Shale gas developments outside the united states

2019 ◽  
pp. 27-37
Author(s):  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Shale Gas ◽  
The United States

Shale, Quakes, and High Stakes: Regulating Fracking-Induced Seismicity in Oklahoma, USA and Lancashire, UK

2019 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-14
Author(s):  
Miriam R. Aczel ◽  
Karen E. Makuch
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Hydraulic Fracturing ◽  
Shale Gas ◽  
Seismic Activity ◽  
Oil And Gas ◽  
Oil And Gas Industry ◽  
High Volume ◽  
The United States ◽  
Horizontal Drilling ◽  
Induced Seismic Activity

High-volume hydraulic fracturing combined with horizontal drilling has “revolutionized” the United States’ oil and gas industry by allowing extraction of previously inaccessible oil and gas trapped in shale rock [1]. Although the United States has extracted shale gas in different states for several decades, the United Kingdom is in the early stages of developing its domestic shale gas resources, in the hopes of replicating the United States’ commercial success with the technologies [2, 3]. However, the extraction of shale gas using hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling poses potential risks to the environment and natural resources, human health, and communities and local livelihoods. Risks include contamination of water resources, air pollution, and induced seismic activity near shale gas operation sites. This paper examines the regulation of potential induced seismic activity in Oklahoma, USA, and Lancashire, UK, and concludes with recommendations for strengthening these protections.

Deciphering the true life cycle environmental impacts and costs of the mega-scale shale gas-to-olefins projects in the United States

2016 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. 820-840 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chang He ◽  
Fengqi You
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Life Cycle ◽  
Environmental Impacts ◽  
Shale Gas ◽  
The United States ◽  
Production Costs ◽  
Environmental Models ◽  
The U.S

Using detailed techno-economic-environmental models, we investigate the environmental impacts and production costs of the mega-scale shale gas-to-olefins projects in the U.S.

Patent analysis to identify shale gas development in China and the United States

Energy Policy ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 74 ◽  
pp. 111-115 ◽  
Author(s):  
Woo Jin Lee ◽  
So Young Sohn
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Shale Gas ◽  
The United States ◽  
Patent Analysis

Where's the fracking bias?: Contested media frames and news reporting on shale gas in the United States

2019 ◽  
Vol 51 ◽  
pp. 168-175 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sherice Gearhart ◽  
Oluseyi Adegbola ◽  
Jennifer Huemmer
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Shale Gas ◽  
The United States ◽  
News Reporting ◽  
Media Frames

A Review of Shale Gas Exploitation Technology

2014 ◽  
Vol 675-677 ◽  
pp. 1485-1489
Author(s):  
Xiang Rong Luo ◽  
Shu Zhong Wang ◽  
Ze Feng Jing ◽  
Ming Ming Lv ◽  
Zhi Guo Wang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Shale Gas ◽  
Mineral Content ◽  
The United States ◽  
Gas Reservoir ◽  
Shale Gas Reservoir ◽  
Multi Stage ◽  
Reservoir Conditions ◽  
Development Technology ◽  
Recoverable Resources

The United States has taken the lead to achieve the shale gas industrial production and created a shale gas revolution throughout the world. According to the exploitation experience of the United States, the key of shale gas business development realization is to adopt horizontal well combined with fracturing technology. At present fracturing technology used commonly include multi-stage fracturing, water fracturing, refracturing, etc. China has great potential in shale gas resource, recoverable resources has 25.08×1012m3, but they are mainly located in the drought and water lack area, and the clay mineral content for shale gas reservoir is higher, the traditional water-based fracturing fluid used for shale gas development caused a lot of water consumption and serious reservoir damage, therefore, it is not suitable for shale gas reservoir conditions in China. In the process of domestic shale gas development, exploring novel fracturing and development technology is irreversible.

Eliciting public concerns about an emerging energy technology: The case of unconventional shale gas development in the United States

2015 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
pp. 139-150 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrei L. Israel ◽  
Gabrielle Wong-Parodi ◽  
Thomas Webler ◽  
Paul C. Stern
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Shale Gas ◽  
The United States ◽  
Energy Technology ◽  
Public Concerns

Estimating the Value of a Unitization Law for Shale Gas Development

2019 ◽  
Vol 142 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew Kleit ◽  
Eakasit Leelachutipong ◽  
John Yilin Wang
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Shale Gas ◽  
The United States ◽  
The State ◽  
Effective Mechanism ◽  
Horizontal Drilling ◽  
Policy Issues ◽  
Property Owners ◽  
Nature Gas ◽  
The Impact

Abstract Horizontal drilling together with hydraulic fracturing has become a very effective mechanism for the extraction of natural gas in several shale plays in the United States. Efficient horizontal drilling, however, generally requires operating in a “unit,” across the property of numerous landowners. If a landowner, however, is unwilling to allow drilling beneath their property, the result can be harmful to both the producing company and other landowners in the unit. To address this problem, most major oil and nature gas states, except for Pennsylvania, have unitization statutes. We examine the impact of such laws by looking at the recent Emersyn matter from the state of Ohio. We estimate that the unitization ordered by the State of Ohio greatly increased the potential recoverable product from the proposed unit. Just as importantly, it more than proportionally increased the profits to the producer and royalty owners. Our results also show that the breakeven production price is very sensitive to whether forced unitization is available to the producer. At least three policy issues arise from this analysis. First, the rationale for unitization is not clear in all circumstances. In the Emersyn matter, the State of Ohio required access to property rights, even though not allowing such access would not have “stranded” any other landowners, and where the party in question was a sophisticated producer, rather than a landowner. Second, there appears to be no guidance for setting reimbursements to property owners who are forced to allow producers access to their property. Third, it is not clear the extent to which the state should take the producers' plans as given, rather than inquire about options to unitization.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document