New study shows leaky wells, not fracking, is causing methane leakage

This week's most newsworthy study examines methane contamination in wells in Pennsylvania and Texas, linking them with drilling activities. It is authored by the same Duke group who have published on this topic a number of times now.

In the new study, the authors analyse the geochemistry of methane and groundwater around shale gas wells. As well as measuring the geochemistry of the methane, they measure other geochemical variables such as noble gas isotope ratios and salinities, in order to get a better handle of what might be leading to the elevated methane levels.

They find that in some cases the evidence points to a deep source of methane that has migrated relatively rapidly, with little contact with the rock layers that lie in between shallow aquifers and the deep layers in which fracking is conducted. The most obvious conclusion to make is that methane is not getting into shallow layers through cracks and fractures in the rock, but that methane migration through faulty well bores to the surface is a possibility.

The study has, for obvious reasons, garnered a lot of publicity. However, the more I thought about it, the less newsworthy the study becomes. In actual fact, I think it tells us little that we didn't already know.

We already know that faulty cement and/or casing can allow methane migration from depth. We already know that in a handful of cases in Pennsylvania, poor working practice from certain operators has lead to cement/casing problems - these companies have been prosecuted and fined by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. So it's hardly surprising that the authors of the study were able to find cases where the geochemical evidence pointed to this issue.

Associated Press report on shale gas and pollution - what do the numbers really show?

The twittersphere has been alight in recent days with an Associated Press story examining records held by state regulatory agencies regarding complaints of water contamination related to drilling. This story has been widely reported across the media, generally with negative headlines, and extensively re-tweeted amongst anti-drilling campaign groups.

However, it pays to look beyond the headlines, to the actual numbers listed in the report, which is what this post will do. What does the AP report actually tell us about shale gas drilling and water contamination in 4 key US states?


The Question(s):

Firstly, however, it is important to state what we know, and do not know, and what we would like to find out. In scientifc terms, we must state our hypothesis. We already know that contamination can and has been caused at the surface by leakage of fluids from open waste storage pits (not allowed in the UK) and by illegal dumping of waste fluids into streams and rivers without treatment. We also know that contamination of groundwater by fugitive methane can and has been caused by faulty well cement and casing that allows deep sources of methane to move towards the surface.

The question we want to know is - are these types of incidents common or rare; and secondly, are they inevitable, or could they be prevented by better operating practice? If incidents are common and/or inevitable, shale development might be considered an inherently dangerous and therefore unacceptable process. If they are rare and can be mitigated by improved practices, shale gas development should be considered an acceptable technology.


The Data:

The AP report covers 4 states: Pennsylvania, Ohio, West Virginia and Texas. It does not specify in detail the nature of the complaints it discusses, which clouds the issue somewhat. However, from the report they appear to range from short term diminished water flow rates (not particularly serious), to contamination by stray methane migration (the most common complaint, apparently), to contamination by fracking fluid itself (the most serious allegation, I'd contend). Regardless, any incident or complaint is one too many, so for the purposes of this post they will all get lumped together.

If we are to determine whether these events are common or rare, we need to have data on the number of wells in the states considered by the report. The NRDC provides some figures for the number of oil and/or gas wells in each state, though these figures are from 2009, and don't say when the various wells would have been drilled, nor whether they are active or abandoned. However, the AP report doesn't specify whether complaints have originated from abandoned wells, old but still active conventional wells, or newly drilled shale wells, so perhaps the NRDC figures are the best to use. Regardless, I did a little more searching on various state regulator websites, finding the following:

• The NRDC list 47,000 wells in West Virgina in 2009. The West Virginia DEP website search function indicates a total of 2095 active gas wells, 96 oil wells and 33 CBM wells active from 2009 onwards (the 47,000 figure does seem high to me).
• The NRDC list 70,000 wells in Pennsylvania in 2009. From the Pennsylvania DEP website, a total of 32,625 new gas, oil and CMB wells were drilled (to "spud" in drilling parlance is to begin drilling) since 2005 (note the AP report incorrectly states there are only 5,000).
• The NRDC list 64,000 wells in Ohio in 2009. The Ohio DNR website lists over 50,000 active producing wells in 2011, although it appears that only 1,000 of these are target the Utica shale.
• The NRDC list 250,000 wells in Texas in 2009. The Texas Railroad Commission (who regulate oil and gas, obviously) count 17,000 wells in the Barnett shale in 2013, approximately 4,000 wells in the Eagle Ford shale (going by permits issued), and 800 in the Haynesville shale.

