Frack Free Somerset and the ASA

Earlier this year I was contacted by a local Somerset resident. He'd attended a meeting hosted by Frack Free Somerset, and had concerns about the accuracy of the promotional materials they'd used.

The resident was intending to submit a complaint to the ASA regarding these materials, and got in touch with me for some advice about some technical details, which I was happy to provide.

The ASA began their investigation, but the issue has now been resolved as FFS have agreed to withdraw the offending literature without rebuttal (Informally Resolved Cases, Date 7th May 2014). By doing so, there is no requirement for formal investigation.

As far as I see it, this represents tacit acceptance that all of the original complaints are valid. However, by withdrawing rather than making a challenge, FFS have managed to avoid the media fanfare associated with a full ASA investigation.      

There is an obvious comparison here with Cuadrilla's ASA investigation. Of the 18 complaints made by anti-fracking groups, only 6 were upheld by the ASA. In contrast, it would appear that FFS are not even prepared to try and defend the contents of their own promotional materials.

I have re-posted the original FFS brochure here, and the complaint from the local Somerset resident here.




The complaint cites a number of supplementary materials. These are as follows. Attachments 1a-e were data sheets taken at random from Barnett shale wells on the FracFocus website, summarised in attachment 1f. Attachment 2 was DECC's document about fracking and water. Attachment 3 summarised cancer incident rates in Barnett Shale counties (Denton, Johnson, Parker, Tarrant, Wise) taken from http://statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov. Attachment 4 detailed key health indicators for Denton County taken from Mickley and Blake. Attachment 5 was the DECC document on shale gas regulations and safety. Attachment 6 shows US natural gas prices and shale gas extraction rates (easily available just about anywhere), and Attachment 7 compares coal and CCGT power station efficiencies, Figure 6 in this EIA report.

Letters to the Independent

Several letters have been published in the Independent in response to its recent editorial on shale gas extraction in the UK. Because these letters appear to come from academics, with letters and titles before their names, it seems appropriate that I join the discussion.

The first letter is from Professor Andrew Watterson of the University of Stirling. Prof. Watterson argues that

Unconventional gas is not part of an energy solution; it is a major pollutant. It diverts cash, resources and expertise away from work on the more sustainable energy solutions that are now available. 

We are running out of time on global warming if we do not develop sustainable energy sources now and reduce unconventional gas extraction, not increase it.

These comments are in stark contrast to the conclusions reached by the IPCC, who are considered by most to represent the final word on climate-related issues. In their Summary for Policymakers, they state that

GHG emissions from energy supply can be reduced significantly by replacing current world average coal‐fired power plants with modern, highly efficient natural gas combined‐cycle power plants or combined heat and power plants, provided that natural gas is available and the fugitive emissions associated with extraction and supply are low or mitigated. In mitigation scenarios reaching about 450 ppm CO2eq concentrations by 2100, natural gas power generation without CCS acts as a bridge technology, with deployment increasing before peaking and falling to below current levels by 2050 and declining further in the second half of the century.

During the press conference to mark the release of this report, the IPCC spokesman was queried about shale gas. His response was

We have in the energy supply also the shale gas revolution, and we say that this can be very consistent with low carbon development, with decarbonisation. That's quite clear.

Clearly, Prof Watterson and the IPCC are in disagreement. I suggest that he takes this up with them.

Prof Watterson then argues that

It diverts cash, resources and expertise away from work on the more sustainable energy solutions that are now available

The figure below shows installed wind capacity in the USA in green, and shale gas production in blue (both normalised to 2013 values). Perhaps even more wind power would have been constructed without the shale revolution, but I don't really see any evidence here of shale gas development distracting from alternative power sources. Indeed, the leaders of several renewable energy industry groups are on record as saying that cheap gas provided by shale has helped them deal with the inevitable renewable energy intermittence issues.

As for the notion that current events in Ukraine can be dismissed as a "scare stor[y] about ephemeral energy-supply crises in Eastern Europe", well, this is hardly worthy of comment, suffice to say that Eastern Europeans are very keen to access secure gas supplies, for obvious reasons.

Prof Watterson is also unable to "make sense" of the possibility of having regulations that are both strong and yet do not cause undue delay to operators. The purpose of regulations is to ensure that operating practices take every safety precaution into account to ensure that risk is as low as reasonably possible (ALARP). The purpose of regulations is not to cause operators unnecessary delay unless doing so will make an operation safer. At present, to drill and frack a well, shale gas operators need a wealth of permits and permissions from a variety of bodies, including DECC, the Health and Safety Executive, the Environment Agency, and local planning agencies.

