Climate: LNG in B.C. vs Alberta tarsands
- Thread starter Foxsea
- Start date
- Status
GLG
Well-Known Member
Well that's great news.... I'm sure there is room for someone with your talents. May I suggest something in PR. I hear they need people to convince us that this sunset industry needs folks with a firm grasp on reality. If not, you can go steelhead fishing or perhaps work on getting them back to your own river.
Unless the damage is too great.... then maybe just tell stories to your kids on how it was back in the good old days. You know before the reckless days of the pipe dreams.... I'm sure you will be proud...
Last edited by a moderator:
Obviously Dennis you do have spare time to post online. Just because GLG and others also have time to discuss these important issues but disagree with your views does not make those views irrelevant - whether they are retired or not. Just because they disagree with your views also does not make them non hard-working, either. There are opportunities for jobs in this and other countries that do not require denuding the future of our future generations - either. The key to environmental assessments is to develop the best available options, and then put it through an inclusive and open decision-making process - which may also mean that decision is a no, a maybe with restrictions, or a yes. Short-term gains should not be traded-off for long term pain. Norway appears to be doing a much better job of integrating short-term financial rewards with long-term gains than we do:
http://thetyee.ca/News/2012/07/25/Norway-Oil-Wealth/
http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2014/01/15/If-Every-Norwegians-a-Millionaire-Whys-Alberta-in-Hock/
http://thetyee.ca/News/2012/08/01/Norway-Against-Big-Oil/
http://thetyee.ca/News/2012/08/08/Norway-Oil-Commandments/
http://thetyee.ca/News/2012/08/15/Norway-Vs-Canada/
http://thetyee.ca/News/2012/09/12/Norway-Oil-Drives-Prices/
http://thetyee.ca/News/2012/10/03/Canada-Oil-Wealth/
http://thetyee.ca/News/2012/08/22/Rolf-Wiborg/
cheech
Member
Come to NE BC... Lots of rigs working and lots more coming including 2 of the biggest ever built. Whether you know it or not, the LNG boom is on. Pipeline approved and even the Indigenous population is on board. Can't see how with 1 right of way already 'paved' that the Feds won't put Gateway right beside it. We are burning 16,000 litres of diesel/day just on our rig. Its cold here but beats an $11/hour job on the Rock by a LONG SHOT.
Wanna complain about man made climate problems?? Go the f#$k to CHINA and DO something. We are but a speck of dust in the atmosphere compared to them. Bty what is your 'puter made out of? No bad stuff in that is there?
http://www.techtimes.com/articles/3...l-in-climate-change-global-warming-debate.htm
Can you believe this guy?? I do...
Wanna complain about man made climate problems?? Go the f#$k to CHINA and DO something. We are but a speck of dust in the atmosphere compared to them. Bty what is your 'puter made out of? No bad stuff in that is there?
http://www.techtimes.com/articles/3...l-in-climate-change-global-warming-debate.htm
Can you believe this guy?? I do...
Last edited by a moderator:
GLG
Well-Known Member
Hey Cheech he also said this in his testimony last month.
"The vast bulk of scientific literature indicates increased CO2 in the ocean will actually result in increased growth and calcification, as opposed to the catastrophe scenario pushed by the NRDC, Greenpeace, and many other activist organizations."
That didn't work out well for the scallop farm in Baynes Sound nor the 20 jobs that were lost. Perhaps you might want to send those family's a note.
Stay warm and stay safe....
"The vast bulk of scientific literature indicates increased CO2 in the ocean will actually result in increased growth and calcification, as opposed to the catastrophe scenario pushed by the NRDC, Greenpeace, and many other activist organizations."
That didn't work out well for the scallop farm in Baynes Sound nor the 20 jobs that were lost. Perhaps you might want to send those family's a note.
Stay warm and stay safe....
Last edited by a moderator:
http://www.vancouversun.com/busines...e+research/9797868/story.html?__lsa=f5d7-fda7
Deputy Premier Coleman is quoted as saying: “Sometimes when you a read a study and somebody says they want more studies, sometimes I wonder if they are writing themselves back into the deal themselves.”
Coleman's email address is: MNGD.minister@gov.bc.ca
In case you wanted to compliment him on his ignorance.
Deputy Premier Coleman is quoted as saying: “Sometimes when you a read a study and somebody says they want more studies, sometimes I wonder if they are writing themselves back into the deal themselves.”
Coleman's email address is: MNGD.minister@gov.bc.ca
In case you wanted to compliment him on his ignorance.
steel_dreamin
Member
20 jobs? really? that is a drop in the bucket. Jury is still out on what the cause is so let's stop pointing fingers.
And what, exactly, is wrong with that statement? have you dealt extensively with consultants? there is never enough information... maybe you are one...
The answer to that should be obvious, SD. As ignorant and rude as Coleman's suggestion is - that the reason scientists speak-out about an issue is that they only want to make money - is really illuminating as to Coleman's mind - how it works - and how ignorant he is of science. I would go farther and suggest that Coleman is a product of his environment - the BC Liberal Party and their myopic outlook and fear-based propaganda.