Before comparing numbers of pollution incidents with the number of wells, I first want to mention one striking feature of the numbers in the AP report - the difference between the numbers of complaints received, and the number of incidents actually substantiated though tests carried out by the various agencies. For Pennsylvania, in 2012 the DEP received 499 complaints, but substantiated only 5, meaning only 1% were considered valid. In West Virginia, the DEP received 112 complaints, of which 4 were substantiated (just under 4%). For Ohio, 113 complaints in 2011-2012, with 4 substantiated (just under 4% again), while in Texas none of the 62 complaints relating to water quality have been substantiated (so 0%). 

Why is the the percentage of substantiated claims so low? I'm sure some readers might be tempted to drag out the litigious American stereotype, ready to complain and sue anything and anyone at the drop of a hat. However, perhaps the most relevant data comes from Pennsylvania, where a Penn State study revealed that 40% of private drinking water wells are failing at least one environmental standard anyway. Furthermore, there are over 1 million drinking water wells in Pennsylvania, and approximately 20,000 new ones are drilled every year. 

The scale of these numbers shows why it is not surprising that many people might have complaints about their water quality. If there happens to be a hydrocarbon well near by, then with all the media coverage of fracking, it is inevitable that drillers get the blame. However, the 40% figure shows that there are in fact there are many other potential sources of contamination, and rigorous testing is required to determine where the blame should properly be apportioned. The AP figures suggest that in over 95% of cases, gas drilling is not to blame.  

Are contamination incidents common?

Lets move on now and consider the numbers of substantiated complaints with the number of wells drilled. For Pennsylvania, 106 cases out of 70,000 existing (NRDC) and 32,000 new (PA DEP) wells = 0.1%. For West Virgina, 4 cases, out of (using the low end DEP figures) 2224 wells = 0.1%. For Ohio, 6 cases out of 50,000 wells = 0.01%. For Texas, 0 cases out of 22,000 shale wells = 0%. For what it's worth, these figures are in line with other reports that have looked into this, such are this report by the Groundwater Protection Council, which reported incident rates per well of 0.01 to 0.03%. Our initial question was: are incidents common or rare? The AP numbers show that incidents of drilling-induced contamination are rare. 

Can better regulations reduce the impacts?

The second question was: is contamination due to drilling inevitable or can it be mitigated by better practice? The rarity of these events alone suggest that they represent aberrations rather than an inherent problem with the drilling and hydraulic fracturing processes. We can go further than this, however. During the Marcellus drilling boom in Pennsylvania, a number of new regulations regarding drilling safety and safe disposal of waste fluids have been enforced from 2010 onwards. Fortunately, for Pennsylvania the AP report breaks down the number of complaints by year, allowing us to judge the effects of these regulations.

The numbers of wells spudded in 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013, respectively, was 3,340, 3,238, 2,374, and 2,175. In addition to the new wells, remember that opponents of drilling like to remind us that "all wells fail through time", so with all these wells coming in you'd expect to see the number of issues increasing through time, as problems emerge from both new wells and old. 

In fact, the numbers of substantiated issues (and the % of new wells this represents) are, from 2010 to 2013: 29 (0.86%), 18 (0.55%), 5 (0.2%) and 2 (0.1%). This represents a clear decrease in the number of contamination incidents as new regulations have come in to force. The AP numbers show that better regulation can reduce the impacts of shale gas drilling.

In Conclusion

To conclude, just as you should never judge a book by its cover, so you should be careful about judging a newspaper story by its headline. The numbers themselves in the AP report tell a very different story from the headlines it generated.

