1. Organization of our meeting Oct. 5th 10:30 – 10:40 Presentation of the WG 3 - Environmental challenges 10:40 – 11:30 Presentation of all (about 20) participants (about 5-minute presentation for each participant), including indication of specific interest 11:30 – 12:00 Coffee break 12:00 – 13:00 Continue presentation of all partecipants 14:00 – 14:30 Legal situation: Roberto Cianella (Ministry of Economic Development, Italy) - An overview of the Directive 2013/30/EU on safety of offshore oil and gas operations 14:30 - 16:00 Discussion about the milestones of the WG3 Oct. 6th 9:00 – 9:30 From micro to macro: Chris Rochelle (BGS and GeoEnergy Research Centre, UK) - Detailed characterisation of hydrate-rich core from Cascadia Margin (IODP Leg 311) 9:30 – 10:00 Multidisciplinary approach: Livio Ruffine (Infremer, France) – Geochemical contribution in the overall understanding of the natural-gas hydrate system 10:00–10:30 Environmental impact on the water column: Regina Katsman (Department of Marine Geosciences, Faculty of Natural Sciences, The University of Haifa, Israel) - Modeling methane bubble growth in fine-grained muddy aquatic sediments 10:30 – 11:00 Subsea monitoring: Thomas Mosch (Kongsberg Maritime, Germany) - We Detect to Protect - The concept of a Modular Subsea MonitoringNetwork (MSM) 11:00 – 11:30 Seafloor stability: Atanas Vasilev (Institute of Oceanology - Bulgarian Academy of Sciences) - Potential zone of bottom instability on the periphery of the GHSZ in the Black Sea

2. List of partecipants Country (9) First Name SurnameJ. ScientS. Scient. Bulgaria (1) Atanas Vasilev 1 France (3)LivioRuffine1 BabtisteBouillot1 AndréBurnol 1 Germany (1)ThomasMosch1 Ireland (2)GavinCollins 1 CindySmith1 Israel (1)ReginaKatsman 1 Italy (2)UmbertaTinivella 1 RobertoCianella 1 Portugal (1)Mariade Fatima Nunes de Carvalho 1 Spain (3)NievesLópez-González 1 DesireePalomino Cantero1 OlgaSanchez Guillamon1 UK (3)ChristopherRochelle 1 AnnaLichtsclag1 KateThatcher 1 Total 512

3. WG 3: Environmental challenges The members of WG3 will review the environmental challenges associated with methane production from gas hydrates. The aim is to define an environmentally sound monitoring strategy and a legal framework adapted to gas hydrate exploitation. The main questions are: i) Geohazards related to gas hydrates: Could methane production from gas hydrates affect seafloor stability? ii) Interaction between methane and the marine ecosystem: To what extent could methane be released into the water during production and what would be the impact? iii) Analysis of legal regulations with a focus on gas hydrate production: Are there effective monitoring technologies in place? Development of a guideline of Best Environmental Practices Specific milestone of WG3

4. WG 3 will review the environmental challenges associated with methane production from gas hydrates. Environmental risks are moderate compared to other deep-water operations since gas hydrates and the associated formation fluids do not contain toxic substances. Moreover, blow-outs are not a concern since gas hydrate deposits have low in-situ pressures and are maintained at or below hydrostatic pressure during the entire production process. However, gas hydrates can constitute environmental risks by affecting seafloor stability and releasing methane into the water column. Sediments deposited at continental slopes are in some cases stabilized by gas hydrates cementing the grain fabric. Gas production from these deposits may induce slope failure causing severe damage to seabed installations and benthic ecosystems and methane gas emissions into the marine environment. Leakage of methane gas may also occur during the production process since the overburden sealing the gas hydrate deposits from the marine environment has a thickness of only a few hundred meters. WG 3 aims to define an environmentally sound monitoring strategy and assess whether the legal framework regulating the exploitation of offshore oil and gas deposits needs to be adjusted to account for the specific environmental risks associated with the gas production from hydrates. Scientific work plan of WG3

5. To achieve the aim of WG 3 its participants will: i. Assess how slope stability may be compromised by gas production from hydrates under different geological boundary conditions (in cooperation with WG 1 and 2) 1.Characterize the physical, technical, and geochemical properties of gas hydrate-bearing sediments; 2.Set up a reliable method for the description of gas hydrate dynamics and seafloor stability applying a multidisciplinary approach combining geophysical, geotectonic and geochemical information. ii. Identify suitable precursors for slope failure to be targeted in a monitoring program 1.Carry out experimental work on how hydrates affect soil properties and consequently slope stability and apply numerical models to scale up the impact to margin wide scale; 2.Carry out coring operations and in situ measurements at selected areas in order to gather a comprehensive dataset for the description of hydrate systems.