These agencies all work in different ways and to different timescales. "Streamlining" regulations across these organisations will not mean that a well is or is not cemented properly; or that cement bond logs are or are not run to detect any well integrity issues; or that multiple bunding layers are or are not installed to isolate the drill pads from groundwater; or that methane is or is not monitored in groundwater and in the air before, during and after drilling; or that fluids are or are not stored in double lined steel tanks, placed on drip trays. No-one is talking about changing any of the regulations pertaining to these issues. Simply that the process of applying for permits is made more efficient not only for the operator, but also for the regulating agencies: it is equally important that the different regulators know what each is doing with respect to a particular application.  

Dr Robin Russell-Jones also takes issue with the IPCC conclusions on shale gas. Development of shale gas may well lock us in to production for at least 30 years, but then the IPCC argues that gas consumption must increase between now and 2050 (36 years hence) to meet 450ppm stabilisation targets.

Dr Russell-Jones also takes issue with the assumption that "transition to a truly green energy system is unachievable". Whether or not this is really true or not, I genuinely do not know. I'd like it to be possible. However, no modern industrialised country, with the exception of a few small, unusual cases (for example Iceland with abundant and easily accessed geothermal) has yet achieved this, or come even remotely close to achieving this. So I do not know where Dr Russell-Jones gets his evidence from to declare it to be so adamantly untrue. His second comment is simply not supported by evidence. While estimates of methane emissions from shale pads have varied, no measurements have shown that methane levels have reached those needed to make natural gas worse for global warming than coal. Moreover, natural gas leaks are easily fixed where necessary.

Finally, Dr Lowry argues that shale extraction in this country may be uneconomic anyway. In which case lots of gas companies will lose money, which surely is no bad thing if you oppose the use of natural gas. Given that the money invested is their own, these companies can sink or swim on the basis of their own decision making. Clearly Dr Lowry knows more than the geologists employed by Total, GDF Suez and Centrica.

Moreover, the reason that some gas companies are struggling in the USA at present is because the price of gas has plummeted there, which has been great news for domestic and industrial consumers alike. If Dr Lowry is arguing that we'll see a similar plummet here then I am sure the news will be welcomed by most. If, as is more likely, gas prices are reduced a certain extent but not to the amount seen in the USA, then shale gas extraction will remain viable, and will be taxed, providing much-needed funds for local and national government alike.

Image of the day: shale development and water stress

Several images this week. This images show "water risk" in the USA for a number of industries, as computed by the World Resources Institute. The more red the colour, the greater the water risk.

Firstly, oil and gas:

Followed by electricity generation:

 What about agriculture?

And the construction industry?

The food and beverage industries?

And the textile industries?

The conclusion? While shale gas does have the potential to use a lot of water, but the risk it poses is substantially smaller than many other existing industries.

Image of the day: Hydraulic stimulation at Cotton Valley

Microseismic monitoring technology allows geophysicists to map the fractures as they are created during the stimulation process. This image shows a map of the fractures created during stimulation at Cotton Valley (an early East-Texas tight gas play). This shows the extent of a typical stimulation zone - a few hundred meters either side of the injection point, and no more than 50m above the injection depth. The black triangles show the geophones used to collect this data.

Recent Earthquakes in Ohio

The Associated Press reports several earthquakes in eastern Ohio that have been linked to shale gas extraction. If true, this represents the 4th time that hydraulic stimulation in shales has been associated with seismic activity. This follows Preese Hall, Lancashire, the Horn River Basin, Canada, and Garvin County Oklahoma.

Note that it is important to differentiate between earthquakes triggered by hydraulic stimulation (i.e. fracking) and those triggered by underground disposal of large volumes of waste fluids, which is not being considered in the UK. It is the underground waste disposal wells that have been attributed to the increase in mid-continental seismicity seen in the USA.

Attributing cause and affect with respect to earthquake triggering is a difficult challenge. Frohlich and Davis (1993) came up with a series of 7 questions that are still commonly used to attribute "induced" earthquakes. These are:

1. Are these events the first known earthquakes of this character in the region?
2. Is there a clear temporal correlation between injection and seismicity?
3. Are epicentres near wells (within 5km)?
4. Do some earthquakes occur at or near injection depths?
5. If not, are there geologic structures that may channel flow to earthquake sites?
6. Are changes in fluid pressure at the well toe sufficient to induce seismic activity?
7. Are changes in fluid pressure at hypo central locations sufficient to encourage seismicity? 