More studies on groundwater methane in Pennsylvania - no correlation with gas wells

Warning: High concentrations of methane in water wells, well enclosures and other confined spaces can cause explosions!

Here's a fact sheet from the Pennsylvania Dept of Environmental Protection providing information about how to deal with methane in your water well (it needs to be vented so that dangerous accumulations do not build up).

Have the DEP been forced to release this emergency information in response to increases in methane contamination as shale gas drilling spreads across the land?

No, in fact if you look closely in the bottom right corner, you can see that this information sheet was published in January 2004: long before shale gas came to Pennsylvania. This provides further demonstration of elevated methane in groundwater was common prior to drilling, as has already been indicated in baseline studies.

Why does this matter? Well, in a previous post I discussed the recent Duke findings of elevated methane in water near to gas wells in Pennsylvania, and I suggested that the very non-random way in which wells were chosen for sampling may well affect some of their conclusions. I suggested that to test their conclusions, more uniform and comprehensive sampling would be required.

Well, in a recent paper published in Groundwater, we have some new data. Molofsky et al tested 1701 samples (as opposed to only 141 tested by the Duke team). The two pictures below show the sampling from Molofsky (above) and the Duke paper (below), I leave it to you to judge which provides the more comprehensive sampling:

 

Of the 1701 samples tested by Molofsky, 322 were within 1km of a gas well, while 1379 are characterised as being 'pre-drill' - that is no gas well within 1km at the time of sampling, taken as part of a baseline surveys conducted by the DEP.

Molofsky et al found that 78% of sampled wells had detectable methane concentrations (hence the need for the DEP's fact sheet above), and 3.4% had levels exceeding the DEP's minimum level of 7mg/L.

The size of the circles in the Molofsky figure represent the amount of methane found in groundwater. They've helpfully plotted topography in their figure - even without the help of statistics you can see a correlation with being in a valley and having elevated methane (although the stats bear this correlation out), and upland areas with low methane. Why would being in a valley lead to elevated concentrations of naturally occurring methane? Well, a picture (from a Molofsky presentation I found online) tells a thousand words:

What about correlations between methane and natural gas wells, as found by the Duke study? Well, with 10 times as many data points, Molofsky et al find zero correlation between methane and natural gas wells. As their subsection title puts it: 'No Regional Association of Methane with Gas Production'.

Methane found around gas wells in PA. Methane also found not around PA gas wells....

Two more studies looking at the connection between shale gas extraction and water contamination have been released. One from the USGS, looking at water quality in areas of Pennsylvania that haven't yet been drilled, and one from the same Duke team that has in the past found evidence for drilling-related methane in groundwater in Pennsylvania, but did not find evidence for any contamination above the Fayetteville shale (in Arkansas).

The USGS study examined water quality in Sullivan County, Pennsylvania. Crucially, this study focussed on areas that have yet to be drilled for shale gas. So far in the USA such baseline studies have been rare, which means that it can be difficult to establish whether water has been contaminated by shale gas drilling, or whether it was already of poor quality to begin with.

As I have discussed in a prior post, it is wrong to assume that all groundwater was of Evian-quality prior to drilling: there are many potential sources of groundwater contamination, both natural and man made, that could have caused problems well before shale gas drilling began.

Therefore, although this USGS study hasn't received the press attention given to the Duke study, it could come to be seen as really important, because it provides a baseline against which changes caused by drilling can be assessed.

So what does the Sullivan County baseline look like? Well 85% of the 20 water samples taken contained at least some radon-222 above the US maximum level of 300 picocuries per liter (pCi/L), while 10% exceeded the alternate maximum level (I have no idea why the USEPA has a maximum level and then an alternate maximum level - what does that mean?) of 4,000 pCi/L. 35% of the wells had some methane in them, although only 2 samples (10%) had levels to get excited about: 4.1 and 51.1mg/L (the US maximum level is 10-28mg/L).