6. ….To achieve the aim of WG 3 its participants will: iii. Develop a generic strategy for environmental baseline studies and the environmental monitoring of gas production from hydrates Gain insight into biogenic-gas generation and the interplay between microbial communities and gas hydrates. Gain insight into the leakage potential of gas production from hydrates iv. Develop a specific environmental baseline and monitoring program for the planned production test Monitor the physical sediment properties (electrical resistivity, sonic wave velocity, shear strength) and their changes with hydrate content. Monitor the water column properties with regards to methane leakage during production v. Evaluate whether national legal frameworks regulating offshore oil & gas production are appropriate for gas production from hydrates using Norway as a case study Provide a comprehensive review on the development and legal situation of unconventional marine hydrocarbon production under international and European law.

7. Working plan WG3 Six main targets to reach during MIGRATE: I.Assess how slope stability may be compromised by gas production from hydrates under different geological boundary conditions – Chris Rochelle, Livio Ruffine, Atanas Vasilev, Umberta Tinivella, Nieves Lopez, Desiree Palomino, Olga Sanchez II.Identify suitable precursors for slope failure to be targeted in a monitoring program - Chris Rochelle, Livio Ruffine, Atanas Vasilev, Umberta Tinivella, Nieves Lopez, Desiree Palomino, Olga Sanchez III.Develop a generic strategy for environmental baseline studies and the environmental monitoring of gas production from hydrates - Regina Katsman, Helle Botnen, Thomas Mosch, Maria de Fatima, Babtiste Bouillot, Andre Burnol, Gavin Collins, Cindy Smith, Anna Lichtschlag, Kate Thatcher IV.Develop a specific environmental baseline and monitoring program for the planned production test - Regina Katsman, Helle Botnen, Thomas Mosch, Maria de Fatima, Babtiste Bouillot, Andre Burnol, Gavin Collins, Cindy Smith, Anna Lichtschlag, Kate Thatcher V.Risk assesment modeling - Andre Burnol, Kate Thatcher, Chris Rochelle, Thomas Mosch, Anna Lichtschlag, Babtiste Bouillot VI.Evaluate whether national legal frameworks regulating offshore oil & gas production are appropriate for gas production from hydrates using Norway as a case study – Roberto Cianella, Helle Boten.. in order to end the project with: guideline of Best Environmental Practices -Year 3

8. MAIN POINTS TO DISCUSS 0. Introduction of a new target: Risk assesment modeling 1.State-of-the-art - is the following list complete or other important topics are missing? 2.Which activities can be developed inside MIGRATE? - Atanas Vasilev (Bulgaria) can briefly present his proposal GEOHydrate - other project or proposal submitted that can be interesting for MIGRATE? - mobility of young researchers? 3.Milestones? 4.What can we do before next WG3 meeting (17-18 November, Rome)? 5.Which are the main points that we should discuss during next meeting? 6.Other points? 7.First report: February 2016

9. i.1 Characterize the physical, technical, and geochemical properties of gas hydrate-bearing sediments In multiphase granular media, there are several challenges in obtaining accurate results (i.e., Waite et al., 2011; Du Frane et al., 2011). X-ray computed tomography (CT) scan of a loosely-packed, unconfined F110 Ottawa sand (red-orange), partially saturated with water (blue) White et al., 2011 Cryo-SEM images. CH4 hydrate (appears as the darker- colored connecting material between the sand grains) and quartz sand grains (appear light in color and stand high in relief due to partial sublimation of the CH4 hydrate) each occupy ~50 vol. % of the solid material here. Du Frane et al., 2011 … from micro to macro …

10. Recently, the scientific community started to jointly perform elastic and electrical measurements (i.e., Ellis et al., 2011), suggesting that major efforts should be addressed in this direction. i.1 Characterise the physical, technical, and geochemical properties of gas hydrate-bearing sediments … from micro to macro …

