Last night's House of Commons event was pretty much a waste of time, with the Co-op speaking to the converted. I tried to address the issues of the safety of fracking, but the Co-op and Caroline Lucas obviously seem to be hardening into the all carbon fuels are evils side. Those issues aren't mine, I simply want to get rid of the fear and paranoia surrounding shale. But if people are paranoid, as many were, that their government via the Parliament, the Environment Agency, Lancashire County Council and the US EPA are all out to screw them over, I can't help with that particular disconnect with reality.
I can point out the disconnects in the updated Tyndall report, 16 pages written by eight people which doesn't contribute much new, apart from another green job creation scheme. An obvious failing is not one of the writers thought a visit to any of the Cuadrilla sites could provide any relevant current information. Why believe experts when you can watch a movie? Much of the report is based on a view that shale gas will not displace coal but renewables and nuclear. In that case isn't the logical thing to call for a coal ban? They'd get my vote on that one for sure. Much more realistic than shooting the good news messenger of shale.
In the UK coal is effectively banned by market forces. No new plants are planned, and the old ones are coming off line. No one is building nuclear, although I'm sure the Green Party wouldn't suggest that. That leaves off shore wind or coal CCS as the alternative to gas. But I don't want to get involved with government energy policy, that is their fight. What I can point out is several glaring inaccuracies in the report.
The potential for contamination of groundwater is a key risk associated with shale gas extraction. Although there is limited evidence it appears that the fluid used in hydraulic fracturing contains numerous chemical additives, many of which are toxic to humans and/or other fauna. Concerns that the fracturing process could impact on water quality and threaten human health and the environment have prompted the US EPA to instigate a comprehensive research study into the issue. While awaiting the results of this study, New York State has introduced a moratorium on any new wells.
What on earth do those eight guys do? New York State introduced a moratorium last year. This August the NYS report on the Marcellus Shale reported on the study: a full scientific discussion of shale that covers all the issues. Do they ignore it because the report addressed all those issues and found the reality of shale gas is pretty boring? Or perhaps the hard working 8 "researchers" who took 10 months to write 2 pages each couldn't face reading a 1300 page report?
The Tyndall Report insists that water resources remain an issue. Shale will make an extra demand on resources in NYS of 0. 24%. Some nice and very educated women last night were trying to tell me that the Cuadrilla site was in an area of a water shortage. That sounds, to be polite, counter-intuitive in Lancashire. If there is an issue I would imagine in could be addressed by United Utilities. They must be wasting water in far more quantities than Cuadrilla is extracting it.
Methane in water, wildlife impact, truck traffic etc etc all covered, chemical use, chemical disposal, radioactivity and earthquakes. All covered in exhaustive detail in the NYS report. All completely ignored by a Tyndall Centre's eight writers who couldn't find it - or chose to ignore it.
The report, which isn't on line yet, insists on depending on the Howarth Report as a reliable source on methane emissions, despite it being rebutted by numerous other studies. Howarth was quoted for example as stating :
Clearly even with additional emissions associated with shale gas, the emissions from gas would be lower, assuming that gas losses during transport, distribution and storage are minimal. These losses are subject to substantial uncertainty at present, although a range from 1.4% to 3.6% does not appear unreasonable.
Unreasonable to whom? Howarth's figures come from 1970's Soviet figures. One can simply say it' s non unreasonable or one could do something vaguely scientific and pick up the phone and ask a gas transporter right here in the UK how much is lost in transportation forty years later: National Grid say that lost and unaccounted for gas is 0.30%, and they would have said that to the Tyndall Centre. My experience in energy, where National Grid regularly lost huge users off the database and where restaurants were notorious gas stealers makes me emphasis unaccounted and lost as least as much as methane actually evaporating into the atmosphere. What is uncertain about that? Research here from Holland show it may be even less:
This research aims to establish a survey of different quantification methodologies applied to a high pressure transportation grid. An evaluation of the qualitative aspects and a quantitative comparison of the methane emissions are given. The IPCC Guidelines define two main different approaches to make emission inventories: The Top-down method (Tier 1) use aggregated emission factors based on national production data. The Bottom-up method (Tier 3) is a rigorous source specific evaluation, requiring detailed inventories of infrastructure.
The Tier 1 method results in an emission rate of 0.05% (GWh CH4/GWh natural gas transported) or 4 ton CH4/km. Different publications were examined. Despite the fact that there is a lack of transparency, a high uncertainty and a variety of approaches, the five latest publications give similar results.
The Tier 3 method results in an emission rate of 0.01% (GWh CH4/GWh natural gas transported) or 1 ton CH4/km. This methodology is time consuming. A rigorous registration and investigation allows to set up a reduction plan.
Why point out a reduction plan in methane emission when it's simpler to oppose instead of propose?
But back to the mother of all unsubstantiated claims. How many actual pollution incidents or accidents have occurred:
The dismissal of any risk as insignificant is even harder to justify given the documented examples that have occurred in the US, seemingly due to poor construction and/or operator error. These examples have seen high levels of pollutants, such as benzene, iron and manganese, in groundwater, and a number of explosions resulting from accumulation of gas in groundwater.