Importantly, the USGS carried out isotopic fingerprinting of the methane in these wells. It is possible to tell the difference between methane that has been created in the shallow surface by bacterial activity (so-called 'biogenic' methane) and that created at depth by heat and pressure (so-called 'thermogenic' methane), and it has been suggested that, where thermogenic gas is found, shale gas drilling is the likely culprit.

Unfortunately, the isotopic fingerprinting of the Sullivan County gas showed that is WAS thermogenic, in an area WTHOUT any gas drilling. Does this mean that the thermogenic/biogenic testing can no longer be used as the determining factor in the debate over whether methane is caused by shale gas extraction? I think at the least more caution might be required.

The main take-home point from the USGS study is that water quality in the region is highly variable. This means that, whether you believe that shale gas drilling has or has not caused contamination, proving your case either way will be very difficult, especially without baseline studies.


Moving on to the Duke study, which examined the water quality in gas-producing areas of Pennsylvania. Rather than bore you with statistical analyses about P<0.0007 for this and P=0.0001 for that (necessary for science, less interesting for blogs), I think the story would be better told with a couple of pictures. Firstly, where the groundwater was sampled (along with the locations of shale gas drilling):

and then the results - methane concentration plotted versus distance from shale gas wells:

There appears to be a clear correlation with increased methane concentrations near to gas wells.

The Duke researchers also looked at the isotopic composition of the methane gas, finding it to be thermogenic, and they also found ethane (a slightly heavier form of natural gas, not produced biogenically), implying that the gas must have originated at depth, and therefore be caused by shale gas drilling. I think that this part of their conclusions is slightly shakier - we've seen from the USGS study above that it is possible to have thermogenic methane, and smaller amounts of ethane, in areas that haven't seen drilling.

I also have some doubts about how the wells were chosen for analysis. You can see from the first plot that the wells sampled occur in clusters - they're very non-random. Above I pretended to chose not to discuss the statistics in the Duke paper to save the poor reader from a load of boring numbers. In fact, my concern is that such statistical analyses usually assume a certain degree of uniformity in a sampling process, and that doesn't seem to be the case here, so I'm not sure as to their validity.

In the methods section of their paper, the Duke team mention that they got their samples via Homeowner Associations. Although which homeowner associations these might be are not described, it seems likely that these are homeowner associations would be those opposed to natural gas drilling. In turn, such associations are presumably likely to have (a) elevated methane concentrations in the water and (b) gas drilling in the near vicinity. So, if your sampling is biased by choosing to select water from sites that match both descriptions, it's not particularly surprising to find homes near gas wells with elevated methane - because that's how your samples were chosen in the first place.

You can see this by looking at the distribution of sampling points in the above figure, which are clustered in certain places on the map, rather than spread evenly. To really robustly establish a link between drilling and methane contamination, a much more uniform sampling and testing program would be required. It's a shame that the Duke researchers did not do this, because they've left what could have been a really fundamental study open to criticism.

To summarise my thoughts - I think that it is likely that at least some of the incidences of methane contamination in the Duke study HAVE been caused by drilling. The example of Dimock shows a pretty clear case where of shoddy drilling practices leading to methane contamination. However, based on the sampling methods used, I'm not sure that this study, despite the media fanfare, actually adds anything to this. The real question we want to know is - are methane issues ubiquitous and inevitable, or do they represent a handful of 'bad apple' cases of poor drilling practice, the number of which can be minimised with good practice, strong regulation and good oversight? A more rigorous attempt to sample PA wells more uniformly is required (for example, many of the Duke samples do not have much/any methane in them).

Finally, keep in mind that methane, while a nuisance, is not toxic, and most private drinking wells should have filters to remove methane prior to the water entering the house. The Duke researchers also looked for other chemicals that might be associated with drilling. Opponents of shale gas often point to a smorgasbord of nasty-sounding chemicals associated with fracking fluids that they claim are polluting groundwater.

Much like their previous studies both in PA and elsewhere, the Duke researchers found no evidence for any of these chemicals. Nor would we expect them to: methane, being buoyant, has the potential to move up through the annular gaps and/or cracks left in a poorly-cemented well. Drilling and/or fracking fluids are not buoyant (i.e., they have similar densities to the brines that saturate the rocks at the depths of the shale reservoirs), so there is no force available to push them back to the surface - you may as well try to suggest that dumping sewage/pollution in London is going to contaminate the headwaters of the Thames in the Cotswolds. The water is simply flowing in the wrong direction.