A true leader would not make these insinuations. Someone familiar with corruption would unfortunately make this kind of smear against people far more informed and intelligent than himself.
There is a quote attributed to both Abraham Lincoln and Mark Twain that goes: "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt." It seems appropriate in this situation.
The biggest problems I have with fracking are:
1/ The large pressures utilized in fracking that can cause unintended rock fracking in overbearing rocks that allows contamination to occur,
2/ the large amount of freshwater that is used and subsequently contaminated for likely hundreds of thousands of years, and
3/ the fact that the industry hides under "intellectual property" caveats thereby hiding what contaminants are released into ground water.
The report that Coleman tried to discredit the authors of - speaks to these points. That is why Coleman did that. He is one elected representative (an ignorant one or not) - and NOT a fracking lobbyist - and should be part of the government that provides due diligence on these issues rather then facilitating more cover-ups.
Last edited by a moderator:
http://thetyee.ca/News/2014/05/01/F...eadlines&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=050514
Fracking Growth Outpacing Scientific Knowledge in Canada: Report
Environment Canada-commissioned study urges a 'go slow' approach.
By Andrew Nikiforuk, 1 May 2014, TheTyee.ca
In the absence of environmental baseline data, a new report notes the hydraulic fracturing industry has probably moved too far, too fast.
One of Canada's premier scientific bodies has issued a critical report on the state of hydraulic fracturing in the nation, saying the industry has outpaced credible baseline data, scientific knowledge and necessary monitoring.
Moreover, threats to groundwater are real and immediate due to stray gases migrating along leaky and abandoned wellbores, natural fractures in rock, and permeable faults, it found.
"These pathways may allow for migration of gases and possibly saline fluids over long time scales, with potentially substantial cumulative impact on aquifer water quality," noted the Council of Canadian Academies report.
Basic science on the 10-year-old brute force technology, which blasts rock formations open with water, chemicals and sand, remains in its infancy.
"The basic scientific knowledge needed to evaluate potential risks to groundwater on the regional scale is largely lacking," reads the report.
The 292-page report, chaired by John Cherry, a respected hydrologist at the University of Guelph, took a look at the technology's impact on water, human health, earthquake activity, well integrity, greenhouse gases and the land.
To date, industry has injected highly-pressurized fluids down more than 150,000 horizontal wells in North America in order to break apart previously uneconomic rock formations containing oil and gas.
The report acknowledges that some of the most challenging impacts of hydraulic fracturing may take years to surface in communities and ecosystems.
"These include the creation of subsurface pathways between the shale horizons being fractured and fresh groundwater, gas seepage along abandoned wells, and cumulative effects on the land and communities."
Monitoring is currently inadequate, the report notes, but what has been done "indicates that gas leakage into aquifers and the atmosphere is frequent enough to raise concern. Given the likely future density of gas wells, shale gas development is expected to have a greater long-term impact than conventional oil and gas development."
Development 'risks quality of life': report
Across the country, thousands of citizens have protested against hydraulic fracturing and provincial governments hungry for hydrocarbon revenue.
First Nations in New Brunswick recently blockaded roads to protect traditional lands from unwanted industrialization.
In Quebec, farm communities worried about the fate of communal aquifers and their livelihoods forced the government to pose a moratorium on fracturing.
In northern British Columbia, where industry has overwhelmed rural communities and First Nations, a bombing campaign against the region's most aggressive shale gas driller, Encana, resulted in a costly multi-million dollar RCMP investigation several years ago.
FRACKING REPORT DETAILS UNKNOWNS
- Absence of important baseline information about both geological and environmental conditions in shale gas regions;
- Performance of key components of shale gas development technology;
- Pathways, fate, and behaviour of industry-related contaminants in groundwater;
- Rate and volume of fugitive methane emissions;
- Cumulative effects of development on communities and land;
- Risks of human exposure to industry-released chemical substances.
And in Lethbridge, Alberta, protests by thousands of residents and local politicians yesterday defeated an application by an Asian firm to fracture formations under a suburb housing 10,000 people.
The report confirmed what many rural communities and B.C. First Nations have said for years: "The cumulative effects of the large number of wells and related infrastructure required to develop the resource still impose substantial impacts on communities and ecosystems."
Groups in eastern Canada, adds the report, "do not believe that their governments have the capacity to regulate the industry effectively and protect the environment while maximizing economic opportunities."
If shale gas development expands, and tens of thousands of wells are planned for Alberta and B.C., "the risks to quality of life and well-being in some communities may become significant due to the combination of diverse factors related to land use, water quality, air quality, and loss of rural serenity, among others."
Potential and documented impacts to groundwater "are not being systematically monitored, predications remain unreliable, and approaches for effective and consistent monitoring need to be developed."
