PhD Opportunities with Bristol and the BGS

A number of PhD positions are now available to study applied geophysics, working jointly between myself (and colleagues) at Bristol University and the British Geological Survey.

We have 4 projects advertised. Click the links to see more information about each project:

• imaging slope stability to assess landslide risk
• characterising fractures in unconventional hydrocarbon reservoirs
• monitoring and modelling induced seismicity in the UK
• monitoring the geophysical and geomechanical response to CO2 injection at CCS sites

Use this page to apply for any of these projects. The "slope stability" and "characterising fractures" projects will be hosted by the BGS. For more information about BGS-hosted projects, please see here, and note that in addition to the application process above, they must also send their application (CV, references, personal statement) to bufi "at" bgs.ac.uk.

We're really excited about these projects, so please forward on to anyone you know who will soon be finishing their undergrad or masters degree in subjects such as geoscience, physics, computer science or mathematics. 

* Please note the following regarding eligibility for DTP funding:

Applicants should have obtained, or be about to obtain, a First or Upper Second Class UK Honours degree, or the equivalent qualifications gained outside the UK. Applicants with a Lower Second Class degree will be considered if they also have a Master’s degree. Applicants with a minimum Upper Second Class degree and significant relevant non-academic experience are encouraged to apply.  All applicants need to comply with the registered University’s English language requirements.  The majority of the studentships are available for applicants who are ordinarily resident in the UK and are classed as UK/EU for tuition fee purposes, however, up to 9 fully funded studentships across the DTP are available for EU/EEA applicants not ordinarily resident in the UK.  Applicants who are classed as International for tuition fee purposes are not eligible for funding.

 

Task Force on Shale Gas: Assessing the Impact of Shale Gas on Climate Change

The Task Force on Shale Gas has released its latest report, this time covering issues of climate change. It's available here, and commentary is available from the Times and the Guardian.

The report's conclusions are:

• That, under even the most optimistic scenarios, natural gas will continue to play a role in our electricity, heating and industrial sectors for some time to come. 
• Using green completion technology (required by regulations in the UK), CO2 emissions from domestic shale gas will be comparable to emissions from domestic conventional natural gas, and lower than emissions from Qatari LNG (which has to be compressed and then shipped around the world) and from Russian gas (which has to be transported across Siberia and then Eastern Europe in leaky pipelines). 
• Therefore, it is better from an emissions perspective to develop domestic shale gas than it is to import gas from abroad (obviously it is better from an economics and geopolitical perspective too, but that's not the subject of this report).

• While it has been suggested that shale gas development may stymie investment in low carbon technologies (renewables, energy efficiency). However, this has not been the case in the USA, where renewables development has continued apace, even as the shale gas revolution has turned energy markets on their heads. This is mainly because government policies have continued to support renewables with a mix of grants, loans, tax credits and other measures. 
• Such an approach should also be used in the UK. The report recommends that taxes levied on shale gas development should be ring-fenced and re-invested in low-carbon technologies. 

    

All of this will come to no surprise to Frackland readers. In this post I point out that shale development in the USA has actually helped renewables development, not hindered it, while I have been calling for the government to commit to re-investing shale gas revenues in low-carbon tech for a number of years now - here's me on the subject almost exactly two years ago. I can only conclude that Lord Smith and his task force must also be avid readers of this blog!

Labour, fracking and "the desolate north"

The political news at present is saturated with the popcorn-fest that is the Labour leadership contest. In a recent post I criticised Andy Burhnam, the front-runner at the time. Mr Burnham was upset with the way that fracking licences had apparently been "thrown about like confetti". He was, it seemed, blissfully unaware that the licences he was upset about had actually been awarded in 2008, when Labour were in government and he himself was a cabinet member.

Today's post is about more non-joined-up thinking from senior Labour figures. In a for-and-against debate with Energy Secretary Andrea Leadsom in the Yorkshire Post, Shadow Cabinet member Michael Dugher (Shadow Transport Secretary) argues that the Tories see the North of England as "a soft touch" for fracking. He states that "Given that not one of the fracking licences covers anywhere south of Leicester, alarm bells should be ringing here".

This statement is not entirely true. Some of the 14th round licences have been awarded outright already, but many more will be awarded subject to further consultation, because there is overlap between the license areas and special habitats protected by the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations (2010). Below is a map showing these licences - light green is licences awarded in the 14th round, dark green is licences to be awarded subject to this consultation, and the light beige is existing licences (where fracking could also be conducted). So there are plenty of places south of Leicester where fracking could be allowed (subject to the usual environmental permits, planning permission etc.).

However, it's worth considering in a little more detail where fracking is likely to take place, especially in light of the recent Infratructure Act, which included provisions for shale gas extraction. Of particular note is the amendment pushed through by the Labour party. Included in this is a stipulation that:

"The Secretary of State must not issue a well consent that is required by an onshore licence for England or Wales unless the well consent imposes a condition which prohibits associated hydraulic fracturing from taking place in land at a depth of less than 1000 metres"

So fracking cannot be used in shale deposits at depths of 1000m. As far as I'm concerned, this is a silly rule - far better to assess the geological conditions at any individual site, perform risk assessments, and make a decision about whether it is or is not safe to conduct a frack at a given depth. Such an assessment would consider whether there are sensitive aquifers present, the depths to which these aquifers extend, whether the geomechanical conditions are such that they are likely to promote significant upward fracture growth, whether the hydrological conditions are such that upward fluid migration would be encouraged, and the presence of low-permeability layers between the shale and aquifers that would prevent such upward fluid migration.

However, Labour insisted that we should instead have a blanket 1000m ban, so a 1000m ban is what we have. While there are potential shale deposits in the South of England, many of the most prospective of them are shallower than 1000m depth. Therefore, with the new Infrastructure Bill in place, operators are no longer as interested in them.

In short, Mr Dugher is trying to claim that, for political reasons, the Conservatives are giving out licences in the North, but not in the South. In fact, the reality is that, for geological reasons, Mr Dugher and his Labour party colleagues have made sure that fracking operations will be focussed in the North, and essentially issued a de facto ban on fracking in the South. Much like Mr Burnham, without realising it he is criticising his own policy decisions.


Any discussion involving Labour politics at present of course cannot ignore the rise of Jeremy Corbyn. Mr Corbyn is strongly opposed to fracking, having recently sponsored an early day motion calling for a moratorium. However, he is in favour of re-opening coal mines in the UK. These positions are spectacularly condradictory. By whatever measure you choose, coal mining is worse than shale gas:

• Burning coal produces twice as much CO2 as burning natural gas
• Burning coal produces a lot of air pollutants and particulate matter that results in significant health issues. The American Lung Association estimates that air pollution from coal-fired power stations is responsible for 13,000 deaths a year. Natural gas is clean-burning, so does not face these issues. 
• Burning coal also leaves behind the solid residue "fly ash", which is troublesome to dispose of, and can cause devastation if spilled. Again, natural gas produces no such waste product. 
• Coal mining is a dangerous process. Cave-ins and explosions have killed and are killing thousands of miners around the world. Working on a gas drilling rig is a far safer occupation. The image below shows the number of deaths per TWh of energy generated for a variety of sources. You can see how poorly coal performs compared to any other energy source. 

• Coal mining can produce substantial amounts of induced seismicity. It also leads to ground subsidence, which is usually more damaging. While shale gas extraction can also cause earthquakes, these are far less common, and shale gas extraction does not cause subsidence. The image below (from this paper) shows the number of quakes, and their magnitudes, induced by different activities. Shale gas is a minor source compared to coal mining. 

•  Coal mining leads to Acid Mine Drainage, a common form of water pollution (far more extensive than any water-pollution issues related to shale gas extraction).

Given the above, I'd love for Mr Corbyn to explain why and how these contradictions can be resolved such that fracking should be the subject of a ban, but that coal mines should be re-opened?

Simulating induced seismicity using geomechanics

The best possible words in the life of an academic are undoubtably "paper accepted". Since I've recently had a paper accepted in EPSL. I thought I would add a layman's summary of it here. 