11. i.1 Characterise the physical, technical, and geochemical properties of gas hydrate-bearing sediments Over the past few years, EU projects have supported the development of laboratory equipment designed to study gas hydrates. For example, methane hydrate-bearing sand samples were created in the laboratory (Best et al., 2013) by melting fine-grained ice particles in presence of methane gas. NOC (UK) has a laboratory for seismo-acoustic, electrical and geotechnical properties of marine sediments, including gassy sediments and gas hydrate-bearing sediments (i.e., MacCann et al., 2014; Best, 2014). Many effort should be devoted to develop a joint elastic-electrical model: it is essential to use a versatile approach combining field data, lab experiments and modeling if we want to achieve a high level of understanding of the system. Comparison of the joint elastic-electrical properties obtained from the three-phase (joint elastic-electrical) combined self-consistent approximation/differential effective medium model with varying volumetric clay contents to the experimental data a) general comparison and b) detailed comparison. Both models and experimental data are color-coded by volumetric clay content. Han et al., 2011

12. The isotopic composition and chloride concentration of pore waters can be used to characterize the relations between the water flow regime and the distribution, formation and dissociation of gas hydrates (Ruffine et al.,2012; Wallmann et al., 2012). Ruffine et al. pointed out in Marmara Sea that the gas, especially the methane, is not only involved in the hydrate formation, but also in the associated AOM process. In fact, part of the methane reacts with the dissolved sulphate above the hydrate accumulation zone. This reaction releases carbonate ions which leads to the precipitation of authigenic carbonates under saturation of the pore fluid. The resulting pore-fluid and sediment profiles reflect the spatial heterogeneity of this geochemical process. Marmara Sea study allowed to appreciate the geochemical contribution in the overall understanding of the natural-gas hydrate system. i.1 Characterize the physical, technical, and geochemical properties of gas hydrate-bearing sediments Wallmann et al. studied the accumulation of methane hydrate versus a number of physical and biogeochemical parameters including the thickness of the gas hydrate stability zone, the solubility of methane in pore fluids, the accumulation of particulate organic carbon at the seafloor, the kinetics of microbial organic matter degradation and methane generation in marine sediments, sediment compaction and the ascent of deep-seated pore fluids and methane gas into the GHSZ.

13. i.2 Set up a reliable method for the description of gas hydrate dynamics and seafloor stability applying a multidisciplinary approach combining geophysical, geotectonic and geochemical information Overpressure-induced slope failure can be explained by a one-dimensional analysis of the safety factor of an infinite slope. It occurs when the failure inducing stress, weight component in the direction of the slope, exceeds the shear strength of the sediment, given by the Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion. Mohr-Coulomb failure diagram: Within a sample subjected to the principal effective stresses  ’ 1 and  ’ 3, the state of stress falls on a Mohr circle in  –  ’ n space. Shear failure occurs when the Mohr circle becomes tangent to the Coulomb failure line, meaning that the shear stress along the failure plane (  f ) exceeds the combined resistance of cohesion (c) and friction,  ’ n tan . The friction angle (  ) and failure plane angle (  ) are related by  = 45° +  /2. White et al., 2009

14. i.2 Set up a reliable method for the description of gas hydrate dynamics and seafloor stability applying a multidisciplinary approach combining geophysical, geotectonic and geochemical information Mechanisms controlling the shear strength of hydrate-bearing sediments. Effective stress measurements are preferred when interpreting shear behavior, but at high hydrate saturations for which pressure in the occluded pores cannot be measured, interpretations must be based on total stress measurements. In fact, effective stress strength parameters can depend strongly on the hydrate formation history (White et al., 2009).

15. i.2 Set up a reliable method for the description of gas hydrate dynamics and seafloor stability applying a multidisciplinary approach combining geophysical, geotectonic and geochemical information It is important to note that natural contaminants such as oils or biofilms may slow the dissolution rate of the hydrate (Lapham et al., 2014). Mallik production test (Birchwood et al., 2010)

16. i.2 Set up a reliable method for the description of gas hydrate dynamics and seafloor stability applying a multidisciplinary approach combining geophysical, geotectonic and geochemical information We need to take into account the results of Japanese tests Yamamoto, 2014