An industry too far, too fast
In the absence of credible environmental baseline data, the report notes that industry has probably moved too far, too fast and the report endorses a "go slow" approach.
"In most instances, shale gas extraction has proceeded without sufficient environmental baseline data being collected (e.g., nearby groundwater quality, critical wildlife habitat). This makes it difficult to identify and characterize environmental impacts that may be associated with or inappropriately blamed on this development."
The report flagged well integrity as a problem, because all oil and gas wells leak as they age. But fractured wells have a tendency to fail more often due to the high pressures they must withstand.
"Information concerning the impacts of leakage of natural gas from poor cement seals on fresh groundwater resources is insufficient," said the report.
"The nature and rate of cement deterioration are poorly understood and there is only minimal or misleading information available in the public domain. Research is also lacking on methods for detecting and measuring leakage of GHGs to the atmosphere," added the report.
Given such liabilities and the fact that government may have to monitor leaky shale gas wells for decades, a recent German report on hydraulic fracturing advocated that the government "take it slowly and tread carefully," and conduct long-term basic research.
The report found that technological fixes may minimize some impacts, but not all of them.
"It is not clear that there are technological solutions to address all of the relevant risks, and it is difficult to judge the efficacy of current regulations because of the lack of scientific monitoring. The research needed to provide the framework for improved science-based decisions concerning cumulative environmental impacts has barely begun."
In its conclusion, the report notes that, "There are no vulnerability identification and management systems in place to identify those areas in Canada where hydraulic fracturing will be so risky that it should not be undertaken."
Thousands of approved wells in BC, AB
The report also makes some points that contradict other recent findings and developments.
It notes evidence on methane seepage from natural gas fields is "in flux," though other recent studies squarely challenge industry's claim that natural gas is a clean climate change fighter.
The report makes an error in stating that flaring or the burning of unwanted gas has declined in Alberta. According to a 2013 flaring report, the Alberta Energy Regulator directly attributes a 25.9 per cent increase from 2011 to 2012 in the disposal of flared waste gas into the air "to an increase in new crude oil production and low gas prices, which makes the economic viability of conservation more challenging."
The regulator blamed the increase in flared gas to "the number of horizontal multistage fracturing operations in 2012. It takes longer to recover load fluids and clean out wells in these operations, which results in greater flare volumes and flaring duration."
The Tyee has reported the error to the Council of Canadian Academies and is waiting to hear back.
The report also states that "it is recognized that Canadian regulation and accepted practices are somewhat more stringent" than U.S. oil and gas regulations, though Canada's regulators are 100 per cent funded by industry.
The Alberta Energy Regulator recently abandoned many cases of clear-cut contamination of wellwater by methane from oil and gas activity with no explanation.
It is currently arguing in court that it owes no "duty of care" to landowners.
Although the report champions the importance of baseline data, regulators have hindered that possibility by approving thousands of fracked horizontal wells in Alberta and B.C.
Environment Canada asked the Council of Canadian Academies, a not-for-profit organization that supports evidence-based expert studies on public policy issues, to conduct the study more than a year ago.
Fracking Growth Outpacing Scientific Knowledge in Canada: Report
Environment Canada-commissioned study urges a 'go slow' approach.
By Andrew Nikiforuk, 1 May 2014, TheTyee.ca
In the absence of environmental baseline data, a new report notes the hydraulic fracturing industry has probably moved too far, too fast.
One of Canada's premier scientific bodies has issued a critical report on the state of hydraulic fracturing in the nation, saying the industry has outpaced credible baseline data, scientific knowledge and necessary monitoring.
Moreover, threats to groundwater are real and immediate due to stray gases migrating along leaky and abandoned wellbores, natural fractures in rock, and permeable faults, it found.
"These pathways may allow for migration of gases and possibly saline fluids over long time scales, with potentially substantial cumulative impact on aquifer water quality," noted the Council of Canadian Academies report.
Basic science on the 10-year-old brute force technology, which blasts rock formations open with water, chemicals and sand, remains in its infancy.
"The basic scientific knowledge needed to evaluate potential risks to groundwater on the regional scale is largely lacking," reads the report.
The 292-page report, chaired by John Cherry, a respected hydrologist at the University of Guelph, took a look at the technology's impact on water, human health, earthquake activity, well integrity, greenhouse gases and the land.
To date, industry has injected highly-pressurized fluids down more than 150,000 horizontal wells in North America in order to break apart previously uneconomic rock formations containing oil and gas.
The report acknowledges that some of the most challenging impacts of hydraulic fracturing may take years to surface in communities and ecosystems.
"These include the creation of subsurface pathways between the shale horizons being fractured and fresh groundwater, gas seepage along abandoned wells, and cumulative effects on the land and communities."
Monitoring is currently inadequate, the report notes, but what has been done "indicates that gas leakage into aquifers and the atmosphere is frequent enough to raise concern. Given the likely future density of gas wells, shale gas development is expected to have a greater long-term impact than conventional oil and gas development."
