligatory use of construction methods and oversight.
Protection is afforded by casing and cementing, where casing isolates fresh water zones from inside the well and cementation seals the annular spaces within the casing to create a hydraulic barrier to fluid migration.
It is required to have of 4 layers of steel casing that is fully encased in concrete. There can be as much as 3 million pounds of steel and concrete that travel, literally, 10s of thousands of feet. And during the drilling phase, proper legislation requires testing throughout the process. In addition, there are natural barriers in the rock strata that act as seals holding the gas in the target formation. A fundamental precept of shale gas geology is to ensure sufficient separation and effective sealing between the shale layers and overlying aquifers.
It is important to mention, that credible investigations into complaints of water contamination attributed the problem to poor casing construction and cementing as well as the close proximity of the shale layers to underground water supplies. Also, inadequate Fluid Management including handling, injecting and disposal were also to blame.
As we will shortly see in the next slide, there are new methods to improve the quality and reduce the quantity of the fracking fluid and wastewater.
So to adequately protect people and the planet, there needs to be a Regulatory Framework that addresses every aspect of exploration and production, such as:
• the geology and potential seismic activity
• site selection
• casing and cementation
• contractor qualification
• ground water testing – both before and after drilling
• and public disclosure of chemicals.
#13 – Water Usage
Multi-stage fracturing is water intensive and can use up to 20 million liters of water per well. Therefore, it is critical, that large quantities of fresh water are available.
This chart shows the comparative water usage, by sector, of several major U.S. Shale Plays.
Here we see that shale gas production, represented by the shaded column, is, in fact, the lowest consumer of water. Public systems, are by far, the primary demand sector. And where heavy industry is present, industrial and mining operations, also require substantial quantities of water. Even the irrigation and livestock sectors utilize more water than the shale gas industry.
Most of the water used in hydraulic fracturing comes from surface water sources such as lakes, rivers and municipal supplies. However, groundwater can be used to augment surface water where it is available in sufficient quantities and quality.
Alternate strategies include trucking in the water, building ponds and reservoirs to capture rain, employing “green” frack components and better ways to treat and recycle the waste water.
Finally, with new technologies to the rescue, such as “super fracking,” as it’s called, it is possible to reduce water consumption in half.
These are just some of the innovative ways the industry is conserving, making it safer and regulating water usage.
#14 - AIR QUALITY
Of utmost concern are natural gas emissions from production. This is driven by its, high Global Warming Potential, and its corresponding impact on local air quality and climate change.
This chart shows the Greenhouse gas inventory by type of gas.
We see that atmospheric CH4, also better known as, Natural Gas or Methane accounts for only 10% of all emissions. On the other hand, CO2 is by far the predominate greenhouse gas, at about 83%
However, not all atmospheric methane comes from natural gas production. In this chart, the slice labeled “CH4 Systems,” includes the entire natural gas supply chain, both conventional and unconventional.
Here we see that only a third of the emissions come from wells, pipelines and storage tanks. Other major sources of methane come from fermentation, landfill and coal mines.
Therefore, shale gas, itself, being a partial component of CH4 systems, constitutes about 3% of the total greenhouse gas inventory. By far, a minor contributor to climate change!
Furthermore, many producers and suppliers have already deployed relatively inexpensive methane detection and capture technologies and are able to realize profits from the use of these techniques.
#15 – SEISMIC
Another major concern is human induced seismicity. Two shale gas processes may trigger such events:
First – hydraulic fracturing, which cause micro-seismic activity about magnitude -2, a slip of one tenth of mm, generating less energy than a gallon of milk falling off a kitchen counter
These events are minuscule and not felt but measurable. They pose no public health or safety risks and occur on a continuous basis around the earth.
and # two. Wastewater injection wells, which are more active, between 1 and 4 on the Richter Scale.
These earthquakes are typically felt but rarely cause damage. The estimated frequency of earthquakes of this magnitude is about 1.3 million a year around the world
It’s important to note, under the right conditions, every time pressure is applied or reduced from an underground rock formation there is at least a small risk of a seismic activity.
This is also true in the case of mining operations, driving piles for bridge, building construction, and drilling geothermal wells, in seismically active areas.
Nevertheless, the industry continues to investigate ways to reduce the risk of sesmicity, such as: • Assessing susceptibility when identifying or permitting injection sites, • Requiring seismic monitoring at active well sites, • limiting well pressure thresholds by decreasing the amount of water pumped into wells and reducing the pressure at which it is pumped. • Another important option is to recycle and re-use wastewater
#16 - The Answer
To find the right answer you first have to know the real problem. One thing we all can agree on, doing it wrong will lead to problems.