The paper is available here, and is "open access", so you shouldn't need a subscription to read it. 

Our motivation is to try to understand and model why subsurface processes cause induced earthquakes. Induced seismicity has become a controversial issue in relation to fracking, but in fact the risk of inducing an earthquake during fracking are much lower than the risk of inducing an earthquake by other subsurface activities, such as geothermal energy, waste water injection and carbon capture and storage. 

The main reason for this is simply a matter of volume - the more volume you inject, the more likely you are to trigger an earthquake. While much has been made of the water volumes used for fracking, they are actually quite small in the grand scheme of things. The volumes injected for waste-water disposal and for CCS are much larger than the volumes used for fracking. This is why we've seen such increases in seismicity in places like Oklahoma in recent years (it's got very little to do with fracking). 

We've also seen induced seismicity - albeit of small magnitude, less than mag 3 - at two pilot CCS projects, the Decatur project in Illinois, and at the In Salah project in Algeria, which is the subject of our study. 

Firstly, a brief introduction to the In Salah site. It's a gas field in the middle of the Sahara desert. 

Due to natural geological processes, the natural gas that is produced contains a relatively high percentage of CO2. This must be stripped off before the gas can be sold - there are minimum CO2 content requirements. Usually, the CO2 would just be vented to the atmosphere. However, the operators of the site, BP, Statoil and Sonatrach, decided to use the site as a pilot project for CO2. So they instead re-injected the CO2 into the water-leg of the reservoir (part of the reservoir unit that is filled with water rather than gas). The image below shows the basic principles in cartoon form.  

In total nearly 4 million tonnes of CO2 were injected between 2004 - 2011. The average car emits about 4 tonnes of CO2 per year, so that's the equivalent of the annual emissions of 1 million cars.

The site was monitored using a number of methods, but it was clear from relatively early on than the CO2 injection was producing geomechanical deformation. As a result, microseismic monitoring was used to image any small earthquakes. You can read more about the results of the microseismic monitoring here, but the main conclusions were that thousands of small-magnitude (mostly around magnitude 0.0) events had been induced. The largest event was magnitude 1.7, which is probably too small to be felt by humans at the surface (we can detect them with seismometers though of course), and definitely too small to cause damage. Fortunately, all the events were confined to the reservoir unit, so there was no evidence that the seismicity was providing a pathway for CO2 to escape.  

So, what's this latest paper all about?

The basic premise of our study was that induced events occur on pre-existing fractures. They occur because industrial activities change the state of stress in the subsurface, moving a fault from a stable to an unstable state, which allows it to move, triggering an earthquake. So in theory, if we can predict or model where the faults and fractures are, and we can predict or model the changes in stress generated by our activities, we can resolve the stress changes onto the faults, and work out when and where faults might trigger seismicity. The purpose of our paper was to assess how well this approach works in practice. 

To model the size, orientation and positions of faults and fractures I am indebted to my colleague Dr. Clare Bond at Aberdeen, who build a structural model of the reservoir, which simulates how the reservoir geometry we observe today could have formed from the originally-flat sedimentary layers. This produces a strain map, which is then converted into a discrete fracture network to account for how fractures would have accommodated the modelled strain. The resulting fracture map is shown below: you can see that fractures are not uniformly distributed across the reservoir, but there are bands of intense fracturing running through the reservoir, and zones with much fewer fractures. 

In order to simulate the stress changes induced by injection, I am indebted to another colleague, Rob Bissell, from Carbon Fluids Ltd., who built a geomechanical simulation of the injection process. More details about this model are available here. The model provides a map of stress and pore-pressure changes at monthly intervals through the injection period. 

In order to work out whether the modelled stress changes would be sufficient to induce seismicity, for each modelled fracture we resolved the modelled stress from the nearest node of the geomechanical model into normal and shear stresses on the fracture face. If the shear stress exceeded the Mohr-Couloumb criteria, then an event will occur. The size of the event will be determined by the stress drop generated by the event, which will be a function of the shear stress, and the size of the fracture, which is pre-determined in the model provided by Dr Bond. 

Therefore we have a method to simulate when and where an earthquake may occur, and how big it will be. We tested our model simulation results against the microseismic observations made by my colleague Dr. Anna Stork in this paper. 

The figure below shows that the relative rates of seismicity predicted by the model matches that observed at In Salah. CO2 injection re-starts in late 2009. However, only a small amount of seismicity is observed. Injection rates increase in summer 2010, and for 4 months the rate of induced seismicity also increases. Once injection rates are reduced, the number of events decays away as well. This behaviour is well captured by our model. 

In terms of magnitudes, our modelled largest event matched very well the observed largest magnitude of M=1.7. Magnitudes are determined by the size of the fault and the stress drop, so this indicates that Dr Bond's model did a good job of simulating the fault/fracture sizes, and that Rob Bissell's model did a good job of simulating the stress changes induced by injection. 

Overall, our model does a good job of simulating induced events at In Salah, which is encouraging in terms of our future ability to mitigate induced seismicity at future projects. We have outlined a workflow that can be followed at sensitive sites where induced seismicity may be an issue. For example, the modelling approach can be used to assess whether alternative injection strategies may lower the risk of inducing an event. 

Medact Report Gets the Treatment it Deserves

A few months ago I didn't discuss a report by the charity Medact on the public health implications of shale gas - it simply wasn't of sufficient quality to be worth bothering with (although a detailed rebuttal from UKOOG is available here).

This report formed a major part of opposition group objections to Cuadrilla's proposed operations in Lancashire. The views of the Lancashire County Council Development Control Committee officers on the Medact report make for interesting reading (p311):

"The Medact report has not produced new epidemiological research but has reviewed published literature and has requested short papers from relevant experts in particular subject areas. It has also interviewed academics and experts."

"Unfortunately, one of the contributors (contributing to three of the report's six chapters – chapters 2, 4 and 5) has led a high profile campaign in the Fylde related to shale gas. Another contributor to the report (chapter 3) has previously expressed firm views on shale gas and has objected to this application. This has led to questions from some quarters about the report's objectivity."

"In light of these uncertainties it is not clear how much weight the County Council should attach to the report."

In other words, it's bunkum, and it's been given the treatment it deserves. More generally, on public health in general the Development Control Committee found that:

"While much research exists, and is growing in volume each year, it is difficult to gain an objective view of the veracity of the research. Anti-fracking campaigners frequently point to studies that indicate increased health risks (e.g. elevated risks of cancer or birth defects) as a result of shale gas activity in North America. Conversely, pro-fracking campaigners point to numerous methodological flaws in the research. It is also difficult to translate the findings of research from North America into the UK environment. Operating and regulatory practices are very different."

"PHE highlight significant methodological flaws in the research that has been cited to the County Council."

"Moreover, one study frequently cited by objectors (McKenzie, 2014) has been publically criticised by the Chief Medical Officer and Executive Director of the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment in the USA as follows: "we disagree with many of the specific associations with the occurrence of birth defects noted within the study. Therefore, a reader of the study could easily be misled to become overly concerned.”"

"PHE state that direct application of the North American research to the UK situation is impossible because of the wide differences between the two countries."

And they conclude that (my emphases):

"Nevertheless, from the modelling, audit checks and sensitivity analysis conducted by the Environment Agency it is expected there will be no exceedance of standards that protect public health. Public Health England is satisfied the currently available evidence indicates that the potential risks to public health from exposure to the emissions associated with such extraction are low if the operations are properly run and regulated."

 

 

 

 

 

Scotland's Got Gas: Royal Society of Edinburgh Report

The Royal Society of Edinburgh have released a new report into Scotland's future gas use and supply today.

It outlines the importance of natural gas to Scotland's economy. Compared to the rest of the UK (rUK), gas isn't much used for electricity generation - only 10%, but it is vital for domestic heating and as an industrial feedstock. Even in the best-case scenario, Scotland will need 39,400GWh of gas per year in 2035. This demand can either be met by increasing offshore production, extracting unconventional gas from onshore, or by importing gas from abroad. Each poses its own technical, economic and social challenges.