Development 'risks quality of life': report
Across the country, thousands of citizens have protested against hydraulic fracturing and provincial governments hungry for hydrocarbon revenue.
First Nations in New Brunswick recently blockaded roads to protect traditional lands from unwanted industrialization.
In Quebec, farm communities worried about the fate of communal aquifers and their livelihoods forced the government to pose a moratorium on fracturing.
In northern British Columbia, where industry has overwhelmed rural communities and First Nations, a bombing campaign against the region's most aggressive shale gas driller, Encana, resulted in a costly multi-million dollar RCMP investigation several years ago.
FRACKING REPORT DETAILS UNKNOWNS
- Absence of important baseline information about both geological and environmental conditions in shale gas regions;
- Performance of key components of shale gas development technology;
- Pathways, fate, and behaviour of industry-related contaminants in groundwater;
- Rate and volume of fugitive methane emissions;
- Cumulative effects of development on communities and land;
- Risks of human exposure to industry-released chemical substances.
And in Lethbridge, Alberta, protests by thousands of residents and local politicians yesterday defeated an application by an Asian firm to fracture formations under a suburb housing 10,000 people.
The report confirmed what many rural communities and B.C. First Nations have said for years: "The cumulative effects of the large number of wells and related infrastructure required to develop the resource still impose substantial impacts on communities and ecosystems."
Groups in eastern Canada, adds the report, "do not believe that their governments have the capacity to regulate the industry effectively and protect the environment while maximizing economic opportunities."
If shale gas development expands, and tens of thousands of wells are planned for Alberta and B.C., "the risks to quality of life and well-being in some communities may become significant due to the combination of diverse factors related to land use, water quality, air quality, and loss of rural serenity, among others."
Potential and documented impacts to groundwater "are not being systematically monitored, predications remain unreliable, and approaches for effective and consistent monitoring need to be developed."
An industry too far, too fast
In the absence of credible environmental baseline data, the report notes that industry has probably moved too far, too fast and the report endorses a "go slow" approach.
"In most instances, shale gas extraction has proceeded without sufficient environmental baseline data being collected (e.g., nearby groundwater quality, critical wildlife habitat). This makes it difficult to identify and characterize environmental impacts that may be associated with or inappropriately blamed on this development."
The report flagged well integrity as a problem, because all oil and gas wells leak as they age. But fractured wells have a tendency to fail more often due to the high pressures they must withstand.
"Information concerning the impacts of leakage of natural gas from poor cement seals on fresh groundwater resources is insufficient," said the report.
"The nature and rate of cement deterioration are poorly understood and there is only minimal or misleading information available in the public domain. Research is also lacking on methods for detecting and measuring leakage of GHGs to the atmosphere," added the report.
Given such liabilities and the fact that government may have to monitor leaky shale gas wells for decades, a recent German report on hydraulic fracturing advocated that the government "take it slowly and tread carefully," and conduct long-term basic research.
The report found that technological fixes may minimize some impacts, but not all of them.
"It is not clear that there are technological solutions to address all of the relevant risks, and it is difficult to judge the efficacy of current regulations because of the lack of scientific monitoring. The research needed to provide the framework for improved science-based decisions concerning cumulative environmental impacts has barely begun."
In its conclusion, the report notes that, "There are no vulnerability identification and management systems in place to identify those areas in Canada where hydraulic fracturing will be so risky that it should not be undertaken."
Thousands of approved wells in BC, AB
The report also makes some points that contradict other recent findings and developments.
It notes evidence on methane seepage from natural gas fields is "in flux," though other recent studies squarely challenge industry's claim that natural gas is a clean climate change fighter.
The report makes an error in stating that flaring or the burning of unwanted gas has declined in Alberta. According to a 2013 flaring report, the Alberta Energy Regulator directly attributes a 25.9 per cent increase from 2011 to 2012 in the disposal of flared waste gas into the air "to an increase in new crude oil production and low gas prices, which makes the economic viability of conservation more challenging."
The regulator blamed the increase in flared gas to "the number of horizontal multistage fracturing operations in 2012. It takes longer to recover load fluids and clean out wells in these operations, which results in greater flare volumes and flaring duration."
The Tyee has reported the error to the Council of Canadian Academies and is waiting to hear back.
The report also states that "it is recognized that Canadian regulation and accepted practices are somewhat more stringent" than U.S. oil and gas regulations, though Canada's regulators are 100 per cent funded by industry.
The Alberta Energy Regulator recently abandoned many cases of clear-cut contamination of wellwater by methane from oil and gas activity with no explanation.
It is currently arguing in court that it owes no "duty of care" to landowners.
Although the report champions the importance of baseline data, regulators have hindered that possibility by approving thousands of fracked horizontal wells in Alberta and B.C.
Environment Canada asked the Council of Canadian Academies, a not-for-profit organization that supports evidence-based expert studies on public policy issues, to conduct the study more than a year ago.