A fair number of investigations into the complaints concluded that the problems were avoidable and as I mentioned earlier traced to: Inferior casing and cementing Insufficient separation between gas-bearing rock and water supplies And lack of oversight and adherence to best management practices
Other reported problems were subsequently found to be erroneous, lacking merit, or not representative of the industry.
MIT reported there were only 42 complaints of contamination out of 15,000 shale wells drilled in the US – a 3 tenths of 1% problem.
Also, Cornell University’s initial report stating that shale gas has a higher GHG footprint then coal was subsequently retracted. A new report concluded that its footprint is in actuality 1/3rd to ½ that of coal,
and finally some law suits involving methane contaminated water were subsequently dismissed for lack of evidence. It was found that many water wells already contained methane gas before drilling started.
The answers lay in the fact that modern shale gas development is technologically driven and must be treated as such. Unproven cost cutting measures and process deviations are unacceptable. 60 plus years of experience tells us, shale gas can be safely managed and controlled. Done right it is a low risk proposition.
So our quest for answers has brought us to two simple words – Be Smart.
Be smart and ensure:
• Adequate oversight
• Adoption of appropriate regulations and legislation
• Onsite safety and emergency response plans
• Programs to train and certify the workforce
• Adherence to best management practices
• and Use of qualified operators
#17– THE BRIDGE TO THE FUTURE
Like it or not, renewable energy has a long way to go to make an impact on any one country’s energy inventory. Natural gas, being the least disruptive fossil fuel, could serve as a ‘bridge’ to a low-carbon future.
Under a scenario, that envisions a worldwide momentum towards stick policies aimed at cutting greenhouse gas emissions; electric utilities and other sectors of the economy will have no other choice but to adopt natural gas as a logical alternative.
Natural gas will buy time to further develop, cleaner fuels. Hopefully there will be something at the other end of the rainbow, whether its 25 years or the end of the century.
#18 – SUMMARY
In summary, the shale gas industry creates jobs, economic value, and government revenues. Additionally, it also provides broader macro-economic impact for both households and businesses.
This is especially true in industries, that are intensive users, of natural gas as a feedstock, such as the chemical industry, and industries that significantly benefit from lower cost electricity.
And along the way, society, unknowingly, becomes an environmental steward striving to sustain our environment.
In closing, I hope I achieved my objective and showed that shale gas development is safe, manageable and beneficial, now and for the future.
It’s your choice which path you will take. Fear and fear itself is not the answer. There is nothing magical about moving forward.
The road is there, the tools are in your hands. Time to put the crossroads behind you!
#19 – THANK YOU
In closing, I look forward to the rest of the conference, and want to thank you again for having me here today.
Barry Stevens, PhD; President, TBD America, Inc.
Arlington, Texas
Fracking in the Karoo Basin
CNBC Africa’s live interview with Barry Stevens on South Africa’s Karoo Basin shale gas opportunity and concern over hydraulic fracturing.
PetroSA’s Mossel Bay GTL Refinery
Site visit to PetroSA’s GTL Refinery in Mossel Bay, South Africa on 03.23.2012
The visit validated the concern that GTL and thermal waste-to-energy processes are being oversimplified by many claiming to have cost-effective commercial process. From mass and energy balance to metallurgy and complex chemistry, doing it right and being profitable is more demanding than most realize.
PetroSA operates the world’s first and one of the largest Gas to Liquids (GTL) complexes in South Africa Operating since the early 90’s , they have acquired over 16 years of experience through the challenges of commercializing the GTL processes.
The 36 000 bbl/d GTL Refinery, which is based in Mossel Bay, has a crude oil equivalent capacity of 45 000 bbl/day. The principal process is the conversion of natural gas produced offshore to synthetic liquid fuels via the High Temperature Fischer-Tropsch GTL Process. They have led the technology development of Low Temperature Fisher-Tropsch (LTFT) synthesis through their 1,000 bbl/d demonstration plant.
PetroSA’s GTL plant and processes are now well proven, a culture of operational excellence has been firmly embedded and a vision for the future of GTL has been forged. The vision demands that we continually leverage our operational experience to remain at the leading edge of technological innovation in the GTL arena.
Their refinery remains a centre of GTL know-how and operational excellence. It holds the National Occupational Safety Association of South Africa’s (NOSA) five-star grading. It is also further endorsed with SABS/ISO 9002 accreditation, making quality management one of the cornerstones of their operations.
GTL Products
The GTL plant has been producing ultra-clean diesel and naphtha products servicing up to 15 percent of the South African transport fuels market.
The product slate comprises Unleaded gasoline, ultra-low sulphur diesel, kerosene, low aromatic distillates, drilling fluids, liquid petroleum gas, low sulphur fuel oil, anhydrous alcohols, liquid oxygen, liquid nitrogen, carbon dioxide and more recently with the addition of the Low Temperature Fischer Tropsch unit waxes.