So, because it's been another long and rambling post, a summary:

• lots of the water in PA is of poor quality to begin with,
• it is possible (likely) that there have been some instances of methane contamination,
• whether these cases represent a few outliers, or are more ubiquitous, is not established by the Duke study,
• and there is absolutely no evidence that any of the various chemicals associated with fracking fluids are getting into groundwater.

 

Artists tour of shale gas in Pennsylvania

In order to draw attention to the danger of fracking, Josh Fox took the Artists Against Fracking on a tour of the Pennsylvania shale gas fields. Here's the video:


Seems innocuous enough. But this little tour has been all over the web garnering controversy, so I guess I might as well jump on the bandwagon. The tour was lead by Vera Scroggins, a local anti-gas activist. Here's what she had to say to Phelim McAleer, the director of FrackNation, when he turned up to try to interview some of the celebs:



Fairly shockingly xenophobic! Funnily enough, this doesn't make it into Josh Fox's AAF video.

Anyway, the main part of the visit was to the Mannings in Franklin Forks, which presents another interesting fracking story, fairly representative of how much things have deteriorated in these parts. I think, whether you are pro or anti, you'd have to agree that the debate surrounding it is now a big murky mess, and any semblance of trust has evaporated on both sides.

The Manning's water well began behaving strangely, with high levels of methane, and bursting from the top, as you can see in this video. Gas drilling has occurred nearby (note that the video has been posted by Ms Scroggins, her of the Irish-drunks tirade above):

Of course, WPX, the gas drilling company disputes that they are the cause of contamination. They argue that shallow natural gas accumulations are common in the area - indeed records of shallow gas seeps are found as far back as 1921, and water quality in the area is reportedly poor anyway.

WPX also claim that the strange bursting behaviour of the well is not due to the gas but due to a mechanical fault in a pump. There's video been posted video of WPX employees demonstrating the problem and attempting to fix it:

What's interesting is that there was more than one video camera at this little shindig. Vera Scroggins was there to stir the pot a bit:

The upshot now is that the lawyers are involved, and WPX employees are no longer allowed on the property.

The first thing that strikes me about these videos is that everyone has now resorted to shoving cameras in each other's faces. Everyone filming everyone else. A complete lack of trust all round.

Isotopic testing of the gas appears to suggest that the gas has a shallow origin (i.e., is not from the shale formations). However, the only results published are from WPX testing, everyone is still waiting on DEP results.

All in all, I think this shows what a mess the situation appears to have become. Communities are tearing themselves apart over this, and that's due in equal measure to the activities of both the pro- and anti- sides.

Determining water that is often naturally bad from water contaminated by fracking (and many, if not most, oil and gas fields have naturally occurring shallow accumulations) is not an easy problem. And it's a situation that is wide-open to manipulation and distortion from both sides. Plus, America being full of lawyers, things get even more complicated, to the point where everyone now seems to be videoing everyone else.

Certainly, the classic tale of little local people defending themselves from nasty big corporations is not really applicable, despite how attractive that story may be to the big Hollywood names on a day-trip from NYC. I don't think the AAF video even touches the complexity of the situation.

FrackNation

Sorry, been a bit lax in terms of regular posting this month. I've been a busy boy. Just quick one for now to keep you interested, which is to mention 'FrackNation', a new film that has come out recently in the US.

The aim of the film is to show the other side of the argument to Josh Fox's Gasland, which was the real start for the anti-fracking movement. Even now, when anti-fracking groups are set up, Gasland is often the first port-of-call for resources about why fracking is bad.

The film has been funded by Kickstarter, which is a crowd-sourced funding project, so it's not paid for directly by oil companies (although it wouldn't surprise me if many of the funders were people who have benefited from shale gas through leases, royalties etc).