What's to dismiss? Give us the proof first to back up the documented examples and then we can dismiss or not. A number of explosions? One? Twenty? Hundreds? Thousands? All numbers but not any number. If for example, we were told, as MIT tell us, that there was a risk of say 43 incidents out of tens of thousands in the US, many people might say that leaves many tens of thousands where nothing is happening. When one considers the actual damage, some people might actually dismiss the risk - but the Tyndall Centre doesn't believe in putting any actual numbers. I do:
In order to provide some perspective on the relative frequency and type of incidents over the past several years that appear to have some connection with gas well drilling, we have summarized the results of three reports from differing sources that examine this issue, and categorized the reported incidents according to type.
It is beyond the scope of this report to undertake a detailed analysis of all state-reported incidents — and we do not claim this to be a definitive analysis of all known incidents. Rather, it is intended to give a general picture of the types of incidents that occur and their relative frequency. It should also be noted that for many incidents it can be difficult to establish cause and effect, so there is a significant measure of uncertainty inherent within this analysis.
Table 2E.1 summarizes the results of this high-level review. Of the 43 incidents reviewed, almost 50% were related to the contamination of groundwater with natural gas, as the result of drilling operations. Most frequently, this appears to be related to inadequate cementingof casing into wellbores, allowing natural gas to migrate from lower formations into groundwater zones. Properly implemented cementing proce- dures should prevent this from occurring. The second major category is on-site surface spills, which can arise from a variety of causes — from hose leaks to overflowing pits to breaching of pit linings.
It is noteworthy that no incidents of direct invasion of shallow water zones by fracture fluids during the fracturing process have been recorded. Nevertheless, these incidents clearly demonstrate that there have been real issues with the integrity of natural gas drilling opera- tions in the U.S. The number of incidents should be placed in the context of the many thousands of natural gas wells drilled in the U.S. over the period under review — nevertheless, some small proportion of drilling operations are clearly creating significant environmental impact, and in some cases risk to public health and safety. Improved performance is a necessary prerequisite to improved public acceptance of natural gas development.
Earlier in the Tyndall Report, during a simple presentation of facts:
Wells are usually grouped into well pads containing around six to ten individual wells. These well pads are sited 1 to 3.5 in every square kilometre.
Sounds scary. But in Lancashire there will be 400 to 800 wells covering 1130 sq km. Cuadrilla estimate ten wells from each pad which makes a worst case of one well pad every 14.14 square kilometres. Advances in North America are showing that ten pads is probably conservative:
Devon Energy multi-well pads are becoming more common across the Barnett Shale in North Texas. The company recently completed 36 wells from a single 12 acre drilling pad. The use of pads has many benefits with one being less surface disturbance. That means more land that can be used for other purposes, fewer private roads that need to be built, and less overall traffic than the area would have experienced with 36 well pads versus one. The trend of more multi-well pads is being made easier by horizontal drilling technology. With Devon stepping up to the plate, expect pressure to rise in other areas where this approach has yet to be implemented.
Closer to home, from Poland:
In shale drilling it is becoming increasingly common to use a single drill pad to develop as large an area of the subsurface as possible. One surface location may be used to drill multiple wells. Pad drilling increases the operational efficiency of gas production and reduces infrastructure costs and land use. Any negative impact upon the surface environment is therefore mitigated.
But why include any facts that might reassure people, when the whole point of the Tyndall Report is to scare them?
But if you don't have any facts, just plain make them up.
Given the high population density and the likelihood that any shale gas extraction may be located relatively close to population centres, noise pollution may be an important consideration. Activities such as drilling mean that each well pad requires around 800-2,500days (and nights) of noisy surface activity.
Two to six years of 24/7 work on a well pad? Halliburton would love it, but it would rather make drilling gas uneconomic.
A final howler explains what they might be doing on those pads all that time.
Linked to noise is the issue of increases in traffic associated with shale gas extraction. It is estimated that the construction of each wellpad would require between 7,000-11,000 truck visits.
That actually makes only 8.75 truck trips per day for 800 days or only 4.4 on 2,500 vists. One truck every three to six hours? That actually sounds very low and manageable.The figures are estimated by whom? Not estimated byTyndall after a trip to a Cuadrilla site that's for sure, which is why Cuadrilla told me this:
The Co-op and Tyndall Centre have a well-known position opposed to the use of all fossil fuels, and this report simply reflects this stance. There are many other reports produced by other academic institutions which take a different, and arguably more balanced, approach. The Tyndall Centre did not consult us about this report, ask for our data nor seek to engage with us at any point over the last year, which is disappointing if the authors wish to portray it as a thorough and reliable piece of research.
The Tyndall report's allegations over shale gas not displacing coal and the systemic impact of shale on world CO2 levels may well be right. But considering the glaring errors made in the part of the report I can address, they might not. I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and let them ask Chris Huhne and others to build a UK climate policy based on how reliable those figures are. Good luck.