FRACKING REPORT DETAILS UNKNOWNS
- Absence of important baseline information about both geological and environmental conditions in shale gas regions;
- Performance of key components of shale gas development technology;
- Pathways, fate, and behaviour of industry-related contaminants in groundwater;
- Rate and volume of fugitive methane emissions;
- Cumulative effects of development on communities and land;
- Risks of human exposure to industry-released chemical substances.
Qualifications of Panel Experts:
http://www.scienceadvice.ca/en/assessments/completed/shale-gas/expert-panel.aspx
Web page:
http://www.scienceadvice.ca/en/assessments/completed/shale-gas.aspx
Executive Summary:
http://www.scienceadvice.ca/uploads...ws releases/shale gas/shalegas_execsummen.pdf
Full Report:
http://www.scienceadvice.ca/uploads... releases/shale gas/shalegas_fullreporten.pdf
- Absence of important baseline information about both geological and environmental conditions in shale gas regions;
- Performance of key components of shale gas development technology;
- Pathways, fate, and behaviour of industry-related contaminants in groundwater;
- Rate and volume of fugitive methane emissions;
- Cumulative effects of development on communities and land;
- Risks of human exposure to industry-released chemical substances.
Qualifications of Panel Experts:
http://www.scienceadvice.ca/en/assessments/completed/shale-gas/expert-panel.aspx
Web page:
http://www.scienceadvice.ca/en/assessments/completed/shale-gas.aspx
Executive Summary:
http://www.scienceadvice.ca/uploads...ws releases/shale gas/shalegas_execsummen.pdf
Full Report:
http://www.scienceadvice.ca/uploads... releases/shale gas/shalegas_fullreporten.pdf
Last edited by a moderator:
http://thetyee.ca/News/2014/05/06/S...ce=daily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=060514
Shale Gas Plagued By Unusual Methane Leaks
Scientists investigate high levels of damaging gas released in fracked areas.
By Andrew Nikiforuk
According to a spate of recent scientific studies from the United States and Australia, the shale gas industry has generated another formidable challenge: methane and radon leakage three times greater than expected.
In some cases the volume of seeping methane, a greenhouse gas that traps heat 25 times more effectively than carbon dioxide, is so high it challenges the notion that shale gas can be a bridge to a cleaner energy future, as promoted by the government of British Columbia and other shale gas jurisdictions.
"If natural gas is to be a 'bridge' to a more sustainable energy future, it is a bridge that must be traversed carefully," warned one 2014 study published in Science. "Diligence will be required to ensure that leakage rates are low enough to achieve sustainability goals."
The new studies quantifying methane leakage, an age-old problem for the oil and gas industry, illustrate the need for extensive air monitoring before and after gas drilling to determine how hydraulic fracturing may impact natural leakage rates.
In addition, methane seepage seems most pronounced in areas where industry has been fracturing seams of coal, a resource much richer in methane than shale rock, or where there are existing underground coal mines.
The studies underscore how little science has been done on the impact of high-pressured hydraulic fracturing combined with horizontal drilling. The brute-force technology creates fractures in deep rock formations by injecting streams of water, chemicals and sand with such force that the activity can cause small earthquakes.
"I think these studies point out the need for more monitoring before, during and after development on the ground and in the air to definitively point out the methane sources," energy and coal specialist David Hughes said.
One of the first studies to sound the alarm on the under-reporting of methane emissions by industry and regulators was partly supported by the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration last year.
Published in Geophysical Research Letters, it took a snapshot of methane levels in a producing shale gas field in Utah over one day in Feb. 2013. It found a leakage rate of six to 12 per cent in the well-fractured basin. A previous study found a four per cent leakage rate in a heavily fracked shale gas field in Colorado.
The finding shook both industry and government, because it had been long assumed that leakage rates from natural gas production averaged around 1.5 per cent.
Such a significant loss of methane to the atmosphere "negates any short-term climate benefit of natural gas from this basin for electricity generation compared to coal and oil," concluded the scientists.
The findings also supported work by Cornell methane expert Robert Howarth, who argued in 2011 that the greenhouse gas footprint of shale was significantly larger than conventional gas due to methane emissions from venting, leaks and flow back fluids during the drilling process.
Then came a 2013 Harvard-led study in which real time monitoring again confirmed the significant under-reporting of methane emissions by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Using atmospheric measurements from airplanes and communication towers, the study found methane in the atmosphere above the heavily fracked oil and gas fields of the south-central U.S. at rates 2.7 times higher than expected.
Concentrations of propane, another indicator of pollution from oil and gas activity, were also high in the air above Texas and Oklahoma where fracking or the injection of fracking waste has triggered swarms of earthquakes.
The Harvard study was followed by another comprehensive study published in Science and funded in part by a foundation set up by George Mitchell, one of the pioneers of modern hydraulic fracturing.
