+ All Categories
Home > Documents > HYDROFRACKING BASICS - · PDF fileBasics Earthquake Risk 13 Rangely, CO, injection experiments...

HYDROFRACKING BASICS - · PDF fileBasics Earthquake Risk 13 Rangely, CO, injection experiments...

Date post: 21-Mar-2018
Category:
Upload: lamtuyen
View: 220 times
Download: 5 times
Share this document with a friend
32
HYDROFRACKING BASICS IMUA 2013 ANNUAL MEETING - ATLANTA, GA MAY 20, 2013 Gerry Finley, CPCU Senior Vice President, Casualty Treaty Underwriting Munich Reinsurance America, Inc. [email protected]
Transcript
Page 1: HYDROFRACKING BASICS - · PDF fileBasics Earthquake Risk 13 Rangely, CO, injection experiments (M4.9, 1995), 1945-1995 Rocky Mountain Arsenal (M5.3, 1967), fluid injection, 1962-1966

HYDROFRACKING BASICS IMUA 2013 ANNUAL MEETING - ATLANTA, GA

MAY 20, 2013

Gerry Finley, CPCU

Senior Vice President, Casualty Treaty Underwriting

Munich Reinsurance America, Inc.

[email protected]

Page 2: HYDROFRACKING BASICS - · PDF fileBasics Earthquake Risk 13 Rangely, CO, injection experiments (M4.9, 1995), 1945-1995 Rocky Mountain Arsenal (M5.3, 1967), fluid injection, 1962-1966

Agenda

2

The Market for Hydrofracking

Regulatory Framework

The Basics – A Short Overview

Takeaways

Page 3: HYDROFRACKING BASICS - · PDF fileBasics Earthquake Risk 13 Rangely, CO, injection experiments (M4.9, 1995), 1945-1995 Rocky Mountain Arsenal (M5.3, 1967), fluid injection, 1962-1966

THE BASICS

Page 4: HYDROFRACKING BASICS - · PDF fileBasics Earthquake Risk 13 Rangely, CO, injection experiments (M4.9, 1995), 1945-1995 Rocky Mountain Arsenal (M5.3, 1967), fluid injection, 1962-1966

A process used to extract gas

from deposits trapped in rock

formations (shale) where the

rock pores are too small for the

gas to be accessed with

traditional drilling techniques.

Basics

What is “Hydrofracking”?

4

Hydraulic

A gas well is treated with large

amounts of extremely pressurized

water (up to 5mm gallons per well)

mixed with sand (up to 4 million

pounds per well) and chemicals

(some of which are toxic)

Fracturing

Water is injected at significant

depths to fracture (create fissures

in) the shale rock and extract

natural gas …..

…….. 20%- 80% of the water stays

in the ground and the remainder

need to either be disposed of or is

reused Graphic by Al Granberg

Page 5: HYDROFRACKING BASICS - · PDF fileBasics Earthquake Risk 13 Rangely, CO, injection experiments (M4.9, 1995), 1945-1995 Rocky Mountain Arsenal (M5.3, 1967), fluid injection, 1962-1966

Basics

What is “Hydrofracking”?

5

Operational Drill Site Size/Scope

Page 6: HYDROFRACKING BASICS - · PDF fileBasics Earthquake Risk 13 Rangely, CO, injection experiments (M4.9, 1995), 1945-1995 Rocky Mountain Arsenal (M5.3, 1967), fluid injection, 1962-1966

Basics

Operational Risk: Who’s Exposed

6

Page 7: HYDROFRACKING BASICS - · PDF fileBasics Earthquake Risk 13 Rangely, CO, injection experiments (M4.9, 1995), 1945-1995 Rocky Mountain Arsenal (M5.3, 1967), fluid injection, 1962-1966

Basics

Operational Risk: Who’s Exposed

7

Own/build

operate/maintain

the well

Mostly contractual

or vicarious liability

Public safety

responsibilities

Secondary

Risks

Municipalities

Public utilities

Water treatment plants

Testing labs

Testing equipment mfg.

