Two products dominate the country's energy imports: 90.4% of consumed oil and 98.5% of natural gas is imported.3 Oil and natural gas are used more than coal. As the cost of importing oil is higher than that of natural gas, natural gas imports are more a subject of public debate. It is clear that both the transportation policy of the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) and the correspondingly strong automotive lobby are responsible for making oil indispensable. It goes beyond the scope of this article, but it is nevertheless significant to mention this point in order to better grasp how the situation of shale or ‘rock gas’ (a popular but technically incorrect term), might be evaluated in Turkey. Although oil imports have a higher economical burden in Turkey than natural gas, it is significant to know that natural gas is what first comes to mind in discussions around foreign dependency in energy; foreign dependency is associated with natural gas. Shale gas to be introduced as ‘local gas’ would certainly be an advantage in gaining public opinion. This would perhaps be the most critical point of the propaganda war.
The Lesser evil
That shale gas is 'local' is not the only argument in its favor. The gas has indeed many advantages when compared to other fossil fuels and nuclear energy, though this is not much discussed by the energy sector and environment movement. It emits almost half of greenhouse gases when compared to coal or oil. We might not call it environment-friendly, but we can say that it is better than coal and oil. Hence, many environmentalist groups consider shale gas a transitional technology. They do not consider shale gas amongst the larger evils in the war against global climate change. They consider keeping natural gas stations as a back-up until renewable energies expand and storing technologies and smart networks become more advanced. Although a cumbersome extraction process, the need for hundreds of tankers for transportation and methane leakages are potentially serious hazards to the environment, the discourse on “environment-friendly natural gas” has already been popularized with a public that is not very knowledgeable about the issue.
Another advantage of using this gas in Turkey is that necessary infrastructure for its transportation is already present in almost all cities. Non-isolated buildings in urban sprawl not using energy efficiently are heated by natural gas. These giant cities, with their uncontrolled rate of growth, crave green spaces and air corridors. But they can simply turn into giant graveyards once coal is used for heating. There are also natural gas stations that have been or that will be licensed by the Ministry of Energy Monitoring Board. This is an advantage for natural gas for sure, while the only slogan of its opposers is “foreign dependency.” Considering the fact that “local” shale gas would disqualify this slogan, it seems that only environmentalists would be left to oppose this fossil fuel.
USA ranks first in gas production thanks to shale gas
Certainly the USA is one reason that we are talking so much about shale gas. Thanks to shale gas, USA ranked in 2009 as the biggest gas producer in the world, surpassing the gas production in Russia.4 The USA did not discover shale gas out of the blue. This resource has been known to exist for around a hundred years, but the cost of its extraction from within the rocks via hydraulic fracturing has been thus far higher than transporting the gas from the Middle East. The boom in gas prices and technological advances made it more appealing for fossil fuel companies to procure gas by adding hundreds of chemicals via water. Before the rise of the shale gas wave, its cost for 1 Bcf was over 10 dollars. Since 2009, there has been drop in prices below five or even four dollars. At the beginning of 2015, Henry Hub spot price dropped below three dollars or even less.5 Coming up with a local and economic alternative to imported natural gas changed the balances in US energy market in favor of natural gas.
We know that this shift in the USA has also affected Asia and Europe. Shale gas research in the USA also resulted in discussions in Europe. Shale gas has had a slower expansion in use in Europe due to different geographical conditions and political structures. The population density in regions where shale gas is abundant is higher in Europe. People are more concerned due to the proximity of reserves to living space and cultivated areas. Technically speaking, it proves to be a more costly process in Europe. However, shale gas is attracting increasing attention in Europe, especially in Britain and Poland. It can briefly be summarized that four factors will have an impact on this process: natural gas prices in international markets, the future of the crisis regarding Russia, cost of gas withdrawal in Europe and the reaction of people with response to the attitude of their respective countries.
Reserves in Turkey are unknown
We might say that these four factors are also valid for Turkey. The answer to the question, 'Is there shale gas in Turkey' is affirmative, but it does not mean that this shale gas can be extracted so as to have an economic value. Above all, we can begin with the question of how much shale gas does the country have. It is known that Turkey has at least five basins estimated to have unprecedented fossil fuels: Southeastern Anatolia, Thrace, Eastern Anatolia, the Black Sea Basin (high-sea) and the Central Anatolian Basin.6 We have more data on some of these regions, since natural gas (Thrace Basin) and oil (Southeastern Region) are already being extracted in these basins. We also have estimates regarding the magnitude of overall reserves of these two regions. According to the research conducted by Advanced Resources International consultancy company under the initiative of the US Energy Information Agency in 41 countries, the overall extractable shale gas reserves in Dadas and Hamitabat basins is around 650 billion square meters.7 Turkey's 2014 natural gas consumption is 48 billion square meters.8 Considering the fact that gas demand in Turkey will further increase, an optimistic estimate can put forward that the shale gas potential in these two reserves can cover 10 years of gas requirement of the country. This period might even be prolonged also keeping in mind non-shale gas reserves.