17. i.2 Set up a reliable method for the description of gas hydrate dynamics and seafloor stability applying a multidisciplinary approach combining geophysical, geotectonic and geochemical information Numerical Study on the History Matching of Eastern Nankai Trough Hydrate Gas Production Test Zhou et al., 2014

18. Thatcher et al., 2013 Recent modeling of West Svalbard of Thatcher et al. suggested that the delay between the onset of warming and emission of gas, resulting from the time taken for thermal diffusion, hydrate dissociation, and gas migration, can be less than 30 years in water depths shallower than the present upper limit of the methane hydrate stability zone, where hydrate was initially several meters beneath the seabed and fractures increase the effective permeability of intrinsically low- permeability glaciogenic sediment. ii.1 Carry out experimental work on how hydrates affect soil properties and consequently slope stability and apply numerical models to scale up the impact to margin wide scale Natural effects Gas hydrate vs climate change

19. ii.1 Carry out experimental work on how hydrates affect soil properties and consequently slope stability and apply numerical models to scale up the impact to margin wide scale Marin-Moreno et al. (2015) showed that over the past 2000 year, a combination of annual and decadal temperature fluctuations could have triggered multiple hydrate-sourced methane emissions from seabed shallower than 400 mwd. These temperature fluctuations can explain current methane emissions at 400 mwd, but decades to centuries of ocean warming are required to generate emissions in water deeper than 420 m. Natural effects Gas hydrate vs climate change Marin-Moreno et al., 2015

20. ii.1 Carry out experimental work on how hydrates affect soil properties and consequently slope stability and apply numerical models to scale up the impact to margin wide scale The most used code for hydrate simulation is TOUGH+HYDRATE (T+H) code (Moridis et al., 2012): http://escholarship.org/uc/item/3mk82656#page-4 T+H is a thermohydraulic code for the simulation of the behavior of gas hydrate- bearing geologic systems under non-isothermal conditions. It can be used for the simulation of gas production from hydrates under a variety of geologic and thermodynamic conditions, and involving various production strategies. Comparison of the volumetric rates of CH4 release from hydrate dissociation in problems: Test_1T – solid line Thermal Stimulation, Equilibrium Dissociation, No Inhibitor Test_1Tk – dashed line Thermal Stimulation, Kinetic Dissociation, No Inhibitor

21. ii.1 Carry out experimental work on how hydrates affect soil properties and consequently slope stability and apply numerical models to scale up the impact to margin wide scale Caroline Ruppel underlines that reservoir simulation for gas hydrates does not yet accurately incorporate advanced geomechanics concepts. Thus, one risk factor that remains to be assessed is the potential for gas migrating away from a dissociating, high saturation gas hydrate deposit to find an existing fracture or to cause a new fracture to form in an overlying, relatively impermeable layer. Such a scenario might lead to unintended leakage of methane into other sediments or even emission of methane at the surface (Rutqvist and Moridis, 2010). Results from several methane hydrate drilling programs, including Ocean Drilling Program (ODP) Legs 164 and 204, and more recently the Chevron ‐ led Gulf of Mexico Joint Industry Project (GOM ‐ JIP) Legs I And II, Integrated Ocean Drilling Program (IODP) Expedition 311, and National Gas Hydrate Program (NGHP) Expedition 01 have shown that drilling hazards associated with methane hydrate bearing sections can be managed through careful control of drilling parameters. Moreover, it is clear that an improved fundamental understanding of the actual consequence of methane hydrate dissociation is needed. The key parameters in understanding the natural response to hydrate dissociation are being able to measure the change in sediment strength and fluid properties over time.

22. In order to select the test area, we need to know all network of large-scale marine reserves. We need to avoid all risks related to exploration in order to preserve these areas (fauna and flora included). ii.2 Carry out coring operations and in situ measurements at selected areas in order to gather a comprehensive dataset for the description of hydrate systems https://taskman.eionet.europa.eu/attachments