Tertiary Risks Landowner/Farmer lessors

Chemical mfg.

Primary Risks

Energy companies

Service/construction

contractors

Drilling contractor

Potential Defendants

Page 8: HYDROFRACKING BASICS - · PDF fileBasics Earthquake Risk 13 Rangely, CO, injection experiments (M4.9, 1995), 1945-1995 Rocky Mountain Arsenal (M5.3, 1967), fluid injection, 1962-1966

Drill Site

Earthquake Environmental

Basics

The Risks

8

3 Main Hydrofracking

Risks

Page 9: HYDROFRACKING BASICS - · PDF fileBasics Earthquake Risk 13 Rangely, CO, injection experiments (M4.9, 1995), 1945-1995 Rocky Mountain Arsenal (M5.3, 1967), fluid injection, 1962-1966

Basics

Site Risk

9

Proximity to Populations

Source: Light House Solar

Homes

Red Hawk Elementary School

Page 10: HYDROFRACKING BASICS - · PDF fileBasics Earthquake Risk 13 Rangely, CO, injection experiments (M4.9, 1995), 1945-1995 Rocky Mountain Arsenal (M5.3, 1967), fluid injection, 1962-1966

Basics

Environmental Risk

10

Pollution….. Sudden or Gradual

Contamination of aquifer

(groundwater)

Contamination of navigable

waters

Contamination of soils and farmlands

Contamination of drinking

water

Contamination of crops and

live stock

Air and Noise

Pollution

Fracking water contains hazardous

chemicals – Storage

Up to 700 different chemicals have been

used…some toxic

Water treatment – water treatment plants

fail to test and clean the water properly

before releasing

Groundwater pollution – chemical infused

wastewater can escape into the

environment in several ways:

‒ Failures in well casing allow water to

leak into aquifers

‒ Waste water can leak out of the storage

pits (lining fails)

Water Pollution –Systemic Risk

Air Pollution - Operational Risk

Silica (Sand); Methane; Ground Level

Ozone

Noise Levels

Page 11: HYDROFRACKING BASICS - · PDF fileBasics Earthquake Risk 13 Rangely, CO, injection experiments (M4.9, 1995), 1945-1995 Rocky Mountain Arsenal (M5.3, 1967), fluid injection, 1962-1966

11

Basics

Environmental Risk

Source: Hydraulic Fracturing Fracs

Page 12: HYDROFRACKING BASICS - · PDF fileBasics Earthquake Risk 13 Rangely, CO, injection experiments (M4.9, 1995), 1945-1995 Rocky Mountain Arsenal (M5.3, 1967), fluid injection, 1962-1966

Basics

Earthquake Risk

12

Does Hydrofracking cause Earthquakes?

Fracking well Wastewater well

Wastewater Injection

Wells………..

…………greater issue than the

Fracking Well itself…

……Deeper,

Longer Duration

US Dept. of Interior/US Geological Survey

Page 13: HYDROFRACKING BASICS - · PDF fileBasics Earthquake Risk 13 Rangely, CO, injection experiments (M4.9, 1995), 1945-1995 Rocky Mountain Arsenal (M5.3, 1967), fluid injection, 1962-1966

Basics

Earthquake Risk

13

Rangely, CO, injection experiments (M4.9, 1995), 1945-1995

Rocky Mountain Arsenal (M5.3, 1967), fluid injection, 1962-1966

Gazli, Uzbekistan, gas recovery (M7.2), 1976-1984

Water Reservoirs: Lake Mead (M5), Koyna (M6.3), Oroville (6.1) Tadjikistan,

Italy and many others

Geysers Geothermal Field (M4.6), injection-enhanced production

Dallas Airport (M3.3), fluid injection, 2008-2009

Arkansas (M4.7), fluid injection, 2010-2011

Youngstown, Ohio (M4.0), fluid injection, 2011

Prague, OK (M5.7), Waste Water Injection Well, 2011

Dallas/Ft Worth (M3.4) Waste Water Injection Well, 2012

US Dept. of Interior/US Geological Survey

Earthquake Examples (Largest recorded)

Earthquake frequency in the

central U.S. increased 50%

in 2000, and then over

seven-fold in 2008

Page 14: HYDROFRACKING BASICS - · PDF fileBasics Earthquake Risk 13 Rangely, CO, injection experiments (M4.9, 1995), 1945-1995 Rocky Mountain Arsenal (M5.3, 1967), fluid injection, 1962-1966

Basics

Why Hydrofrack?