The film has been released on US cable, but unfortunately I suspect that, short of buying the DVD, it might be a while before it is available in the UK. So in the meantime, here are a few trailers:





You can see that the film follows a similar 'intentionally-low-budget-looking' format, candid camera style popularised by the likes of Michael Moore.

Subject matter apart (and I look forward to seeing the full version, by all accounts Josh Fox and Gasland appear to have been blown out of the water), I find this style of documentary-making interesting: rushing up to people and asking them awkward questions, and no doubt employing some selective editing. I'm sure that a good journalist, combined with selective editing, could make anyone look pretty bad about pretty much anything. Usually, it's the Josh Fox's and Michael Moore's, who are from the left of the political spectrum, doing this. Now it seems those of the right (and the producer, Phelim McAleer, does appear to be fairly Conservative) are picking up on this tactic.

Anyway, enjoy the trailers, I will try to watch the full version and let you know my thoughts as soon as I can.

Another predicatably one-sided Guardian article

Isn't it frustrating when an organization that you otherwise identify with can be so completely dunderheaded over certain important issues. The Green Party's anti-scientific attitudes to homeopathy and to GM foods spring immediately to mind. And once again, my paper of choice (the Guardian) prints (yet another) poorly researched and in some aspects downright false articles about shale gas and fracking. So once again, my comments:

But evidence is mounting that fracking pollutes groundwater with a witches' brew of toxic chemicals, creating imminent threats to public health and safety. It has even caused earthquakes in Ohio.

One report from one test well in Wyoming. And some methane contamination from a poorly cemented well in Dimock, now dealt with and methane levels below acceptable limits once again. Does that count as 'evidence mounting'? I guess so. From several hundred thousand fracked wells across the US. No mention of the head of the EPA's views on shale gas. As for the earthquakes in Ohio - they were caused by waste-water injection, not fracking. Waste-water injection is a common practice throughout the oil industry. And if you're really against water injection, pass a regulation requiring companies to treat all their water at the surface - which is also common practice in many situations.

The detonation of explosive charges, coupled with the infusion of high-pressure fluids, fractures the shale, allowing the gas to bubble up to the surface.

The 'how-shocking-is-fracking' brigade love mentioning the explosives. Sounds dangerous, right? Truth is, explosives have been used to complete oil wells for as long as for ever. The explosives are not to blow the rock apart - they are small directed charges to pierce holes in the steel well-bore casing. It is the high-pressure fluid that moves into fractures and pushes them apart. Proppant (usually sand) is then injected to keep the fractures open, allowing the gas to flow to the well, where it rises to the surface.

The components of the fluids used for fracking are considered protected trade secrets, although they are known to contain toxins. Where the fracking fluids go is a key question.

The details of every chemical pumped down every well in the US is available on this website. It's getting to the point that one begins to suspect the journalists who still push the 'fracking-chemicals-are-trade-secrets' line are not just poorly informed/poorly researched, but outright promulgating lies to make their articles sound more dramatic (and thereby garner a larger following). As for this 'toxic witches' brew' - the latest fracking fluids are in fact safe to drink. Another thing that really bugs me is the use of the word 'cocktail' whenever people describe the fracking fluid (as in this 'cocktail of chemicals') - if someone handed my a cocktail that was 99% water and 1% active ingredient, I think I'd be finding a new barman!

As for where the fluids go? Between 30% to 50% come back up the well, meaning the rest is still in the ground, in the shale formation. These shale formations contain gas (of course). The gas will have been there for hundreds of millions of years. Natural gas, being buoyant and low viscosity, is one of the mobile fluids you can have in the subsurface. If the formation has been capable of trapping gas for 100,000,000 years, I'm pretty sure it can trap saline brines, which don't have any buoyancy force acting on them, and are much more viscous than gas. So in short, we know where the fluid has gone - it's trapped in the shale formation.

Fracking entered the national debate when the award-winning documentary Gasland, made by film-maker Josh Fox, showed how people living near fracking operations could easily set their kitchen tap water on fire.