It also found a big difference between measured methane emission rates versus "official" estimates. Stanford University researcher Adam Brandt and 12 other scientists reported that a small number of high-emitting sources such as leaky pipelines, faulty wellbores, polluting gas plants, and venting storage tanks might account for the high rates of methane.
The scientists didn't think that hydraulic fracturing was the dominant source of methane seepage, but noted that rates of leakage varied greatly from basin to basin.
"Improved science would aid in generating cost-effective policy responses," they concluded.
Shale Gas Plagued By Unusual Methane Leaks
Scientists investigate high levels of damaging gas released in fracked areas.
By Andrew Nikiforuk
According to a spate of recent scientific studies from the United States and Australia, the shale gas industry has generated another formidable challenge: methane and radon leakage three times greater than expected.
In some cases the volume of seeping methane, a greenhouse gas that traps heat 25 times more effectively than carbon dioxide, is so high it challenges the notion that shale gas can be a bridge to a cleaner energy future, as promoted by the government of British Columbia and other shale gas jurisdictions.
"If natural gas is to be a 'bridge' to a more sustainable energy future, it is a bridge that must be traversed carefully," warned one 2014 study published in Science. "Diligence will be required to ensure that leakage rates are low enough to achieve sustainability goals."
The new studies quantifying methane leakage, an age-old problem for the oil and gas industry, illustrate the need for extensive air monitoring before and after gas drilling to determine how hydraulic fracturing may impact natural leakage rates.
In addition, methane seepage seems most pronounced in areas where industry has been fracturing seams of coal, a resource much richer in methane than shale rock, or where there are existing underground coal mines.
The studies underscore how little science has been done on the impact of high-pressured hydraulic fracturing combined with horizontal drilling. The brute-force technology creates fractures in deep rock formations by injecting streams of water, chemicals and sand with such force that the activity can cause small earthquakes.
"I think these studies point out the need for more monitoring before, during and after development on the ground and in the air to definitively point out the methane sources," energy and coal specialist David Hughes said.
One of the first studies to sound the alarm on the under-reporting of methane emissions by industry and regulators was partly supported by the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration last year.
Published in Geophysical Research Letters, it took a snapshot of methane levels in a producing shale gas field in Utah over one day in Feb. 2013. It found a leakage rate of six to 12 per cent in the well-fractured basin. A previous study found a four per cent leakage rate in a heavily fracked shale gas field in Colorado.
The finding shook both industry and government, because it had been long assumed that leakage rates from natural gas production averaged around 1.5 per cent.
Such a significant loss of methane to the atmosphere "negates any short-term climate benefit of natural gas from this basin for electricity generation compared to coal and oil," concluded the scientists.
The findings also supported work by Cornell methane expert Robert Howarth, who argued in 2011 that the greenhouse gas footprint of shale was significantly larger than conventional gas due to methane emissions from venting, leaks and flow back fluids during the drilling process.
Then came a 2013 Harvard-led study in which real time monitoring again confirmed the significant under-reporting of methane emissions by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Using atmospheric measurements from airplanes and communication towers, the study found methane in the atmosphere above the heavily fracked oil and gas fields of the south-central U.S. at rates 2.7 times higher than expected.
Concentrations of propane, another indicator of pollution from oil and gas activity, were also high in the air above Texas and Oklahoma where fracking or the injection of fracking waste has triggered swarms of earthquakes.
The Harvard study was followed by another comprehensive study published in Science and funded in part by a foundation set up by George Mitchell, one of the pioneers of modern hydraulic fracturing.
It also found a big difference between measured methane emission rates versus "official" estimates. Stanford University researcher Adam Brandt and 12 other scientists reported that a small number of high-emitting sources such as leaky pipelines, faulty wellbores, polluting gas plants, and venting storage tanks might account for the high rates of methane.
The scientists didn't think that hydraulic fracturing was the dominant source of methane seepage, but noted that rates of leakage varied greatly from basin to basin.
"Improved science would aid in generating cost-effective policy responses," they concluded.
(continuation of above article)
A 2013 study by the University of Texas and U.S. Environmental Defense Fund contradicted these findings by finding methane emissions lower than estimated by the U.S. EPA in shale fields. But industry picked the sites that were studied and the times that data was collected.
Last month, another U.S. study reported that an airplane survey over a two-day period found large plumes of methane above shale gas well pads over southwestern Pennsylvania two to three times order of magnitude greater than expected during drilling operations.
The scientists suggested that just a few shale gas wells may be super methane leakers and account for the large spikes of methane in the atmosphere.
(The concept of extremely leaky wellheads in particular oil and gas fields isn't new: one 1996 study published by the Society of Petroleum Engineers found that 9,000 out of 20,000 wells in the Lloydminster heavy oil region of western Canada were leaking methane so prolifically through the wellbore, soils or aquifers that the problem would cost hundreds of millions of dollars to fix.)
The researchers also hypothesized that drilling activity near active underground coal mines may inadvertently trigger the escape of methane from the coal by opening new pathways.
