View
0
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
Cristina Madrid-Lopez
Center for industrial Ecology, Yale University.
Shale gas
for a low carbon economy?
The limitations we have to consider
INDEX
1. Background
2. Methodology
3. Viability
Local
State
Federal
4. Preliminary conclusions
INDEX
1. Background
2. Methodology
3. Viability
Local
State
Federal
4. Preliminary conclusions
1.1. THE IANEX PROJECT
Part
icip
ato
ry V
alida
tion
2015-2016 (Yale-Pennsylvania)
EU Fracking
Scenarios
Poland
UK
Spain
2017 (UAB-EU)
Integrated Analysis of the Nexus: The case of hydraulic fracturing
US Fracking
Biophysical
Diagnosis
Water
Energy
Climate
Geology
US Fracking
Social
Diagnosis
Economy
Health
Labor
Culture
(Geo)Politics
MAGIC Project
Assessment of Complex
Issues for Governance
EU H2020
www.iaste.info
2016-2020
1.2. THE LOW CARBON ECONOMY
1.3. HYDRAULIC FRACTURING
A step of well development
Extraction of unconventional fossil fuels (shale)
igs.indiana.edu
Site Preparation
Drilling Fracturing ‘Production’ Abandonment
igs.indiana.edu
“The Shale Gas Factory” (Stephenson 2015)
TransportProcessingExtraction
1.4. ‘JUST’ A STEP OF THE GAS INDUSTRY
Producer
Gas Plant
(Storage)
Pipeline
Company
Market
Centers
Hubs
Local
Distribution
Company
End User
Power
Stations
Imports LNG
Road
Transport
(Storage)
Processing
Manufacturing*
1.5. A ‘SIMPLE’ QUESTION
• Obama’s administration has committed to cut methane emissions from the oil and gas sector to 40% - 45% below 2012 levels by 2025
• Natural gas burning has lower emission rate than oil and coal
Is (fracking-led) shale gas development a recommendable option?
Socially desirable?
Economically viable?
Environmentally feasible?
Theguardian.com
INDEX
1. Background
2. Methodology
3. Viability
Local
State
Federal
4. Preliminary conclusions
2.1. ANALYZING METABOLIC PATTERN
MuSIASEM Framework (Giampietro 1994) to integrate:
Feasibility: MFA, DPSIR, GIS, LCA
Viability: Input-Output, Agent Base Modelling
Desirability: Network Analysis, Surveys
Feasibility: Biophysical
Environmental Constraints
Viability:
Biophysical Social
Constraints
Ecosystem Integrity Society’s Integrity
Desirability:Institutional Constraints
State (s)
Oil and Gas (s-1)
US (s+1)
Households (s-1)
Employment
Shale Gas (s-2)
Ecosystem (e)
Watershed Status
0
2
4
6
Wealth
Distribution0
10
20
30
40Climate Change
2.2. BOUNDARIES OF THE SES (MUSIASEM)
Koestler (1967)
Georgescu-Roegen (1971)
Allen (1986)
Kay (1984)
Giampietro (2003)
Gas
Gas
Wages
GDP
Inve
stm
ent
Tran
sfer
s
Water
Land Use
Emissions
Social Desirability
Economic Viability
Environmental Feasibility
Output flows
Changes in the land and water bodies
Changes in the biodiversity
Contributions to domestic economy/labor market
V.2. Coverage of biophysical needs
V.3. Ability to manage economic constraints
Fossil fuel dependence
Population with primary and secondary benefits/damage
Empowerment
Institutional network complexity
Perception about the activity
2.3. LIMITATIONS TO CONSIDER
Part of the analysis Indicator Example
V.1.Contribution to domestic economy/labor market
INDEX
1. Background and objectives
2. Methodology
3. Viability
Local
State
Federal
4. Preliminary conclusions
3.1. PENNSYLVANIA
Pennsylvania (s)
Oil and Gas (s-1)
US (s+1)
Households (s-1)
Employment
Shale Gas (s-2)
Ecosystem (e)
Watershed Status
0
2
4
6
Wealth
Distribution0
10
20
30
40Climate Change
3.2. BOUNDARIES FOR THE VIABILITY
Gas
Gas
Wages
GDP
Inve
stm
ent
Tran
sfer
s
Water
Land Use
Emissions
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Allegheny County Pennsylvania Washington County
3.3. LOCAL VIABILITY
V.1. Contribution to domestic economy/labor market
Wages in studied counties above the average
Economic labor productivity (ELP) increasing
Weekly wage in gas industry 2005-2014
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
2005 2014
ELP
($/h
)
Evolution of ELP ($/h) of Natural Gas Sector in Pennsylvania
Paint
PipesHandbags
3.4. STATE VIABILITY
V.2. Coverage of biophysical needs
Increasing number of wells
0
200000
400000
600000
800000
1000000
1200000
1400000
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
6/1/2010
8/1/2010
10
/1/2010
12
/1/2010
2/1/2011
4/1/2011
6/1/2011
8/1/2011
10
/1/2011
12
/1/2011
2/1/2012
4/1/2012
6/1/2012
8/1/2012
10
/1/2012
12
/1/2012
2/1/2013
4/1/2013
6/1/2013
8/1/2013
10
/1/2013
12
/1/2013
2/1/2014
4/1/2014
6/1/2014
8/1/2014
10
/1/2014