14

Perceived Benefits of Hydrofracking

Makes shale rock treatment and gas extraction less costly

Gas exploration made financially viable

Lessens dependence on foreign oil (supply & price volatility)

U.S. as a price-setter and exporter

Long-term source of energy supply

Job creation

Smaller carbon footprint (more climate change friendly – water pollution exposure needs to be managed)

Global / Political

Cost Effectiveness

U.S Society/Economy

Page 15: HYDROFRACKING BASICS - · PDF fileBasics Earthquake Risk 13 Rangely, CO, injection experiments (M4.9, 1995), 1945-1995 Rocky Mountain Arsenal (M5.3, 1967), fluid injection, 1962-1966

Basics

Underwriting Issues

15

Major Uncertainty Major Underwriting Challenge

Rapidly Evolving Landscape Major Uncertainty

Climate Change Benefit?

Chemical Cocktails

Science & Information

Federal

State and Local

Regulatory

Damages

Assignment of Liability

Judicial

Occurrence Trigger?

Exclusions?

Transfer of Liability

1st Party?

Coverage Operational Complexity

Risk Qualifications??

Risk Quality and Selection

Page 16: HYDROFRACKING BASICS - · PDF fileBasics Earthquake Risk 13 Rangely, CO, injection experiments (M4.9, 1995), 1945-1995 Rocky Mountain Arsenal (M5.3, 1967), fluid injection, 1962-1966

Hydrofracking

The Market

Page 17: HYDROFRACKING BASICS - · PDF fileBasics Earthquake Risk 13 Rangely, CO, injection experiments (M4.9, 1995), 1945-1995 Rocky Mountain Arsenal (M5.3, 1967), fluid injection, 1962-1966

Market

Where’s the Gas….

Source: Energy Information Administration based on data from various

published studies.

Updated: May 9, 2011

Global Perspective

Page 18: HYDROFRACKING BASICS - · PDF fileBasics Earthquake Risk 13 Rangely, CO, injection experiments (M4.9, 1995), 1945-1995 Rocky Mountain Arsenal (M5.3, 1967), fluid injection, 1962-1966

Market

Where’s the Gas….

Page 19: HYDROFRACKING BASICS - · PDF fileBasics Earthquake Risk 13 Rangely, CO, injection experiments (M4.9, 1995), 1945-1995 Rocky Mountain Arsenal (M5.3, 1967), fluid injection, 1962-1966

Market

Where’s the Gas….

19

Marcellus Shale Gas

Play,

Appalachian Basin

Page 20: HYDROFRACKING BASICS - · PDF fileBasics Earthquake Risk 13 Rangely, CO, injection experiments (M4.9, 1995), 1945-1995 Rocky Mountain Arsenal (M5.3, 1967), fluid injection, 1962-1966

Market

The Numbers

20 US Energy Information Administration July, 2011 Study: Review of Emerging Resources US Shale Gas and Shale Oil Plays

U.S. Shale Gas Unproved Discovered Technically Recoverable Resources Summary

Page 21: HYDROFRACKING BASICS - · PDF fileBasics Earthquake Risk 13 Rangely, CO, injection experiments (M4.9, 1995), 1945-1995 Rocky Mountain Arsenal (M5.3, 1967), fluid injection, 1962-1966

Market

Market Posture

21

Specialty Carriers / Coverage Will Emerge

Market Posture

Willis 2012 Report In response to pricing, uncertainty and loss potential, Willis reports that some

US Insurers have excluded activities related to Hydrofracking

Milliman 2012 Study Concluded that fracking large loss scenarios exceed limits currently available

in the market;

Recommended that Regulators require adequate financial responsibility

evidence (including insurance) of those engaged in Hydrofracking activities

Hydrofracking Risks will need coverage and limits beyond those currently available

Market Consensus:

Standard Polices are not designed to cover Hydrofracking & Specialty Coverage is needed.