There are ongoing studies in these two regions. Three shale gas wells are being drilled at Diyarbakır border whose results are being awaited. Shell Upstream Turkey conducts the drilling activities in the region also called the Dadas Formation as a result of a contract signed in 2011 with Turkish Petroleum Corporation (TPAO). Three wells around Diyarbakir are being drilled to reach the necessary parameters to determine the gas potential and its availability in DADAS Formation. The results have yet to be announced.9
Shale gas issue in Turkey is like an equation with multiple variables. Above all, we do not have exact information concerning existing reserves. We have estimates relying on the data issued by the US Energy Information Agency. These estimates are based on the two regions having already been subjected to gas and oil withdrawal activities. More exact information on Turkish reserves can be attained through research on other regions having similar rock structures. This is the first variable of the equation.
The second variable is about the cost of the withdrawal of existing shale gas. Higher costs are one of the reasons why Europe lags significantly behind the USA in shale gas. Antoine Simon conducting the Mining and Industrial Campaign of Friends of the Earth Europe states that withdrawal from shale gas wells in Europe can by no means be realized with the prices in USA due to the complicated geological structure and the fact that reserves are located deeper down in the earth. Simon also adds that each drilling well in Pomerania, Poland, costs 30-35 million dollars. The cost of wells depends on the land structure and depth of reserves and varies accordingly from well to well. Ken Medlock, the senior director of Baker Institute Energy Research Center affiliated with Rice University states that the cost of a shale gas well in Poland having the same qualities of the ones in the USA (Haynesville) that cost 8 million dollars would cost 14 to 16 million dollars.10 According to Medlock, this gap in costs results from a lack of experience and the need to transport the necessary equipment from outside Poland. Considering the geographical structure and equipment requirements in Turkey, we might say that the cost would be closer to Europe. Once the wells are opened, the cost of fracturing is stated to be around 200,000 to 500,000 US dollars.11
Objections to shale gas escalate
Environmentalists in Turkey and Europe have a similar reaction to shale gas withdrawal. Although exact numbers vary, the approximately 30 million liters of water consumption per well is an alert to environmentalists in a country like Turkey, which is not rich in water resources. The use of chemicals during the fracturing phase, though amounting to very little of the overall magnitude, and the risk of their leakage to natural resources will be hazardous especially for the farmers in the region using underground water resources. Water consumption further becomes an important issue considering that both potential shale gas withdrawal basins (Thrace and Southeastern Anatolia) are located on cultivated lands. It would be untrue to say that there has never been an objection against shale gas in Turkey. Gültekin Aydeniz, from the Mesopotamian Ecology Movement, had expressed objections of locals against the shale gas drilling activities in Diyarbakir in the Shale Gas Conference held by Heinrich Böll Foundation. However, it cannot be said that in-depth discussions on the issue are covered by the media. The lack of sufficient public opinion on the ongoing activities also restricts public discussions on shale gas.
Although it complains about foreign dependency in natural gas, the current government of Turkey does not seem to be in hurry to extract shale gas. The results of the drilling activities in Dadas might change the pace of the process. Nevertheless, there is no comprehensive project or plan on the agenda. We might say that the road map of the government is determined by the initiatives of private companies just as with other energy investments. This is what we draw from the information available to the public.
It is indeed incomprehensible that Turkey insists on fossil fuels and nuclear energy to solve its foreign dependency in energy. Before the AKP came to power, the foreign dependency of Turkey in energy was 65.1 percent (2001).12 Today, this amounts to 73 percent.
Although the use of a local resource instead of imported oil, natural gas and coal seems to be a logical solution to the foreign-dependency problem, it is obvious that we need a more holistic approach envisaging getting rid of fossil fuels and transferring to renewable energy. Another problem is how and where the energy can be the most efficiently used. There are many countries like Turkey which are highly dependent on foreign energy resources. For instance, countries like South Korea manufacturing products with high added-value are not as much troubled by the imported energy issue; the dependency of South Korea on foreign energy is even higher than Turkey.
Continuing to waste or use more imported energy than necessary due to lack of isolation techniques, transportation costs or inefficient equipment and trying to decrease foreign dependency by using local resources will simply defer the problem. In that case, even renewable energy will not be able to save Turkey.
1. Crude Oil and Natural Gas Report, TPAO, p.26, Figure 24.
- Republic of Turkey, Ministry of Development , Medium Term Program, 2015-2017, p.22, Annex, Table 1.
- Crude Oil and Natural Gas Report, TPAO, p. 27.
- Congressional Research Service, An Overview of Unconventional Oil and Natural Gas: Resources and Federal Actions, p. 1, 21 November 2014.
- Natural gas spot and future prices, http://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/ng_pri_fut_s1_d.htm
- TPAO, http://www.tpao.gov.tr/eng/?tp=m&id=45, lastly accessed on 18 January 2015.
- U.S. Energy Information Administration, Technically Recoverable Shale Oil and Shale Gas Resources: An Assessment of 137 Shale Formations in 41 Countries Outside the United States, June 2013
- http://enerjienstitusu.com/2015/01/02/2015-yili-dogal-gaz-tuketimi-tahm…, lastly accessed on 20 January 2015 .
- Chamber of Oil Engineers , November 2014.
- http://breakingenergy.com/2013/08/06/how-much-does-a-shale-gas-well-cos… lastly accessed on 18 January 2015.
- Chamber of Oil Engineers, November 2014.
- Why Doesn’t Foreign-Dependency in Coal Ever Diminish? Özgür Gürbüz, Birgün, 22 May 2014.