12
/1/2014
Well production curve Mmcf
0
200000
400000
600000
800000
1000000
1200000
1400000
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
6/1/2010
8/1/2010
10
/1/2010
12
/1/2010
2/1/2011
4/1/2011
6/1/2011
8/1/2011
10
/1/2011
12
/1/2011
2/1/2012
4/1/2012
6/1/2012
8/1/2012
10
/1/2012
12
/1/2012
2/1/2013
4/1/2013
6/1/2013
8/1/2013
10
/1/2013
12
/1/2013
2/1/2014
4/1/2014
6/1/2014
8/1/2014
10
/1/2014
12
/1/2014
Well production curve Mmcf
3.5. STATE VIABILITY
V.2. Coverage of biophysical needs
Residential gas consumption is decreasing
Increasing exports to densely populated areas
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
20
14
20
10
20
06
20
02
19
98
19
94
19
90
19
86
19
82
19
78
19
74
19
70
Residential Natural Gas Use (bcf)
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
19
89
19
91
19
93
19
95
19
97
19
99
20
01
20
03
20
05
20
07
20
09
20
11
20
13
Natural Gas Deliveries from Pennsylvania (bcf)
NY US RoW
3.6. US VIABILITY – DESIRABILITY LINK
V.2. Coverage of biophysical needs
Higher wages not higher energy users
0 10 20 30 40 50
UT
WI
PA
HI
ND
NH
IL
VA
RI
CO
MN
MD
AK
NJ
CA
WA
NY
CT
MA
DC
ELP $/h
0.00 50.00 100.00 150.00
AR
MS
MT
WV
AL
KS
KY
OK
IN
SD
NE
TX
IA
ND
AK
LA
WY
EMR MJ/h
3.7. US VIABILITY – DESIRABILITY LINK
V.2. Coverage of biophysical needs
NIMBY effect
States with Ban or Moratoria
insideclimatenews.org
resourcefulearth.org/ yesmagazine.org
3.8. US VIABILITY – DESIRABILITY LINK
V.3. Ability to manage economic constraints
Lowering prices
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
0.00
10.00
20.00
30.00
40.00
50.00
60.00
70.00
1/07
5/07
9/07
1/08
5/08
9/08
1/09
5/09
9/09
1/10
5/10
9/10
1/11
5/11
9/11
1/12
5/12
9/12
1/13
5/13
9/13
1/14
5/14
9/14
1/15
5/15
US Gas Production (bcf, right) vs Prices (Left, $ per 10^3 cf)
US NG Gross W US NG Gross W-Shale US Welhead NG Price
US LNG Import Price US Pipeline Import Price US Electric NG Price
US Commercial NG Price
INDEX
1. Background and objectives
2. Methodology
3. Viability
Local
State
Federal
4. Preliminary conclusions
Thermodynamical challenge
4.1 CONCLUSIONS
Thermodynamical challenge
4.1 CONCLUSIONS
Locally: Independent from Low Carbon Strategy
No previous biophysical constraints
Some counties did have issues employment constraints
Mana for Planners
Workers coming from other states
State: Viable due to the increasing investment from Federal
Contribution to good image of the state (Energy Heroes)
Improvement of wage average (Republicans vs. Democrats)
Important activity to maintain viability of US
Geopolitic Power and influence in global prices
Independence from external marketsmarkets
4.2 CONCLUSIONS VIABILITY
Shale gas
for a low carbon economy?
The limitations we have to consider
cristina.madridlopez@yale.edu
Main constraints in data availability and processing
Programming
Increasing Trust
Using hours connect scales
Helps define better the structure of the system than $
$, energy define the activity of the system, not its structure
Validation needed
Results
Indicators
4.3 FIRST CONCLUSIONS FRAMEWORK
WITH STRONG ECONOMIC IMPLICATIONS
psehealthyenergy.org
Highly depends on country and world prices of fossil fuels
USACANADA
Social Desirability
(W&J, NGO)
Economic Viability
(MCOR, DLI)
Environmental Feasibility
(DEP)
Output flows
Changes in the land and water bodies
Changes in the biodiversity
Contributions to domestic economy/labor market
V.2. Coverage of biophysical needs
V.3. Ability to manage economic constraints
V.4. Fossil fuel dependence
Population with primary and secondary benefits/damage
Empowerment
Institutional network complexity
D.4.Perception about the activity
NEXT STEPS
Part of the analysis Indicator Example
V.1.Contribution to domestic economy/labor market
Is (fracking-led) shale gas development a recommendable option?
Build Scenarios in the EU
Drilling/ Fracking Support% Not at all/
very little
% Quite a bit/
Very much
Support shale drilling 11 55
Support use of “hydraulic fracturing” 16 48
Support use of “fracking” 20 43
Understand what “hydraulic fracturing” entails 26 55
Understand what “fracking” entails 22 50
Believe support (shale drilling) influenced by political party 10 66
Shale drilling improving county economy 2 72
Shale drilling harmful to the environment 37 23
Problem Definition and Issue Contraction in Western Pennsylvania Fracking (Fifer & O’Neill, 2015)
D.4-PERCEPTION
Recommended