23. A Marine Protected Area (MPA) is a clearly defined zone in the sea which by some level of restriction protects living, non-living, cultural, and/or historic resources from harmful human impacts and environmental pollution. MPAs often encompass areas of high ecological value whose marine biodiversity is protected and preserved for the benefits of present and future generations. http://www.marbef.org/wiki/Marine_Protected_Areas_in_Europe#Types_of_MPAs EU Legislation and Strategies relating to MPAs In the following the most important EU legislation and strategies relating to MPAs are listed of which the first three are legally binding to all Member States: Habitats and Birds Directives The EU Habitat Directive (92/43/EEC) requires Member States to designate Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) to protect some of the most threatened habitats and species across Europe. The sites designated under both Directives contribute to a Europe-wide network of nature conservation protected areas known as Natura 2000. Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) The Marine Strategy Framework Directive (2008/56/EC) requires Member States to put measures in place to achieve or maintain good environmental status in their waters by 2020. Under the Directive a coherent and representative network of MPAs have to be created by 2016. Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM) The Recommendation (2002/413) prescribes a holistic and long term perspective to managing the marine coastal environment. According to the recommendation MPAs in the coastal region are to be implemented within the context of integrated coastal zone management.

24. https://taskman.eionet.europa.eu/attachments/ Percentage cover of marine protected area ii.2 Carry out coring operations and in situ measurements at selected areas in order to gather a comprehensive dataset for the description of hydrate systems

25. We need to know all network of large-scale marine reserves, i.e. as proposed by Greenpeace We need to avoid all risks related to exploration/exploitation in order to preserve these areas (fauna and flora included)

26. ii.2 Carry out coring operations and in situ measurements at selected areas in order to gather a comprehensive dataset for the description of hydrate systems In situ measurements: downhole logging(electrical resistivity, sonic velocity, NMR) VSP (including vertical, offset, and walkaway VSPs) chloride concentration ethane and other gas content temperature and thermal regime bio-marker ? The quality of the cores is important: pressured cores Before cut the cores: Infrared Camera Scans of Cores X-ray CT ? Laboratory measurements: elastic (and visco-), electromagnetic, mechanical and thermal properties geothecnical anaysis, i.e. constant rate of strain consolidation (CRSC) and Ko- consolidated undrained compression/extension (CKoUC/E) tests X-ray micro CT and X-ray diffraction, Cryo-SEM fluid and hydraulic analysis pore water chemistry isotopic and microbiological analysis ?

27. iii.1 Gain insight into biogenic-gas generation and the interplay between microbial communities and gas hydrates Marine gas hydrate systems, which can maintain a large amount of methane in the seabed, may critically impact the geochemical and ecological characteristics of the sedimentary environment. It remains unclear whether marine sediments associated with gas hydrate harbor novel microbial communities that are distinct from those from typical marine sediments. So, several authors suggested that the characterization of microbial assemblages within gas hydrate is essential to gain a better understanding of the effects and contributions of microbial activities in hydrate ecosystems. It is important to recall that benthic animals affect the physical properties of marine sediments, modifying porosity, density, grain size, compaction/cohesion, fabric and micro-tomography. This bioturbation of the sediments lowers the compressional and shear velocities as well as the attenuation (i.e. Richardson and Young, 1980).

28. iii.2 Gain insight into the leakage potential of gas production from hydrates Methane may leak from the sediment and/or form the installation during production into the marine environment. The impact methane leaks may have on the surrounding environment is not known at this point. The environmental impact on the water column should be addressed as part of WG3, and included in the final guide line. Since methane is highly potent as a climate gas, it is important to investigate the possibility of methane gas leaking from the production site to reach the atmosphere. Analysis of the potential leakage sizes and ranges of methane gas will help estimate the potential impact the escaped gas may have on the surrounding environment, and its potential of reaching the atmosphere.

29. iv.1 Monitor the physical sediment properties (electrical resistivity, sonic wave velocity, shear strength) and their changes with hydrate content The P and/or S wave velocity distribution in marine sediments is often used to derive quantitative estimates of gas hydrate in the pore space (Lee et al. 1996; Tinivella, 1999; Carcione and Tinivella, 2000; Ecker et al. 2000; Jakobsen et al. 2000; Tinivella, 2002; Chand et al., 2004). Velocity anomalies can be used to infer the concentration of hydrate if the relationship between velocity and gas hydrate content is known. Several elastic theoretical velocity models have been proposed: Chand et al. (2004) summarise the main characteristics of each model. Electrical resistivity is widely used to estimate the gas hydrate and the free gas concentrations from core analysis (e.g. Riedel et al., 2006). In fact, the presence of gas hydrate in cores is commonly inferred from pore-water freshening in interstitial water samples relative to background pore-water salinity (e.g. Kastner et al., 1995). Ellis et al. (2011) suggested that more laboratory data are needed to validate the full range of electrical model behaviour. They also suggested that an elastic and resistivity joint model can be applied with some degree of confidence to the interpretation of co-located marine seismic and CSEM data in terms of hydrate saturation. Over the past decades several authors suggested to integrate elastic and electrical properties in order to improve the knowledge and to reduce the uncertainties related to porous media structure and state assessment. In fact, since seismic and electromagnetic methods have their advantages and disadvantages, integrating these two different types of data might improve the reliability of the final result interpretation.