Focussing on onshore unconventional gas, the report concludes (my emphases):

"Onshore production of unconventional gas would allow Scotland control over all regulation surrounding extraction and production. The impact of unconventional gas production on the environment is considered to be comparable to conventional gas. The areas of health, wellbeing and safety surrounding an onshore industry do not appear to present significant risks, although a degree of uncertainty is present. Domestic production onshore could improve energy security, create jobs and ensure Scotland takes responsibility for its energy consumption."

"Public opinion relating to onshore unconventional gas development, particularly surrounding safety, in Scotland is often negative and this could make developing an industry difficult. The characteristics of onshore production are notably different from the offshore industry with which the country is familiar. Increased traffic and noise and light pollution occur during early stages of development." 

Meanwhile, it is critical of the alternative option of relying more and more on gas imports from abroad:

"Relying on imported gas from abroad appears inconsistent with Scotland taking responsibility for its energy use. While such reliance may serve to decrease the recorded carbon emissions attributed to Scotland and respond to public desire not to develop gas onshore, it would do so at a cost. Health and safety regulations and environmental regulations in supplying countries may not be at the standard they would be in Scotland, with a higher risk of injury and death to workers and a higher risk of environmental impacts local to production. 

"The transport of gas via pipeline or tanker across the globe also results in fugitive emissions, leaks and a considerable use of energy which add to the global carbon footprint. Hence, the global carbon footprint of the gas that Scotland consumes, and the impacts at the point of production, are likely to be far higher for imported gas than for Scottish onshore or offshore production."

There is one section, however, where I think this report gets things wrong, and that is in conflating, taxes, subsidies and investment. The report concludes that:

"Considerable uncertainty exists over potential reserves of unconventional gas, meaning the significant government expenditure that would be required to kick-start a fledgling industry could be for nought."

Which is surprising to me, because governments (either Scottish or rUK) are not making any significant expenditure to develop this industry. Sure, they have funded a few reports and a few research projects, but this could hardly be described as remotely "significant".

The investment for shale gas development - the geophysical surveys, the exploratory boreholes, the nursing of project applications through the planning system - is all being paid for by the operators themselves, funded either by private capital or their shareholders. This is as it should be, and I'm not aware of any operators saying anything different. This is an important difference between domestic shale gas and other options like offshore wind and/or nuclear, in that shale gas development doesn't really need any government subsidies or investments.

Digging into the detail of the report, it says the following:

"Like most fledgling industries, unconventional gas would require substantial government support, most likely in the form of tax incentives, in order to develop.  Even with investment from the government, the geological risk (i.e. the size of resource and/or the cost of extraction) is significant and an unconventional gas industry may simply fail to take off, creating no jobs or return on that investment."

So the only "investment" from the government is a tax break. Firstly, it's worth noting that if an operator does successfully produce shale gas, it'll be paying tax at a rate of 32%. Most non-oil-and-gas companies pay corporation tax at 20%. The major producing fields of the North Sea pay tax at 62%. So although shale operators are getting a tax break relative to some North Sea producers, they'll still be paying more tax than most companies in most other sectors, so it's all relative.

More importantly, this only matters if operators are making significant profits. If it does turn out that the geological conditions aren't quite right and shale gas can't be extracted profitably in the UK, then the tax level set by the government is completely irrelevant, because you only pay tax on your profit, not your turnover. The government would receive no tax, regardless of whether the tax rate is 32% or 62%. From the government's perspective, it has nothing to lose, it can only gain. The only people who stand to lose if a UK shale industry is unsuccessful are the private investors with shares in the onshore operating companies, and I don't think the general public will be too worried about those "bankers".

So to conclude, the report is very strong on the science and technical aspects, and the environmental side of things. But probably needs to brush up a little on the economics side of things.

 

 

Andy Burnham gets it all wrong on fracking

If I were to write a blog post every time someone got things wrong about shale gas, I'd have little time for anything else. However, when that person is Andy Burnham, currently front-runner in the Labour leadership race, and therefore someone who could possibly be in charge of the country one day, I'm prepared to make an exception.

His comments on shale gas have been reported in the Guardian, and I thought I'd share my thoughts on what he's said.

"These things [fracking licences] just seem to be handed out like confetti"

Which is news to me, and most of the UK's operators I presume, because no licences to conduct fracking have been granted since the moratorium was lifted in 2012. Moreover Petroleum Exploration and Development Licences (PEDLs) were last awarded in the 13th licensing round, in 2008. At which time Andy Burnham was himself in the Cabinet under Gordon Brown's government. So if he has an issue with the number of PEDLs granted, it's the fault of a government of which he was himself a key member.

Moreover, crucially PEDLs do not grant a company the right to conduct fracking. They grant a company the right to explore for shale gas - to drill rock cores from exploratory boreholes, conduct seismic surveys, etc. However, a whole range of additional permissions, from the EA, DECC and others are required before an operator is allowed to perform hydraulic fracturing. No operator has sought such permissions since the moratorium was lifted in 2012*. So it seems that "handed out like confetti" actually means "not handed out at all".

*onshore, that is. There's still plenty of fracking going on in the North Sea.

"In my area, we are riddled with mine shafts as a former mining area"

Which would be why any operator working in an area where coal seams are present has to seek a permit from the Coal Authority before it undertakes any activities (see this guidance from DECC).

"Where is the evidence that it is safe to come and frack a place like this? No fracking should go ahead until we have much clearer evidence on the environmental impact."

Andy Burnham couldn't really have chosen worse timing to make this statement, coming as it does literally days after the release of a major report by the US's EPA showing no widespread pollution from shale extraction, and that fracking can be done safely and responsibly. In answer to your question Mr Burnham, the evidence is available on the EPA's website, as well as in the reports commissioned by the Royal Society and Public Health England.

"How can we justify in this day and age allowing a multinational to frack a local community without their say so? The next step, beyond the moratorium, would be to give local people a much bigger say in whether or not it can proceed."

Shale gas extraction is subject to the same planning rules as any other development activity. The local county council must grant planning permission for a well site to be constructed. So local people already do have a say in whether shale gas can proceed, via the planning system. Also note that I'm not aware of any multinationals planning to frack "a local community". They are planning to frack rocks, which are 2 - 3km underground. This sloppy use of language in order to inflame opinion is worrying.

"If we are going to carry on with fossil fuels we are basically sending a message that renewables aren’t where we want to be."

That, in a nutshell, is the essence of the problem. Renewables ARE NOT where we want them to be, regardless of the "message" that we choose to send. Hopefully at some point in the future, with technological improvements, they will get there. Yes, having the political willpower is important, but ultimately the reason we can't rely on renewables is a technological one, not political.

"The Guardian campaign has got quite a lot of traction and is quite powerful"

As per the last point, the Guardian campaign has no doubt been successful within its own remit - to develop a talking point, and to sell newspapers. It may indeed have got a lot of people talking, and it may have got a lot of political traction. However, it won't make much impact in the real world.

The issue at hand is to reduce the amount of fossil fuels we burn. Yet renewables are no more effective and efficient, and no less intermittent, than they were before the Guardian's campaign began. No improvements in energy storage have been made because of it. Only increased investment in R&D will achieve this. A far more effective policy would be one that allowed a shale industry to develop, and taxed it appropriately, ring-fencing these revenues to be spend on renewables/efficiency/nuclear R&D. 

"I am pitching this as part of a pro-business, new economy move"

Personally, I don't see investment in renewables as pro-business. Yes, investment in this sector will of course boost jobs in this sector. However, if this investment is derived from increased energy bill surcharges, then it poses a cost, and therefore an economic drag, on most other industry sectors. It's at best a re-arrangement of the economy, not an overall boost.

  

 

  

 

The truth and it's boots: publication bias and shale gas

"A lie can get halfway around the world while the truth is still getting it's boots on". While the origins of this quote are disputed, there can be little doubting of the sentiment behind it.

This can even be true in the peer-reviewed scientific literature: often a "high-impact" finding gets substantial publicity, and is then cited extensively in the literature, while subsequent studies that rebut these findings are, relatively-speaking, ignored.