Page 22: HYDROFRACKING BASICS - · PDF fileBasics Earthquake Risk 13 Rangely, CO, injection experiments (M4.9, 1995), 1945-1995 Rocky Mountain Arsenal (M5.3, 1967), fluid injection, 1962-1966

Market

Market Posture Examples

22

Cautious Market Response to Hydrofracking

Property Typically excludes EQ unless endorsed otherwise – HO and Commercial

Auto Liability Trucking exposure elevated

EIL Carriers reluctant to cover near populated areas

General Liability

Underground

Resources &

Equipment

Exclusion

Pollution – standard exclusions should apply

Excludes Property Damage: • Oil, gas, water or other mineral substances still underground

• Any area through which exploration or production is carried on (well, hole; etc)

• Any drilling or service machinery or equipment located beneath ground (casing, pipe, bit,

tool, etc.)

Excludes Bodily Injury or Property Damage: • Remediation cost/expenses related to the above (e.g., bringing damaged equipment to

the surface)

Underground

Resources &

Equipment

Coverage

Scheduled Coverage for Underground Equipment or Resources • Aggregate PD sublimit applies

• Excludes PD for real property in CCC

• Excludes BI and PD:

• Well control costs incurred

• Damages claimed by a co-owner

Page 23: HYDROFRACKING BASICS - · PDF fileBasics Earthquake Risk 13 Rangely, CO, injection experiments (M4.9, 1995), 1945-1995 Rocky Mountain Arsenal (M5.3, 1967), fluid injection, 1962-1966

Hydrofracking

Regulatory Perspective

Page 24: HYDROFRACKING BASICS - · PDF fileBasics Earthquake Risk 13 Rangely, CO, injection experiments (M4.9, 1995), 1945-1995 Rocky Mountain Arsenal (M5.3, 1967), fluid injection, 1962-1966

Regulatory Perspective

Federal

24

Federal

CERCLA (Superfund) - Imposes liability for the release of

hazardous substances and provides response activities.

Clean Air Act - Gives EPA jurisdiction over the reduction of

contaminants in the air

Clean Water Act - Gives the EPA jurisdiction over the discharge of

pollutants into the water from the “point of discharge”

Safe Drinking Water Act - Requires the EPA to set standards

and oversee states, localities and water suppliers.

Energy Policy Act of 2005 - Providing tax incentives & loan

guarantees for various types of energy production……included the

“Halliburton Loophole”

FRAC Act of 2009/10/11- Aimed at repealing Halliburton Loophole

EPA Hydrofracking Study- As of 12/12 still working on it ….Focus

is potential impact of hydrofracking on drinking water

US DEPT OF INTERIOR - In January 2013 announced it will

require disclosure of chemicals used in fracking, control of methane

emissions and strict management of wastewater for fracking on public

lands

The Challenge: Balance Energy & Job needs with Environmental Concerns

Page 25: HYDROFRACKING BASICS - · PDF fileBasics Earthquake Risk 13 Rangely, CO, injection experiments (M4.9, 1995), 1945-1995 Rocky Mountain Arsenal (M5.3, 1967), fluid injection, 1962-1966

Regulatory Perspective

State and Local

25

State

And

Local

NY, PA, MD & TX at the forefront (also AR, CO, NJ, WY)

Initiatives vary– some include (Current or Proposed):

Ban or Moratorium (Pending a Study) - MD; NJ; NY

Requiring (passed or proposed) full disclosure of

chemicals - AR; CO, OH; MI; PA; WVA; WY

Operational Regulations – Positing a bond to cover well closings (Delaware River Basin)

Monitoring level of fluid contamination (Ohio)

Presumption of liability (PA Oil and Gas Act)

Taxes initiatives (WVA passed a law imposing tax penalties for

repairing land damaged by hydrofracking activities)