30. We need to take into account the results of Japanese tests Yamamoto et al., 2014 Hypothetical geomechanical risks in a methane hydrate production test iv.1 Monitor the physical sediment properties (electrical resistivity, sonic wave velocity, shear strength) and their changes with hydrate content

31. iv.2 Monitor the water column properties with regards to methane leakage during production Methane gas has the potential to escape from the sediments and/or production equipment during production. This is a well known topic in the oil and gas industry causing rules and regulations in regards of environmental monitoring of production sites. There are many means in conventional oil and gas industry to perform environmental and/or leakage monitoring, such as acoustics, chemical sensors, fiber optics, optical camera and capacitance. The conventional methods may not be suitable for the monitoring of a hydrate production site. A study to determine which methods are most suitable for hydrate production would be beneficial and could be incorporated into the environmental guideline.

32. v. Provide a comprehensive review on the development and legal situation of unconventional marine hydrocarbon production under international and European law Oil community is interested in these topics. For example, the program of the recent Offshore Mediterranean Conference included: - Environmental Protection in Offshore Operations - Technical and Non Technical Risk Assessment - Safety and Environmental Protection in Offshore Operations - Sustainability and Environmental - Geohazards

33. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/integration/energy/unconventional_en.htm v. Provide a comprehensive review on the development and legal situation of unconventional marine hydrocarbon production under international and European law The risks associated with the high volume hydraulic fracturing technique, also commonly referred to as "fracking", have triggered concerns about public health and environmental effects. The Commission wants to ensure the environmental integrity of extraction of unconventional hydrocarbons, such as shale gas, and ensure that risks that may arise from individual projects and cumulative developments are managed adequately in Member States that wish to explore or exploit such resources. The Commission responded to the calls for urgent action by adopting on 22 January 2014 a Recommendation, to contribute to bringing clarity and predictability to public authorities, market operators and citizens. The Recommendation is intended to complement EU existing legislation, covering issues such as strategic environmental assessments and planning, underground risk assessment, well integrity, baseline reporting and operational monitoring, capture of methane emissions, and disclosure of chemicals used in each well. The Recommendation was accompanied by a Communication outlining the potential new opportunities and challenges stemming from shale gas extraction in Europe, as well as an Impact Assessment that examined the socio-economic and environmental impacts of various policy options.

34. v. Provide a comprehensive review on the development and legal situation of unconventional marine hydrocarbon production under international and European law EU environmental legislation applicable to unconventional hydrocarbon projects involving the use of advanced technologies such as horizontal driilling and high volume hydraulic fracturing:

35. Unconventional gas activities, due to the intensity and scale of operations involved, generally involve a larger environmental footprint compared to conventional gas activities. At present, the selected Member States rely mainly on the general mining, hydrocarbons and environmental legislation and its related permitting procedure transposing the EU legislation to regulate such activities (as for conventional gas extraction) and very few have adopted specific requirements. Operators may be obliged to request several permits under different acts (e.g. water law, mining waste law). In order to address the specificities of unconventional gas exploration and exploitation, several Member States have adopted/are reviewing their legislation or develop guidance focused on unconventional gas developments. A few useful examples of regulatory provisions applying specifically to unconventional gas activities were identified in the selected Member States (e.g management of induced seismicity). Some competent authorities also called for clarification from the European Commission on applicable legislation. v. Provide a comprehensive review on the development and legal situation of unconventional marine hydrocarbon production under international and European law Regulatory provisions governing key aspects of unconventional gas extraction in selected EU Member States 070307/2012/630593/SER/ENV.F1 Main results – July 2013 and Agoust 2014