To be clear, there is no "lying" involved here, in the sense of deliberate misconduct or anything like that. However studies with small sample sizes or especially studies that are poorly designed, are more likely to throw up anomalous results. Once larger studies are performed that are more statistically robust, the anomalous effect, which could have just been a fluke (after all, 95% confidence levels means a 1 in 20 chance of being incorrect), goes away.

This is an important part of science. Smaller preliminary studies may give way to larger studies that produce a more robust result. However, what is important is that the more robust studies are cited as often, or more so, than the one that produced the "sexy" result.

I bring this issue up after reading an interesting blog post here, which considers this issue with respect to educational psychology. An early paper suggested that by making questions on an exam paper harder to read, students would read them more carefully and therefore achieve higher marks.
The study sampled only 40 students. Subsequently, other researchers repeated the study with thousands of candidates, but were not able to repeat the results, finding no difference between test scores regardless of how the question was written.

All well and good, and this is how science should proceed. However the original study, with the result subsequently shown to be incorrect, has been cited hundreds of times and received extensive publicity: it's got halfway around the world - while the subsequent paper, which was much more robust but with a much more prosaic finding - has been cited much less: it's barely got its boots on!


This is analogous to certain papers on shale gas. Papers that claim to find links between shale gas and pollution are far more interesting and scientifically "sexy". Therefore they get widely publicised and cited. Papers that find no links between shale gas and pollution are far more boring, and they fail to get attention. This can be seen in a comparison between several recent papers.

In 2011 a team from Duke University published a paper in PNAS linking shale gas production in the Marcellus to elevated methane levels in groundwater, based on 60 water samples. This paper has been cited over 530 times (Google Scholar). The same team covered the Fayetteville shale in Arkansas in a similar study, but did not find any link between shale gas and groundwater methane. The less-interesting finding was only published in Applied Geochemistry, far less prestigious than PNAS, and has received only 30 subsequent citations.

In 2013 the Duke team published another paper (again in PNAS) again linking methane to drilling in the Marcellus, extending the 2011 study to a total of 140 water samples. Again, the "sexy" result generated substantial interest, and the 2013 paper has been cited almost 150 times. However, also in 2013 a study by Molofsky et al. used almost 2,000 water samples, but did not find any link between groundwater methane and shale gas drilling. Again, this "unsexy" study found it's way into a much lower impact journal ("Groundwater"). With nearly 2,000 water samples vs 140 samples, the Molofsky paper is far more statistically robust than the PNAS papers, yet it has only been cited 50 times.

The impact of this imbalance in publicity has implications for policy-relevant subjects such as shale gas. It is noticeable that recent reports studying the public health impacts of shale gas development, such as the CIEH and Medact reports for example, cite the "sexy" PNAS studies, but fail to cite the more robust Molofsky paper.

To wrap up, publication bias is an acknowledged issue in the academic literature, albeit more so in biological sciences. It is interesting to see it creeping into the geological world. However, I don't really have an easy remedy to conclude with (so suggestions in the comments I suppose).

Forget Easter, Happy Geologist Day

To all my geological readers: Happy Geologists Day.

Geologists Day was created in the USSR to honour Soviet geologists for their role in finding the minerals and oil that built and fuelled the soviet state. It falls on the first Sunday of April, as this would be when the summer field season began.

Having lived in Russia for several years, and being a geologist of course, this day has particular resonance for me. Courtesy of "Dr Geophysics" a poem and a toast:

To all geologists, loving and gentle,
Whose clothes are baggy and who dressed very neatly.
To all very young ones and very mature,
Who are hiking peninsulas, mountains, and islands,
Avoiding tsunami and looking for landslides.
Geologists very romantic (there are no others).
(Translation from the Russian poem)

Я предлагаю тост (Ya predlagau tost - I propose a toast*):

“Dear friends, let us drink a few drops.
May the geologists, working far from home,
in the wildernesses and the most remote regions of our restless planet,
soaked by rain, frozen by snow, yet warmed with friendship,
safely return home to their loved ones”

*Toasting is a big part of any Russian meal. At a meal, each guest is expected to propose a toast, which is accompanied by a slug of vodka - if you have a lot of guests it can end up being a lot of vodka! Since I mainly hung out with other ex-pats, I never learned a lot of Russian, but Я предлагаю тост is definitely one phrase that stuck!

Something I've learned while writing this post is that when Geologists Day was inaugurated in 1966, geology was a very romantic subject in Russia, as field parties explored and mapped the uncharted corners of vast Siberia. It seems like a good escape from the oppressive soviet authorities of the time. Indeed, the field of geology even produced a recognised school of poetry in 1950/60s Leningrad (St Petersburg). Sadly my Russian isn't good enough to translate any of this work, but I would be interested in finding translations.

Medact vs British Columbia

The latest fracking-related media ripple comes to us courtesy of Medact, a health-campaigining organisation, who have written a report on the potential health impacts of fracking. I say ripple because it seems that even the media appear to be tiring of these endless reports.

In fact, some reporting has focussed on the fact that Medact's director appears to have been unaware that the "independent expert" who contributed large sections of the report was also standing for parliament in the Fylde on an anti-fracking platform (the same Mike Hill who has featured previously on this blog).

The report brings up the usual talking points about well integrity, water contamination and air pollution, concluding that we should have a fracking moratorium.

I'm currently busy with other work, so I'm not going to post a detailed discussion of the report as I have done with similar reports in the past.

Instead, I am going to leave it to the reader to compare the Medact report, supposedly written by public health professionals, with another shale-gas-public-health report also recently released by the British Columbia Ministry of Health. Update 1.4.2015: Some of the links appear to be broken at present. The home page for the B.C. study is here, a brief summary is available here, and a ppt is available here, but as you'll note the links to the report itself don't seem to work at present.

The B.C. report comes to very different conclusions to Medact - generally speaking health risks are considered to be low, and while recommendations to improve regulations are suggested as you would expect, they do not see the need for a moratorium or ban. The level of detail and the amount of work in the B.C. report is impressive - when reading the Medact report after reading this, I am left feeling how amateurish the Medact study looks.

Update 1.4.2015: UKOOG have issued a detailed rebuttal, showing how the Medact report has failed to understand how the UK regulatory system works.

Anti-fracking parliamentary candidate's embarrassing email

Mike Hill is a prominent anti-fracking activist in Lancashire, who is currently running for parliament on an anti-fracking ticket. Mr Hill is an engineer by training, so he's somewhat more effective than most of the anti-fracking groups, who as we have seen tend to take a strongly anti-scientific bent.

Mr Hill featured on this blog when I discussed the relevance of certain US studies for the UK context: he often cites these papers as evidence for what might be expected in the UK, but actually they describe practices (uncontrolled venting of flowback gases with no capture and/or no flaring) that are not allowed in the UK, and so the studies are of very limited relevance.

Anyway, I mention him now because emails have come to light showing that only 2 years ago Mr Hill was writing to Cuadrilla asking them for work. This is presumably very embarrassing for a candidate running on an anti-fracking platform, particularly given some of the comments about other activist groups in his email:

"Just being anti-fracking is nonsense to me and always has been. It's purely a reaction and not a positive one. Often in response to utter gibberish news stories or propaganda set off by Frack-Off and co. I am up to the eyeballs with it. They want me to add professional credence to this utter nonsense." 

Can't say I disagree with much here (which makes a nice change for me, grumpy-guts that I usually am).

Further comments on the Talk Fracking "Frackademics" report

After my original comments on Talk Fracking's "Frackademics" report, it seems my critique has garnered a response. Which was nice. Quotes from the response are in bold, and my further comments follow.

"Here follows a quick rebuttal. It is not comprehensive and we do not intend to embark on a lengthy program of tit for tat social media discussions."

Well, at least they got something right with regard to the uncomprehensive nature of the response! With regards social media, I would suggest that if you want to avoid a lengthy tit for tat then don't smother your social media feeds with images that appear to incite physical assault against academics. Also, don't write letters to the Heads of Departments and funding bodies of the academics you've taken a dislike to asking that they "take appropriate actions to protect the reputation of your institution".