PA 2012 legislation: Increased safety standards …

Required Operator “Impact Fee “ to be paid (quasi tax)

Prohibiting local municipalities from banning fracking

IL - HB 2615 introduced in 2013 Broad Regulation of Hydrofracking activities

The Challenge: Balance Energy & Job needs with Environmental Concerns

Page 26: HYDROFRACKING BASICS - · PDF fileBasics Earthquake Risk 13 Rangely, CO, injection experiments (M4.9, 1995), 1945-1995 Rocky Mountain Arsenal (M5.3, 1967), fluid injection, 1962-1966

TAKEAWAYS

Page 27: HYDROFRACKING BASICS - · PDF fileBasics Earthquake Risk 13 Rangely, CO, injection experiments (M4.9, 1995), 1945-1995 Rocky Mountain Arsenal (M5.3, 1967), fluid injection, 1962-1966

Continued Growth

Federal & State

Oversight

Chemical Disclosure

Case Law

Takeaways

27

Abundant supply

Improved technology

Will increase but,

unlikely to be

comprehensive

Will expand and add

clarity….. ..possibly higher

standards of care

Just starting to

evolve on many

fronts…beware of

strict liability

A lot of uncertainty……but there are opportunities

Need to be Proactive

Page 28: HYDROFRACKING BASICS - · PDF fileBasics Earthquake Risk 13 Rangely, CO, injection experiments (M4.9, 1995), 1945-1995 Rocky Mountain Arsenal (M5.3, 1967), fluid injection, 1962-1966

Takeaways

The Future

28

US Shale Gas Compared to Other Energy Sources

Page 29: HYDROFRACKING BASICS - · PDF fileBasics Earthquake Risk 13 Rangely, CO, injection experiments (M4.9, 1995), 1945-1995 Rocky Mountain Arsenal (M5.3, 1967), fluid injection, 1962-1966

Takeaways

The Future

29 US Energy Information Administration July, 2011 Study: Review of Emerging Resources US Shale Gas and Shale Oil Plays

Substantial

Future Drilling

Shale Gas Technically Recoverable Resources and Cumulative Production

Page 30: HYDROFRACKING BASICS - · PDF fileBasics Earthquake Risk 13 Rangely, CO, injection experiments (M4.9, 1995), 1945-1995 Rocky Mountain Arsenal (M5.3, 1967), fluid injection, 1962-1966

Fossil

Fuels

Renewable

Energy

Takeaways

From Here to There

30

Gas Hydrofracking

Page 31: HYDROFRACKING BASICS - · PDF fileBasics Earthquake Risk 13 Rangely, CO, injection experiments (M4.9, 1995), 1945-1995 Rocky Mountain Arsenal (M5.3, 1967), fluid injection, 1962-1966

Part of the long-term energy solution…….Not going away

Benefits & rewards / challenges & risks..….. Need to be fully understood / addressed

Risk selection & loss control / exposure & coverage are the keys

Benefits

Risks

Lower climate change footprint? High / volatile price of oil Technology more cost effective National security Abundant supply Jobs, jobs, jobs

Potential environmental damage: Chemical “cocktails” Ground water Waste water treatment

Challenges ……….But Also Opportunities

Need to be Proactive

31

Takeaways

Summary

Page 32: HYDROFRACKING BASICS - · PDF fileBasics Earthquake Risk 13 Rangely, CO, injection experiments (M4.9, 1995), 1945-1995 Rocky Mountain Arsenal (M5.3, 1967), fluid injection, 1962-1966

© Copyright 2013 Munich Reinsurance America, Inc. All rights reserved. "Munich Re" and the Munich Re logo are

internationally protected registered trademarks. The material in this presentation is provided for your information only, and

is not permitted to be further distributed without the express written permission of Munich Reinsurance America, Inc. or

Munich Re. This material is not intended to be legal, underwriting, financial, or any other type of professional advice. This

presentation is considered an educational presentation not intended for commercial use. Examples given are for illustrative

purposes only. Each reader should consult an attorney and other appropriate advisors to determine the applicability of any

particular contract language to the reader's specific circumstances.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION


Recommended