36. v. Provide a comprehensive review on the development and legal situation of unconventional marine hydrocarbon production under international and European law Areas of legal uncertainty have been identified within the applicable national legislation (e.g. whether hydraulic fracturing should be controlled under a water permit and/or industrial installation permit and/or a mining waste permit, whether fracturing fluids remaining underground are considered as mining waste or not) leading to the application of different and sometimes contradictory requirements between/within Member States. Prior to operation, information disclosed or accessible to the public is essentially limited to the general one linked to the licensing and EIA process. In the Member States assessed, operators of unconventional gas activities are not obliged by law to disclose information to public authorities and the general public on the substances they are planning to use during the fracturing phase. The requirement may be set on an ad hoc basis as part of the EIA procedure or permit conditions. One Member State is considering requiring mandatory public disclosure. General requirements for geological characterisation designed for the extraction of conventional hydrocarbons apply. However, these may not be specific enough to deal with the characteristics of unconventional gas extraction as they often do not focus on potential underground risks in the context of hydraulic fracturing (e.g. identification of existing faults and fractures; hydrogeology; existing abandoned wells) None of the countries assessed have set in place measures to control and monitor the effects of hydraulic fracturing in the ground with the exception of induced seismicity in the UK.

37. Norway as a case study v. Provide a comprehensive review on the development and legal situation of unconventional marine hydrocarbon production under international and European law The Norwegian Petroleum Department (NPD) acknowledge the presence of unconventional oil and gas on the Norwegian Continental Shelf, including gas hydrates. However, in the NPDs view these resources are not especially suitable for production due to the size and physics of the hydrate reservoir. Since non of the unconventional oil and gas resources in Norway are viewed as very suitable to production by the NPD, there are no laws or regulations directly aimed for these resources. Thus, the law applying to these resources would be the general law on petroleum activity.

38. MAIN POINTS TO DISCUSS 1.State-of-the-art - other important topics are missing? 2.Which activities can be developed inside MIGRATE? - Atanas Vasilev (Bulgaria) can briefly present his proposal GEOHydrate - other project or proposal submitted that can be interesting for MIGRATE? - mobility of young researchers? 3.Milestones? 4.What can we do before next WG3 meeting (17-18 November, Rome)? 5.Which are the main points that we should discuss during next meeting? 6.Other points? 7.First report: February 2016

39. Targets for next WG3 meeting (Rome, 17-18 November 2015) Suggestions?

40. Slope stability Cementation Morphology of seafloor Evolution of hydrate system Chemical info Info about clay content, compaction Environmental risk Microbial community Safety Geohazard and consequency…

41. Stato dell’arte Chi partecipa a quale punto Altre tematiche da trattare Quali attivita’ possiamo portare avanti? Tempistica Cosa riusciamo a fare da qui a novembre Cosa vogliamo discutere a roma?

42. WG 3 will review the environmental challenges associated with methane production from gas hydrates. In addition to their potential as an energy resource, gas hydrates can constitute environmental risks by affecting seafloor stability and releasing methane into the water column. Sediments deposited at continental slopes are in some cases stabilized by gas hydrates cementing the grain fabric. Gas production from these deposits may induce slope failure causing severe damage to seabed installations and benthic ecosystems and methane gas emissions into the marine environment. Leakage of methane gas may occur also during the production process since the overburden sealing the gas hydrate deposits from the marine environment has a thickness of only a few hundred meters. Blow-outs are very unlikely to occur since gas hydrate deposits are maintained at or below hydrostatic pressure. The aim is to define an environmentally sound monitoring strategy and a legal framework adapted to gas hydrate exploitation. Scientific work plan of WG3

43. To achieve the aim of WG 3 its participants will: i) Characterize the physical, technical, and geochemical properties of gas hydrate-bearing sediments; ii) Set up a reliable method for the description of gas hydrate dynamics and seafloor stability applying a multidisciplinary approach combining geophysical, geotectonic and geochemical information; iii) Carry out experimental work on how hydrates affect soil properties and consequently slope stability and apply numerical models to scale up the impact to margin wide scale; iv) Carry out coring operations and in situ measurements at selected areas in order to gather a comprehensive dataset for the description of hydrate systems; v) Gain insight into biogenic-gas generation and the interplay between microbial communities and gas hydrates; vi) Monitor the physical sediment properties (electrical resistivity, sonic wave velocity, shear strength) and their changes with hydrate content; vii) Provide a comprehensive review on the development and legal situation of unconventional marine hydrocarbon production under international and European law.