As an aside, I'd be very interested to find out what TF believe would count as "appropriate actions". Should we be muzzled to prevent us from speaking to the public? Should we be fired?

Talk Fracking have clearly gone to considerable effort to produce this report, and to mount a social media campaign associated with the report, and even to write letters to university departments, individual academics, science funding councils, science engagement charities, and government ministers. If you're prepared to do this, you should be prepared to offer a fully comprehensive response when the targets of your attack point out the gaping flaws in your original report. If you can't, please write further letters to all of the above explaining that you were wrong and rescinding your accusations.

Moving on to the more specific points:

"His point doesn’t address the scale of ‘known’ and ‘producible’ fossil fuel reserves – and the fact that this scale is far greater than it will ever be safe to produce" 

Here's a couple of images the show (above) where our unburnable fossil fuel reserves are held, and (below) where our emissions are coming from.

You can see that the majority of our CO2 emissions, and the majority of the CO2 embedded in reserves, are in coal. Quickly phasing out coal is by far the most important thing we can do with respect to CO2 emissions. Meanwhile, we really don't want the oil and gas industries to stop producing immediately tomorrow - if they were to do so, civilisation as we know it would collapse. Therefore it is appropriate to conduct research into extracting oil and gas as efficiently as we can, while at the same time accepting that we cannot continue to burn it at the rates we presently do. These are not mutually exclusive positions, and nothing in the original report or Mr Mobbs' further comments actually challenge this position.

"The only viable model for efficient CCS would be for power generation. You can’t fit CCS to a road vehicle or a home heating boiler! [...] Most of the world’s carbon emissions do not come from power generation."

At no point do I argue that CCS is a silver bullet that can resolve all our problems. Mr Mobbs is attacking a straw-man. However, I will add a few comments anyway. My research is funded by the UK taxpayer, so I tend to focus on solutions applicable to the UK. The following image (from the CCC) breaks up the UK's emission by sector. CCS can feasibly be applied both to the power sector and to major industrial emitters. In the UK these account for 265 MT of CO2 out of our total emissions of just over 600MT, or about 40%. CCS cannot provide the whole solution, and I've never said it can. It can play an important role, however, so it is important that we continue to develop it. Therefore, as per my original comments, paying academics to conduct research in this area is completely appropriate, and nothing in Mr Mobbs' comments actually challenges this assertion.

Moreover, the only viable model for a near-zero emission civilisation is to decarbonise electricity generation, and then electrify almost everything. It's all very well pointing out that it'd be better if more people used public transport, but the tricky part is actually getting people to do so while living in a society where people are free to make their own choices.

I have no doubt that electrification of home heating, transport and the like will "create its own ecological/resource depletion impacts", but that is why climate change is such a tricky problem to solve! I think it is incorrect to say that "no mainstream agency wants to discuss [this] because it involves significant lifestyle change": most mainstream organisations would love for people to make low-carbon lifestyle changes all on their own accord, but they also need to assume when they plan for the future that most people will be extremely reluctant to do so.

For what it's worth, over the course of my 10 years in academia I have been involved in 3 CCS projects around the world: Weyburn, In Salah, and Sleipner (read my PNAS paper here). Between them, these projects have successfully sequestered tens of millions of tonnes of CO2. The average EU citizen emits 8.5 tonnes of CO2 per year. Obviously I played only a small role in these significant projects, but I am proud of the fact that during the period of my involvement the equivalent emissions of millions of people were prevented from reaching the atmosphere, while the scientific understanding to facilitate the capturing of millions of tons more was also advanced, and that I made a small contribution to helping this happen.

"“If the RS is so corrupted by industry, as is claimed by TalkFracking” *No such claim is made*". 
The flowcharts published alongside the TF report are certainly intended to give the impression that industry has wielded an undue influence on this report. I am glad to learn that Mr Mobbs has clarified that he does not actually believe this to be the case.

In the promotional material released alongside this report, it is claimed that the TF paper "undermines the foundations of the [RS/RAE Report]". Yet it seems the only alleged criticism is that it is "premature". No actual criticism of its content is put forward. Hardly much of a basis for the RS/RAE report's conclusions to be dismissed in any way whatsoever - the foundations look to be in good condition to me.

"He seems unwilling to discuss the prematurity of their conclusions"
No, I'm still waiting for actual specific criticism to be provided - which of the RS/RAE conclusions and recommendations cannot now be supported?

"Classic! Is he saying that it’s not necessary to have the ability to measure the impacts of unconventional gas extraction in order to regulate them? He can’t seriously mean that. That’s not science, that’s numerology."
No, I'm pointing out that we do have the ability to measure the impacts of unconventional gas extraction, and therefore it is possible to regulate them. This is basic primary school reading comprehension now! Are the impacts always monitored in the USA? No, they aren't, regulations vary state-by-state, with some doing better than others. However, in the UK the new rules passed in the Infrastructure Bill require the impacts on air quality, groundwater quality, seismicity, noise, climate change (via fugitive emissions), etc to be monitored at every site (and the EA would likely require such monitoring anyway without the IB).

"He resorts to talking about well integrity, and fails to acknowledge the problems of traffic generation, air pollution, and the generation of – compared to conventional gas and oil – large quantities of contaminated effluent which has to be disposed of."
I talk about well integrity because it is acknowledged that in the handful of cases where elevated groundwater methane levels have been observed and robustly linked to gas extraction, it is well bore integrity issues that have been the culprit.

Yes, we can discuss traffic movements, but then you can extend that same accusation to any kind of energy development. For some perspective, at peak levels Cuadrilla anticipate a maximum of something like 40-50 truck movements per day for their proposed Lancashire site, or 4 trucks going past per hour during the working day, and most days it'll be much less than this (one truck an hour or less). The expected traffic levels over the life of the site are depicted below:

Yes, it's important to choose sites with appropriate access roads - that's what the planning system is there to do (for example I had no issue with WSCC rejecting Celtique's proposed site for traffic reasons). But do 4 trucks an hour during working hours for a couple of weeks, on a well planned and sited pad, vastly alter the risk profile of shale gas extraction to the point where the risks are substantially different to a conventional well pad?

With regards the disposal of large volumes of waste water, Mr Mobbs clearly hasn't "look[ed] at the whole development/production system", or he'd be aware that the existing onshore conventional industry in the UK deals with over 70 million barrels of produced water every year, equivalent to the expected flowback water from approximately 7,000 fracked wells per year, which is 17 times more than the IoD estimate of a maximum of 400 wells fracked per year.

"“The TF report relies heavily on the well-known papers written by Howarth et al.”
No it doesn’t."
I'm glad to hear that the TF report is not relying on the Howarth papers. The trouble is, if you take away the Howarth papers, the remaining arguments are flimsy. I noted 6 peer-reviewed studies, a study for the European Commission and a study for the US National Renewable Energy Laboratory that all support the conclusions made in the MacKay and Stone report. Without the Howarth papers, the TF report has only the unsupported, un-peer-reviewed assertions of a member of the public who doesn't appear to have any relevant qualifications, nor be a member of any relevant professional organisation. Yet on this basis, and this alone, TF claim to have undermined the very foundations of these reports.

"I refer to data based upon instrumental analysis from the NOAA’s ‘SONGNEX’ programme – not the assumed ‘inventory-based’ studies Verdon alludes to"
I can also cite NOAA data if it is preferred: their latest paper shows overflight measurements that match inventory data for the Haynesville, Fayetteville and Marcellus shales.

Returning to the TF report, the only study cited is a Nature commentary on the Petron et al. (2014) study over the Denver-Julesberg basin. This study is based on only 6 hours of measurements over one field. Again, TF criticise Allen et al. (2013) for being unrepresentative, but base their own conclusions on only 6 hours of data collection. These caveats are clearly stated in the Petron paper: "It is beyond the scope of this paper to derive an emission inventory for the same time period represented by our measurements, i.e., a midday snapshot on 2 days in May 2012."