Gasland did win plenty of awards, but mainly for it's artistic qualities (which, fair play, is really well shot) not for journalistic integrity. No mention of the state regulation findings that the gas coming out of the 'flaming faucets' was biogenic in origin, not thermogenic, meaning that it was gas from shallow bacterial processes, not related to the shale gas at depth (they have characteristically different isotopic signatures). Methane in water supplies is a common phenomena in many artisan wells across the US, and has been for centuries. Josh Fox knows this, but didn't consider it relevant to mention in his film. Gasland is not journalism, it's storytelling. Which is fine, but the Guardian is a newspaper, so it's supposed to do journalism.

Like every good journalist, and appropriately, in this post-Citizens United era, Fox follows the money

That would be the money flowing into his bank account as environmental groups around the world rush to buy screening rights and speaking engagements, on the basis of his film which strikes just the right controversial, highly unbalanced tone?

As I've said a million time now - shale gas extraction IS and industrial process, and as when any industrial process starts up in a new place, there should be a fair and rational discussion to weigh the potential risks and benefits. Which is why it's disappointing that the Guardian seems to be only interested in writing about scare stories and falsehoods.

Latest shale gas developments around the world

An update on the latest shale gas developments around the world:

UK: Cuadrilla have applied to drill their first lateral well on the Fylde peninsular. Lateral wells go down into the ground but bend to go horizontally along the rock strata. This is the first drilling to go ahead after the 2011 tremors. It's good to see things getting moving again after a long pause. I'm assuming that this well will aim to test the productivity of the Bowland shale - whether they can get decent and sustainable gas flow rates.

China: Shell plan to invest $1 billion a year in Chinese shale gas. This is really significant news! Although not well explored, China is likely to have significant volumes of shale gas resource. China is currently the world's largest CO2 emitter, mainly from the thousands of coal power plants built to power and growing and increasingly wealthy population. If shale gas can take off, replacing coal in electricity generation, and we see a similar rate of progress to that seen in the US, then these emissions could be substantially reduced over quite a short period (as well as significant improvements in air quality which, as anyone who's been to Beijing in the last 10 years can tell you, is a serious problem there). China is an ideal place to exploit shale gas - wide open continental interiors, sparse population, and a government accustomed to developing infrastructure on a large scale.

Argentina: It looks like Argentina may have made some significant shale gas and shale oil finds. Shale oil is important, because it is much more valuable than gas, so it entails a greater profit if shale oil as well as gas is found. Worrying if you live on the Falklands though, the thought of Argentina getting wealthy on the back of shale oil....

US: Gas drilling is set to resume in Dimock. Dimock has been the headline case for the US anti-fracking movement, the ground zero of fracking-induced pollution. In 2009 a poorly cased well allowed methane migration into a fresh-water aquifer (note that methane was the only thing that migrated, no fracking fluids were ever found to be migrating. Drilling was then suspended and Cabot (the operating company) have been subject of a number of lawsuits. Now things have been settled, the well has been recased, and methane levels in the aquifer are back to normal levels, and drilling is about to restart. The eyes of those both pro and anti fracking will be on Dimock again, to see if the drilling company can get it right this time.

Coming to a cinema near you.....

With naught but a humble weblog to my name, it appears that I'm well behind the curve when it comes to talking about fracking. This year, if you want to talk about fracking, you have to do a movie.

Even Matt Damon is getting involved, with 'The Promised Land', which is a fictional story about businessmen and drilling rights in Pennslyvania. I must be careful here to not mess with Matt Damon, who in general I agree with about most things. (Aside - quality NSFW video here). But I don't have much hope that that shale gas, fracking and the people involved in the business, will come out of this well. The 'plucky-little-guy-versus-big-nasty-corporation' storyline is just too good for Hollywood to pass up.

Truth be told, I think the 'little-guy-versus-nasty-coporation' meme is so powerful in our culture that we pretty much immediately distrust anything we here from any establishment body or corporation, with little assessment of the evidence. I'm not saying that's right or wrong - there's plenty of bad stuff that's happened to warrant such mistrust - but I do wonder whether this mistrust has always been there, and whether by consistently being 'good', corporations can ever be trusted again.