Unlike other hydrocarbon-bearing rocks, the softness of coal creates complex fracture networks that release large amounts of methane. In the past, unvented methane has caused horrific mine explosions.
Andrew Revkin, the respected New York Times environment blogger, noted that the results strongly suggest "that regulators should require monitoring of local air chemistry before, during and after drilling of gas wells."
Revkin also asked Louis Derry, a Cornell University geologist, to comment on the study's implications in regards to coal.
"It was possible that a small number of wells contribute heavily to methane leakage in a producing field -- a largely fixable problem," Derry said.
But "the real message of this study may be that gas fluxes from coal operations have been underestimated, and that they are mostly responsible for the hotspots," he said.
He added that drilling in a coal-rich area may "require special precautions to prevent transient leaks" in addition to pre and post-air monitoring.
Australia's approach to leakage
Australian studies have also found significant problems with methane and radon leakage from fields producing coal-bed methane in southern Queensland and northern New South Wales.
In 2012, Isaac Santos and Damien Maher at Southern Cross University measured concentrations of methane in the atmosphere above fractured coal-bed methane fields with a spectrometer mounted on a vehicle.
Like subsequent U.S. studies, they found methane emissions in producing fields were three-and-a-half times more than expected.
The scientists offered two explanations for the findings: leaky industry infrastructure or seepage through soils.
Any geological area that has gas deposits will have natural seepage, but no baseline studies were done by government, eager for hydrocarbon revenue, prior to the launch of the billion-dollar industry.
Australian scientists are now trying to figure out whether drilling activities such as fracking are activating large methane escapes by releasing methane and other gases such as radon into groundwater, creeks, soils and the atmosphere.
Coal is a major source of methane, so it's not surprising that levels are higher over coal fields, noted David Hughes.
"But saying these levels are related to later [coal-bed methane] or shale development or initial mining or natural outcrops of coal again needs the data before, during and after," added the geologist and consultant.
"I think the recognition of this need is dawning on governments, but I'm unsure of the level to which it has actually been implemented."
'There is no will to fix anything': scientist
A 2013 follow-up study measured radon gas concentrations at monitoring stations both inside and outside the Kenya/Talinga gas fields north of Tara in southern Queensland. Radon is a naturally occurring gas in the soil.
The scientists found radon levels in the atmosphere three times higher than average in areas with a high density of coal seam wells.
"It has been known for years that radon anomalies can be observed during earthquakes," explained Santos in a press release. "As the soil structure expands or contracts and cracks before and during an earthquake, it creates conduits for the release of soil radon into groundwater and the atmosphere."
"We hypothesize that an analogous process is happening when the soil structure is altered during coal seam gas mining through processes such as drilling, hydraulic fracturing and alteration of the water table."
Damien Maher, one of the study's co-authors, said the findings suggested the radon leaks are not only coming from wellbores but through new man-made pathways that industry had not accounted for.
"Fixing the infrastructure is relatively easy. Fixing up the changes in the soil structure is much more difficult," said Maher.
Karlis Muehlenbachs, a University of Alberta expert on tracing stray gases from oil and gas fields, doubts that oil and gas regulators have the gumption or the resources to do baseline atmospheric monitoring, let alone fix the continent's leaky natural gas production system.
"There is no will to fix anything," Muehlenbachs said.
For years Muehlenbachs has proposed that governments mandate baseline monitoring, through isotopic fingerprinting, of methane, ethane and propane from producing wells, abandoned wells, natural seeps and water wells in order to protect groundwater prior to drilling and fracking.
No regulator has yet implemented his protocol.
A 2013 study by the University of Texas and U.S. Environmental Defense Fund contradicted these findings by finding methane emissions lower than estimated by the U.S. EPA in shale fields. But industry picked the sites that were studied and the times that data was collected.
Last month, another U.S. study reported that an airplane survey over a two-day period found large plumes of methane above shale gas well pads over southwestern Pennsylvania two to three times order of magnitude greater than expected during drilling operations.
The scientists suggested that just a few shale gas wells may be super methane leakers and account for the large spikes of methane in the atmosphere.
(The concept of extremely leaky wellheads in particular oil and gas fields isn't new: one 1996 study published by the Society of Petroleum Engineers found that 9,000 out of 20,000 wells in the Lloydminster heavy oil region of western Canada were leaking methane so prolifically through the wellbore, soils or aquifers that the problem would cost hundreds of millions of dollars to fix.)
The researchers also hypothesized that drilling activity near active underground coal mines may inadvertently trigger the escape of methane from the coal by opening new pathways.
Unlike other hydrocarbon-bearing rocks, the softness of coal creates complex fracture networks that release large amounts of methane. In the past, unvented methane has caused horrific mine explosions.
Andrew Revkin, the respected New York Times environment blogger, noted that the results strongly suggest "that regulators should require monitoring of local air chemistry before, during and after drilling of gas wells."
Revkin also asked Louis Derry, a Cornell University geologist, to comment on the study's implications in regards to coal.