More importantly, the D-Jb basin produces associated gas, which means that the wells are mainly producing oil and/or condensate, with associated gas. This is a very different situation to many other shales in the USA, and to the Bowland shale in the UK. Although the oil price has now come down, at the time of the study oil was dear but gas was cheap, so without regulations saying they can't (and it seems like Colorado did not have regulations about methane venting and emissions capturing) operators may have vented methane associated with the produced oil. This is described in the Petron paper: "In Weld County, according to the state inventory, the bulk of total O&G VOC emissions come from uncaptured or unburned flashing emissions at oil and liquid condensate storage tanks" (my emphasis).

This process is not allowed in the UK: any emissions must be captured, and either passed into a production line or flared, burning the methane so that it is not emitted. Therefore TF are citing data that is completely irrelevant for the UK situation.

To conclude, the overarching point for the UK is that fugitive methane emissions can be measured on site, and indeed such measurements are required to be made and reported to the EA. Therefore, whatever the case may be in the USA, and I agree that more data should be collected combining both overflight and on-the-ground measurements into one study, we have the mechanisms in place to ensure that fugitive emissions in the UK are reduced to a minimum.

"The 1,329tcf figure represents the 50% probability from BGS’ report. The 822tcf figure I use in my work represents the 90% probability. Therefore, to quote Verdon, using a probabilistic analysis which is the “most probable” figure of gas to be produced? – it’s not the 50%!"
Mr Mobbs doubles down on his demonstration that he doesn't understand statistics. To make matters a little clearer, the following figures show probability histograms from the BGS Bowland report for the upper and lower Bowland shale units.

Each bar represents the probability that the true volume of gas resource lies within the given window. The larger the bar, the greater the probability that the given value represents the true amount of gas in the ground. Pretty clear that the most probable gas volume is at or around 1,200-1,300tcf when both units are considered jointly, and that 800tcf is not particularly probable.

"We would now like to formally invite / challenge James Verdon to a public head to head debate with Paul Mobbs".
Publicity material posted on social media by Talk Fracking and linked to the Frackademics report appears to incite and threaten physical assault on academic scientists. I will not share a stage with people who think that this is an acceptable way to behave. Mr Mobbs claims that "[he] do[es] not “deny science”. Science is the basis of what [he does]". I therefore ask him to state categorically whether he believes that posting images that appear to threaten and incite assault against scientists is acceptable, and if not, why he allowed such material to be published in association with his report.

Talk Fracking also wrote to my Head of Department, suggesting that he take "appropriate actions to protect the reputation of your institution". As above, TF do not state what they consider the "appropriate actions" might be, but it seems probably that they'd either like us to be fired or at the least prevent from expressing ourselves in public. Again, I ask: does Mr Mobbs feel that threatening the freedom of academics to say and publish what they wish is an acceptable way to behave?

So I have no interest in sharing a stage with those who appear to incite physical assault against myself and my colleagues, and who write to senior members of my institution in the hope that they act to curtail academic freedom.  

I should make some more general statements about the issue of public debates. I have been involved in numerous public discussions about fracking, including on local and national radio, as well as at public events. "Against*" me in such debates presenting a more negative view of fracking have included senior members of Friends of the Earth, senior members of CPRE, and members of the Tyndall Centre, for example.

*I hesitate to use the word "against". We came at the problem from different viewpoints for sure, but in most cases I feel that these were fruitful discussions, rather than adversarial debates.

So clearly I am not "unwilling to debate the subject in public". However, I do have some limits when it comes to public events. Generally speaking, I have no issue debating fellow scientists, and/or members of professional organisations who have the relevant expertise. The situation with NGOs can vary: as above I've had fruitful debates with senior members of Friends of the Earth, but I don't really ever expect to be able to have a sensible discussion with Greenpeace.

I think Richard Dawkins puts it best when discussing the risk one takes when debating non-experts:

"When the debate is with someone like a Young Earth creationist, as the late Stephen Gould pointed out – they've won the moment you agree to have a debate at all. Because what they want is the oxygen of respectability. They want to be seen on a platform with a real scientist, because that conveys the idea that here is a genuine argument between scientists. They may not win the argument – in fact, they will not win the argument, but it makes it look like there really is an argument to be had. Just as I wouldn't expect a gynecologist to have a debate with somebody who believes in the Stork-theory of reproduction, I won't do debates with Young Earth creationists." 

I have no interest in given Mr Mobbs the oxygen of respectability by appearing on the stage with him. If he believes that the various reports pertaining to UK shale are in error, he is welcome to submit his objections to the peer-reviewed scientific literature, where they can be assessed and validated, or rejected, by independent experts. If Mr Mobbs craves a debate with scientists on equal terms, he can do so in the accepted medium for such debates, namely the peer reviewed literature. Put up or shut up indeed.

Update (23.3.2015): The images inciting physical assault on academics appear to have been removed from the Talk Fracking social media feeds. It seems that they have belatedly realised that such behaviour is completely inappropriate.

I've also noticed that my academic title appears to change throughout the response. At the start I seem to have been promoted to Professor Verdon (I am not a professor), but at the end I have had my PhD stripped from me and I become just Mr Verdon. I'm genuinely not bothered, but it does give me the chance to link to this, which seemed appropriate.

TalkFracking appear to be encouraging their followers to assault academics

Associated with the "Frackademics" report I discussed in my previous post, the following image has been posted by TalkFracking on their Facebook page:

I'm fairly certain that throwing oil on someone is an assault. I'm not a lawyer, but posting "We hope you get exactly what you deserve" alongside a mock-up of an academic being assaulted could well be considered incitement.

So TalkFracking now seem to be encouraging their followers to physically assault academics! Charming bunch...

Frackademics: Anti-fracking groups reveal their anti-science credentials

Recently I discussed the increasing antipathy towards and mistrust of academic scientists, particularly in the more controversial subject areas. This anti-science views of the anti-fracking lobby have just been made clear in a recent "exposé" by anti-fracking group TalkFracking (TF).

In this report, the motives and expertise of pretty-much every university geoscience department in the country is impugned. The implication is that almost every academic with knowledge and understanding of the topic is prepared to put out misleading propaganda to promote UK shale gas. The geoscientific consensus about the safety of shale gas extraction, so long as it is regulated properly, is nothing more than a sham resulting from academics being bought off by industry. Or so it is claimed.

I'll begin with a few general points, before critiquing the report section by section. Firstly, I find it hugely ironic that this report appears to have been paid for directly by an anti-fracking group, yet has the chutzpah to claim that others might be reaching their conclusions solely for financial gain and/or influence. TalkFracking are funded mainly by fashion designer Dame Vivienne Westwood, well known for her anti-fracking views (as well as, recently, some questionable tax arrangements). So any claims made about partiality quickly begin to look like nothing more than hypocrisy. Also, the "revealed" links are all already in the public domain, so it's not like this is an expose of any underhand secrets.

Moreover, I always find it amusing to read claims that academics are only in it for the money (whether it is on this issue or any other). A career as an academic is not a well paid one. Long years as a Ph.D. researcher on a tiny stipend (£12,000 per year in my day), followed by similarly low pay and job insecurity as a postdoctoral researcher. The reason academics put up with these arrangements is, generally speaking, a love of the job - the opportunity to find out new things about the world that no one has every known about before.

However, the academics criticised in the report are all experts in what is (applied geoscience of any kind) a hugely economically valuable field. If any of these academics wanted to make a lot more money, I expect that they could stroll into a senior position in an oil or mining company and do so. The fact that they don't indicates than money is not their primary motivating factor.

The reason they speak up in favour of shale gas is more likely to be because a lot of the "information" being used in the debate is either misleading or completely incorrect, and nothing irks a scientist more than non-experts spouting incorrect things about scientific subjects without being corrected. For example, I started this blog because I kept throwing my crockery at the TV because I was so fed up with the sheer volume of BS being touted around the media on the subject. More recently, geoscientists from across Europe, even from states that have banned fracking (and so presumably have no government pressure to promote shale gas), have come together to criticise the scaremongering tactics used by anti-fracking groups.


The TF report consists of a series of "Case Studies", which I will now address in turn.

Case Study 1: Case Study 1 addresses the NERC Centre for Doctoral Training in Oil and Gas, a collaboration between several universities, NERC and industrial partners to train PhD students.