Anyway, as well as the Matt Damon film, we can also look forward to Gasland II, the sequel to the much discussed Gasland movie by Josh Fox. Gasland was shredded by a few organisations, let's see what happens with the sequel.

Finally, and most interestingly, there's Fracknation. Fracknation is a crowdsourced film, meaning that the money to make it was raised from many small, individual donations. A total of 3,300 people donated an average of $60 to fund the film. The purpose of fracknation was to rebut Gasland, and show the views of the majority of people in fracking areas who support the industry for the economic boost (much like Dimock Proud). Going back to the 'little-guy-v-nasty-corporation' meme, it's interesting that these are the little guys speaking (and putting money into a film). Clearly, it's a bit more complicated than that.

I'll leave you with another video (while I go start filming my movie......)

Dimock-Proud

Have you heard that fracking causes earthquakes and water contamination? If you're reading this blog, then chances are you have. Have you heard of Dimock? Possibly not, although you may have without realising it. Dimock is sometimes referred to as ground-zero of the fracking debate. Sometimes it's portrayed as being some kind of fracking-induced Chernobyl, a once verdant wasteland destroyed by man's folly: (a not-great example here: http://articles.businessinsider.com/2012-01-07/news/30600497_1_driller-epa-dimock-township but just google 'Dimock fracking' and see what comes up).

Inevitably, in such a media climate, this group have slipped under the radar: http://dimockproud.com/

If you're interested in fracking, and the true story of what's happening at Dimock, then their site is well worth reading. I wish they'd been picked up on more by the media. In short, they represent most of the rest of Dimock (apart from the 11 families suing the oil company) who resent seeing their town described as some sort of environmental wasteland when in fact they've seen little disruption caused by the fracking, and little evidence of any contamination.

They go on to accuse the 11 'Dimock families' of some pretty shady practices. For example:

Methane is a natural occurrence. Methane has been present in the water of Susquehanna County for hundreds of years. We have many lifelong rsesidents who are willing, and able, to attest to that. As a matter of fact, one of those lifelong residents actually grew up with one of the 11 litigants. He tells of the childhood escapades he and his litigant friend shared in. The two of them would go into the woods (as young children) to hide out and smoke. They would go down by the creek and light the creek water on fire. Mind you, this was over 50 years ago. Why doesn’t the litigant remember this? Who in the world would have thought to put a cigarette lighter next to their water faucet and light their water? In my opinion, only one who had prior knowledge that it was even possible.

Also, that

The litigants are collecting gas royalties. Enough said.

 And finally,

Their initial claim was that their water had been contaminated due to methane migration from natural gas wells drilled near their properties.

That claim has now blossomed into claims of contaminants in their water including, but not limited to, ethylbenzene, xylene, ethylene glycol (antifreeze) and propylene glycol (a naturally occurring by-product in the fermentation of some commercially packaged beers. Propylene glycol is rapidly degraded in all environmental media. These chemicals are not used in the hydro-fracturing process and, interestingly enough, these chemicals were not detected in 2008 pre-drill samples taken at more than a dozen water supplies along Carter Road. There was a toluene contaminant found this spring and summer by Scranton-based Farnham and Associates Inc. which was at levels 1,000 times higher than the toluene levels detected in two wells in 2008. The firm’s president, Daniel Farnham, said. “I’m not here to argue with the gas company,” he said. “My objective is just to illustrate that something’s going on here and it needs to be investigated.”

 Yes, I should say there needs to be an investigation. Chemicals miraculously appearing in water wells 3 years after drilling has stopped sounds suspicious to me.

For obvious reasons, I can't possibly comment on the truth of these claims. However, the thing I find most interesting is that the attention and coverage garnered by Josh Fox, Mark Ruffalo et al., swooping in for a quick publicity shot, completely dwarfs any mention of groups of local people like this.

Next time: I'm probably going to talk about CCS - according to Channel 4 news tonight it looks like things could be moving forward again in this respect. Stay tuned......