"It was possible that a small number of wells contribute heavily to methane leakage in a producing field -- a largely fixable problem," Derry said.
But "the real message of this study may be that gas fluxes from coal operations have been underestimated, and that they are mostly responsible for the hotspots," he said.
He added that drilling in a coal-rich area may "require special precautions to prevent transient leaks" in addition to pre and post-air monitoring.
Australia's approach to leakage
Australian studies have also found significant problems with methane and radon leakage from fields producing coal-bed methane in southern Queensland and northern New South Wales.
In 2012, Isaac Santos and Damien Maher at Southern Cross University measured concentrations of methane in the atmosphere above fractured coal-bed methane fields with a spectrometer mounted on a vehicle.
Like subsequent U.S. studies, they found methane emissions in producing fields were three-and-a-half times more than expected.
The scientists offered two explanations for the findings: leaky industry infrastructure or seepage through soils.
Any geological area that has gas deposits will have natural seepage, but no baseline studies were done by government, eager for hydrocarbon revenue, prior to the launch of the billion-dollar industry.
Australian scientists are now trying to figure out whether drilling activities such as fracking are activating large methane escapes by releasing methane and other gases such as radon into groundwater, creeks, soils and the atmosphere.
Coal is a major source of methane, so it's not surprising that levels are higher over coal fields, noted David Hughes.
"But saying these levels are related to later [coal-bed methane] or shale development or initial mining or natural outcrops of coal again needs the data before, during and after," added the geologist and consultant.
"I think the recognition of this need is dawning on governments, but I'm unsure of the level to which it has actually been implemented."
'There is no will to fix anything': scientist
A 2013 follow-up study measured radon gas concentrations at monitoring stations both inside and outside the Kenya/Talinga gas fields north of Tara in southern Queensland. Radon is a naturally occurring gas in the soil.
The scientists found radon levels in the atmosphere three times higher than average in areas with a high density of coal seam wells.
"It has been known for years that radon anomalies can be observed during earthquakes," explained Santos in a press release. "As the soil structure expands or contracts and cracks before and during an earthquake, it creates conduits for the release of soil radon into groundwater and the atmosphere."
"We hypothesize that an analogous process is happening when the soil structure is altered during coal seam gas mining through processes such as drilling, hydraulic fracturing and alteration of the water table."
Damien Maher, one of the study's co-authors, said the findings suggested the radon leaks are not only coming from wellbores but through new man-made pathways that industry had not accounted for.
"Fixing the infrastructure is relatively easy. Fixing up the changes in the soil structure is much more difficult," said Maher.
Karlis Muehlenbachs, a University of Alberta expert on tracing stray gases from oil and gas fields, doubts that oil and gas regulators have the gumption or the resources to do baseline atmospheric monitoring, let alone fix the continent's leaky natural gas production system.
"There is no will to fix anything," Muehlenbachs said.
For years Muehlenbachs has proposed that governments mandate baseline monitoring, through isotopic fingerprinting, of methane, ethane and propane from producing wells, abandoned wells, natural seeps and water wells in order to protect groundwater prior to drilling and fracking.
No regulator has yet implemented his protocol.
GLG
Well-Known Member
Cold...
You do know that some of those folks read this forum..
They don't count in your world right?
So why don't you explain your theory of what happen to those shellfish.
You seem to know something that most of us don't.
You put it out there .. time to speak up.
steel_dreamin
Member
I don't know what happened to those shellfish - but I don't believe you (or the greater public) do either.
Sry if I've directly offended anyone affected by the lay off - my statement still rings true. Read the new lately? NEBC just took a **** kicking from Coal Mining layoffs (~700 people), same with the SE Teck Coal operations. Hell, it's happening on the island at Quinsam (~60 jobs). BUT, these jobs are associated with "dirty" industry and therefore don't count....
Would I love to fix the problem, sure, but it isn't going to happen overnight.
steel_dreamin
Member
I don't want to argue politics so will not get into the merits of Coleman...
Re: the above - you have unequivocal proof? in particular, the contamination for hundreds and thousands of years...
also, IP isn't a caveat, it is simply that - IP. Allows a company to remain economically viable without disclosing cutting edge technology to loose one's competitive advantage.
GLG
Well-Known Member
I can only think of two reasons that could have a result in the shellfish die off.
Disease or Ocean Acidification (OA).
If it was disease then you would think that reporting that would make them eligible for compensation from the taxpayer. Just like the fishfarms do when they have had outbreaks in the past. It makes no sense to claim OA when clearly they would not get compensation from reporting that.
Could be a combination of the two but then again you would think they would say disease and let the government try to prove otherwise. Fat chance that the current "powers that be" would prove OA and therefore agree the fact that climate change is real..... That would mess up their "Carbon King" of the world day dreams......
Any way you look at it sad for any one including those that you mentioned.
We need leaders and all we have are clowns......
- Status
Similar threads