The first thing to note here is that the purpose of the CDT is to fund PhD students. Academics at the various universities do not benefit financially in any way from this arrangement, while the PhD students on the CDT are under no obligation to join the oil industry upon completion of their studies (which might not be the case if they were funded directly by industry). So they could even go and join TalkFracking if they felt like it! That the TF report seeks to impugn the motives of academics, without making the lack of actual tangible financial benefits for the academics speaking about shale gas absolutely clear, is a worrying indication of the approach taken.

A small point of error to be corrected is the claim that Cluff Geothermal is part of the Cluff Natural Resources Group and therefore linked to Halliburton. In fact, while the two companies were originally set up by the same person (Algy Cluff), they are completely separate entities and share no directors in common. Again, a worrying lack of attention to detail here.

Another problem with the TF report is the treatment of "industry" as a single monolithic bloc, a common fallacy among those not particularly familiar with the oil and gas business. In fact, there are many different players who make up "the industry", and they often have very different business models, attitudes, risk profiles, etc.. For many operators in the "conventional" industry, the "shale revolution" has not been a good thing. The unconventional oil/gas boom in the USA has contributed to the global reduction in oil prices we have seen in the last 6 months, which in turn has posed a substantial problem for operators with substantial interests in the more challenging North Sea fields, or further abroad in places like Russia.

The CDT partners are British Gas, BP, ConocoPhilips, E.On, Maersk Oil, OMV, Shell, Statoil and Total. Of these, only British Gas (via Centrica) and Total have any interest in UK shale gas, and therefore any motivation to encourage academia to promote shale gas. In contrast, most of the above have substantial assets in the North Sea, and so may not actually be keen at all to see European shale gas develop. Both BP and Shell in particular have been particularly critical of the potential for European shale gas. Why would these North Sea operators be pressurising academics to make positive statements about a source of oil/gas in which they have no financial interest, and which would in fact stand in direct competition to their current business interests? Yet the TF report is not even aware of this inconsistency.

Finally, it is worth addressing the more general point about fossil fuel research in academia, despite the issue of climate change, which means we need to substantially reduce fossil fuel burning in the next 50 years. As geoscientists, we usually work cheek-by-jowl with the climate science groups, so we're fully aware of the issues of climate change. You'll struggle to find many climate change "deniers" in geoscience departments. (yes, some of my best friends are climate scientists etc etc). Despite this, and despite the fact that the report does not mention anything about "climate change denial", the promotional material hosted on TalkFracking's carries the headline "Frackademics: End Climate Change Denial". In science, we would describe this as conclusions not supported by evidence.

Much of current research in academia is not necessarily about "discover[ing] [...] yet more fossil fuels" as claimed, it is about producing them more efficiently and minimising environmental impacts. No one is seriously arguing that we should stop all fossil fuel development immediately - they must be gradually phased out over an extended period. While they are being phased out, it is entirely reasonable to research and develop ways of extracting what fossil fuels we do produce in an environmentally friendly manner as possible.

Most academics are also very aware of the realities of our current energy system. Complete decarbonisation of modern, western economies will be very difficult: it is in no way clear that renewables and nuclear alone will be able to do the job in the necessary amount of time. This means that if we're to reach a near-zero-emission energy system, carbon capture and storage (CCS) must be deployed to capture emissions from fossil fuel burning. It is therefore not surprising that a substantial amount of "fossil fuel" funded research conducted at UK universities is actually on developing this "novel" CCS technology.

Furthermore, CO2 reductions are best achieved by phasing out the most polluting technology first, namely coal. Gas, the least CO2 intensive fossil fuel, should be phased out last. In my experience, fossil fuel research at UK universities reflects this, being skewed towards gas extraction and away from coal: I'm not aware of many academics (indeed, any at all) who are conducting research into finding or extracting more coal.

Finally, even if/when we reach a near-zero-emission energy system, oil and gas will continue to be extracted from the ground. A substantial portion of the oil and gas we produce is in fact used as feedstock for industrial chemical processes, making fertilisers, plastics, and other synthetic materials, for example. Indeed, there's a good argument to be made that oil and gas are simply too valuable as raw materials to be wasted by burning them. So it is completely appropriate to conduct research into producing these important materials while maximising efficiency and minimising environmental impacts.


Case Study 2: The second case study considers the well-known Royal Society/Royal Academy of Engineering report, the Public Health England report, and the report by DECC into shale gas and climate change (the MacKay and Stone report).

I'll begin by pointing out that in their criticism of the Royal Society, TF are making some interesting bedfellows in the form of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, who also recently released a report criticising the RS. If the RS is so corrupted by industry, as is claimed by TalkFracking, it's difficult to explain how they can also have drawn the ire of the GWPF, who are strongly in favour of fossil fuel usage. In reality, the fact that they have been so strongly criticised by both groups is probably a good sign that they are doing something right, as well as demonstrating that the anti-science agenda cuts across many issues, as described above.

I think my favourite paragraph in the report is this one, because it is simply such drivel:

"Practically we can only regulate that which can be managed; and we can only manage that which can be identified and measured. Without the ability to measure impacts effectively, there can be no regulatory process".

I suppose that this statement is facetiously true. However, it has no bearing on the issue of shale gas development. Can groundwater protection be measured and identified? Yes, it certainly can. Can air pollution be measured and identified? Yes, it can. Can induced seismicity be identified and measured? Yes, it can.

In fact, such measurements will be required under the new Infrastructure Bill, (and would likely have been required by the Environment Agency anyway). Moreover, the EA has the power to shut down any operator if air or groundwater measurements indicate that there has been contamination, or if an operator causes earthquakes. The levels at which the regulatory bodies will act are well below the levels that may cause a risk to human health.

So I suppose that the quoted paragraph tacitly supports shale gas extraction, because we can measure impacts, and therefore it would seem that we can regulate the process, which is good news I suppose!

Equally, the different risks posed by the various activities which take place on a drilling pad are well established. Therefore it is simple to develop regulations that prevent the more risky activities from being done. For example, it is more risky to store flowback fluid in open ponds. Therefore such ponds are not allowed in the UK, and fluids must be stored in double-lined steel tanks, placed on drip trays, while the who pad must be placed within an impermeable membrane, such that no fluids can ever escape the pad. A potential impact identified, a risk managed, and a process better regulated.

The claims that have been made about "best practice" and "appropriate regulation" are well evidenced. Most of the risks posed by fracking are little different to the risks posed by conventional oil extraction. Wellbore integrity is the same issue whether it's a shale or a conventional well. In both cases chemicals must be stored on site and transported around without being spilled. Contaminated water produced alongside the hydrocarbons must be treated and disposed of from conventional wells as well as shale ones.

Post Piper Alpha we have seen oil/gas regulations improve substantially in the UK, and concomitantly we have seen the number of accidents and environmental issues associated with the industry reduce. Similarly, elsewhere in the world, where regulations are weaker, we see continued accidents and impacts. Regulations do work in the oil and gas business. If the authors of the TF report find this evidence hard to find, I would suggest that that is because they don't want to see it. Even Caroline Lucas accepts that stringent regulations can minimise any local environmental risks - has she also been corrupted by the industry?

The TF report criticises the PHE report based on a single letter to the BMJ. However, this letter actually provides an excellent potted demonstration about the impact of regulations on the safety of shale gas, precisely as described by PHE. The BMJ letter (Law et al.) relies on two papers as the basis for claims about the health impacts of shale gas extraction. These are the McKenzie et al. papers that I have discussed here.

These papers studied an area where operators had been conducting uncontrolled venting during flowback: the gases produced during flowback were vented directly into the atmosphere. This process is prohibited by regulations in the UK, gases must instead be captured during flowback, and cannot be vented. In attempting to claim that regulations cannot make a difference, the BMJ letter actually shows a fantastic example of how regulations can and will make a real difference in the UK. How do metal girders taste? (irony).