However, without good quality seismic data, these questions can be difficult to answer.

IPCC on natural gas

The "Summary for Policymakers" of the final part of the IPCC 5th Assessment Report has been released today. The IPCC AR5 is split into 3 volumes: the first focused on the physical evidence for climate change; the second on the impacts of climate change. This final part focuses on what we can do about it.

Unsurprisingly, the report calls for substantial increases in proportion of electricity generated from renewable sources. It also calls for increased levels of nuclear energy as "a mature low‐GHG emission source of baseload power".

Of most interest to this blog is the paragraph on natural gas:

GHG emissions from energy supply can be reduced significantly by replacing current world average coal‐fired power plants with modern, highly efficient natural gas combined‐cycle power plants or combined heat and power plants, provided that natural gas is available and the fugitive emissions associated with extraction and supply are low or mitigated (robust evidence, high agreement). In mitigation scenarios reaching about 450 ppm CO2eq concentrations by 2100, natural gas power generation without CCS acts as a bridge technology, with deployment increasing before peaking and falling to below current levels by 2050 and declining further in the second half of the century (robust evidence, high agreement).

This is a very strong statement. Not only must natural gas electricity generation stay at current levels, but its deployment must increase in the near term, with the amount of natural gas-fired power generation only returning to and dropping below current levels by 2050, almost 4 decades from now. This is true regardless of whether carbon capture technology is deployed at gas-fired plants. Development of CCS would further increase the need for gas:

Carbon dioxide capture and storage (CCS) technologies could reduce the lifecycle GHG emissions of fossil fuel power plants (medium evidence, medium agreement).

Note that the report categorises how strong the evidence, and the degree of consensus, for each statement it makes. These statements on natural gas have robust evidence, and a high level of agreement.

Image of the Day: Shale impacts on prices; price impacts on manufacturing

What impact has US shale gas production had on natural gas prices? It's been pretty dramatic:

Caroline Lucas, Green MP: "It's not that fracking itself is necessarily worse than ordinary gas extraction"

An interview in the Guardian with Caroline Lucas, the UK Green Party's only MP, makes for interesting reading. She's currently awaiting trial for her role in the protests at Cuadrilla's Balcombe drilling site.

She has some interesting comments about shale gas development in the UK:

For Lucas, the big problem with fracking has nothing to do with the risk that it will cause earthquakes, contaminate the water table or pollute the soil. In fact, she thinks it possible that stringent regulations could minimise those risks. "It's not that fracking itself is necessarily worse than ordinary gas extraction. It's the fact that we're just about to put into place a whole new infrastructure for a whole new fossil-fuel industry, at exactly the time when we need to be reducing our emissions." The problem, in other words, is climate change.

I've long been of the opinion that, at the upper levels of various NGOs and political groups, the primary opposition to shale gas is derived from a the climate change angle, not local pollution. The scare stories about earthquakes and pollution are a stalking horse for the real issue. Climate change concerns are unlikely to mobilise local support in any significant way, hence the need to exaggerate local impacts in order to foment local opposition. It's refreshing that Caroline Lucas has come clean about this.

Image of the day: CO2 emitted, and CO2 reserves

Shale gas, where it displaces coal in the electricity generation mix, presents a substantial reduction in CO2 emissions. These two images highlight the state of affairs in terms of global CO2 budgets. The first image shows CO2 emissions from fuel source and from country (in 2008). Clearly, Chinese and American coal are by far the biggest culprits. The second shows an estimate of the amount of CO2 embedded in fossil fuels as yet unburned. This presents us with a clear choice - if we are to continue burning fossil fuels, we should be choosing to burn gas.

Image of the Day: Nat Gas vs Renewables in the Developing World

Imagine you had $10 billion to invest in providing electricity to people in the developing world who currently go without.

The lack of electricity in the developing world is a major issue. Almost 3 billion people burn twigs and dung to keep warm and heat their food. This causes indoor air pollution, which has been estimated to cost over 4 million lives per year. Electricity allows refrigeration to keep food from spoiling and rotting. Refrigeration is also vital to keep certain medicines in good condition. Electricity powers computers and phones that allow people in developing countries to connect to the world.

The Center for Global Development have worked out how far your $10 billion would go if you were to use renewables, or were to use gas, or some mix of the two. How many people could you connect to an electricity supply?

If $10 billion of your aid and development money is invested in renewables in the developing world, it will provide electricity to 20 million people. If that money is invested in gas-fired power, it will provide electricity to 90 million people. Bjorn Lomborg provides a neat summary of the issues at stake that I recommend reading.