The TF report also makes much of the New York State decision to ban fracking in the state.  However unconventional gas extraction is carried out in about 30 US states. Many of these have also conducted reviews and reports about the process, and concluded that shale gas extraction is safe to proceed, as have the Australian Council of Learned Academies. Here is Michigan, for example, and here's Maryland, both coming to a different conclusion to NYS. Only one US state with appreciable shale potential has banned fracking - the TF report has cherry-picked the only study that suits their ideology.


Case Study 3: The next case study considers the greenhouse-gas emissions from shale gas extraction, and claims that MacKay and Stone have intentionally underplayed the impacts of fugitive methane emissions. The TF report relies heavily on the well-known papers written by Howarth et al., who have claimed that shale gas extraction produces more GHG emissions than coal. TF make no attempt to represent the scientific consensus on this issue. The figure below is taken from a study by Stamford et al.:

Every other study has the GWP of shale at around 500-700gCO2/MJ (and therefore substantially better than coal). Only the Howarth study finds values of 1,500gCO2/MJ. This shows how much of an outlier the Howarth study is in comparison to every other author on the subject. MacKay and Stone's estimate is in line with the majority of other studies as depicted above as well as that produced by the EU Commission. If MacKay and Stone have pulled a fast one, then so it would seem has every other scientist to have studied the issue except Howarth et al..

It is also notable that the Talk Fracking report criticises a report by Allen et al., which measured methane emissions at about 500 drilling sites 489 wells and found low levels of methane emissions, on the basis that the samples it takes are unrepresentative. However, the latest paper by the Howarth group relies on only 7 wells. If the report by Allen et al. only samples 0.1% of all wells, then Howarth et al. is based on only 0.0014% of wells. Yet somehow Allen et al. is flawed, while this isn't an issue for the Howarth group's paper!

In conclusion, MacKay and Stone's numbers broadly match numerous studies in the scientific literature. Whatever accusations of conflicts of interest may be levelled, they do not appear to be manifest in their report. The TalkFracking report simply isn't up to speed with the scientific literature, which leads it to make basic errors.

Update (17.3.2015): Perhaps also worth noting that the Howarth group have received research funding from anti-fracking groups for their research. If the source of funding prevents TF from trusting the results of scientific studies, clearly they need to address both sides of the coin.

Case Study 4: Case Study 4 addresses reports by the Science Media Centre, a charity dedicated to helping improve the public understanding of science. The fact that TalkFracking criticise a charity for the crime of being "a PR agency for science" indicates pretty clearly that TF have a strongly anti-scientific bent.

The roll call of "scientists" (quotation marks from the TF report) used in SMC reports includes the likes of Prof Kevin Anderson, Jim Watson, John Loughhead, and Stuart Haszeldine. None of these could be described as being cheerleaders for shale gas development (for climate budget reasons in the case of Prof Anderson, for more economic reasons in the case of Jim Watson, for example). I'd love to know their thoughts on being lumped in together as "frackademics", as TF do. This "Case Study" shows that they are lashing out indiscriminately in their antipathy towards scientists.


Case Study 5: Case study 5 criticises the letter in support of UK shale gas signed by 50 applied geoscientists and published in the Guardian. Apparently, the fact that the letter makes economic points as well as "geophysical" points is unacceptable to TalkFracking.

The TF report has a strange obsession with the geophysical, which to me demonstrates a lack of familiarity with the menagerie of sub-fields that fall within the general term geoscience: while I am proud to be a geophysicist, the majority of signatories are not. The criticism levelled by TF indicates a clear lack of familiarity with the range of expertise of the typical academic geoscientist, many of whom do have expertise in the economic impacts of energy development as well as the geoscience (economic considerations are an important component of applied geology).

It is also incorrect for TF to assert that domestic energy production has no impact on economic development. Yes, there are nations that produce substantial volumes of energy but struggle economically (usually due to corruption and mismanagement), and nations that import much of their energy can still have strong economic development. Nowhere in our letter to we claim otherwise - these are straw-man arguments. I doubt that any of the signatories to the Guardian letter would disagree that "the strength and security of an economy is based on more than just its sources of energy." However, this does not invalidate our claim that we have become more vulnerable and exposed to international energy markets as a result of our increasing reliance on imported energy, or that producing more energy domestically would provide an economic boost.

Our description of the BGS report is entirely accurate. It is clearly described by the BGS as a resource estimate, which implies that it is an estimate of the total volume of gas trapped in the Bowland shale, as we describe in our letter using layman's terms: "the Bowland Basin, which covers significant parts of north-west England, currently sits on top of 1,300 tcf of natural gas". The 1,300tcf figure is the most probable, most likely, scenario as described by the BGS report, and it is therefore entirely appropriate that we use it.

The TF report appears to have some difficulty understanding statistics. They claim that the P90 figure is "more reliable". However, there is only a 10% chance that there is this much gas or less in the ground, and a 90% chance there is more gas in the ground than the P10 value that TF use. Our 1,300tcf figure is the P50 figure: there is a 50% chance there is more than 1,300tcf in the ground, and a 50% chance there is less than 1,300tcf in the ground. It is clearly the most appropriate figure to use, unless one has an ideological reason for misrepresenting the resource. If we had used the upper P10 limit (2,281tcf, almost double the 1,300tcf figure we did use) then this criticism would be valid, but of course we did not.

It's also worth considering the implicit accusation regarding the "independence" of the BGS, namely that they might have overstated the figures under pressure from the industry. It doesn't take too much insight to realise that this is complete nonsense. The operators want to base their future investment on the most accurate figures, so that they can invest to the appropriate level. If the BGS overcook the numbers, and operators make investment decisions based on those over-egged numbers, then the operators will lose a lot of money when the gas promised by the BGS isn't actually there. The BGS is able to make its way in the world because its reports and estimates can be trusted. Deliberately overstating the resource due to external pressures would be a great way for the BGS to lose all of its future business.

It is also alleged that this letter was part of a "tit-for-tat" PR campaign following the publication of a letter earlier in the same week signed by various famous names from the entertainment industry. Sadly, this was indeed a coincidence, the majority of academics had put their names to this letter weeks and even months before it was published - we had no idea about the other letter until its publication.


Case Study 6: The final case study (thank you for staying with me for what I know is a long post) covers the All Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on shale gas. It is true that the APPG takes funding from the industry. However, it also offered free places on its Advisory Panel to environmental NGOs such as Greenpeace, WWF and Friends of the Earth. Perhaps a better way of characterising the situation is that industry groups have to pay a fee to join the APPG, while environmental organisations are allowed to join for free. Similarly, both the Frack Free Balcombe Residents Association (FFBRA) and No FiBS (No Fracking in Balcombe Society) are listed as Associate Members. Which sort-of drives a coach and horses through TalkFracking's claims.

The newly-created Shale Gas Task Force comes in for similar criticism. However, it is notable that the Environmental Audit Committee, who are no fans of fracking, are prepared to put their faith in this task force. Given that TF and the EAC have similar views on banning fracking, then perhaps TF can follow the EAC lead in accepting the task force's conclusions (I'm not holding my breath). Note also that if you feel you have some evidence that the Task Force must consider, you can submit it via the Task Force website.


Conclusions: TalkFracking make a number of accusations about the motives and impartiality of almost every academic who has spoken out on the topic of shale gas. However, the simple fact is that there is broad consensus among earth scientists that shale gas extraction can be done safely in the UK with appropriate regulation. This consensus extends beyond the UK to geoscientists across Europe, including those in countries whose governments have banned shale gas, and therefore have no interest in promoting shale gas. If TF's claims are to be taken seriously, they must explain how geoscientists across Europe have reached the same conclusions, even where the sorts of pressures they allege in their report may not be present. Indeed, this view stretches all the way to Australia as well.

As discussed in my previous post, there seems to be an increasing "lobby" of science-deniers, who see nefarious motives in the research and public pronouncements of academia. To them scientists are just mouthpieces for sale to the highest bidder. This science-denial stems from both sides of the political spectrum, whether it is the climate change "denial" or GMO scaremongering. Or the anti-vaxx lobby (I don't really know which side of the aisle that lobby sits) or even the homeopathy crowd, and presumably stems from ideological grounds. It's clear that TalkFracking can take their place in this dubious hall of fame.