ONE OF THE PROBLEMS WITH GAS-MINING EMISSIONS

“Australia could be underestimating its annual greenhouse gas emissions by an amount equivalent to the output of the nation's entire transport sector”. This was the startling finding released last month by the Melbourne Energy Institute.

According to the report, Australia's carbon accounting problem stems from a failure to include the fugitive emissions released during the production phase of unconventional gas, i.e. gas extracted from coal seams, shale and sandstone. Currently the level of fugitive emissions is set at only 0.1% of production; in other words the authorities are conveniently ignoring them. The authors point out that this level, is in stark contrast to measurements made at US unconventional gas fields, where measured leakage rates have been found to be as high as 17% of production, 170 times higher than Australia's assumed figure.

Hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking”, is a process used to blast apart underground rock seams to release the methane, which is lighter than air and a highly potent greenhouse gas. Therefore it stands to reason that when those rock seams are shattered, not all the gas will conveniently flow into the pipes for capture, but will seep upwards through the fractured rocks to the ground's surface and into the atmosphere.

In south-east Queensland, residents living inside gas fields are reporting a range of health problems which are consistent with the inhalation of methane. The occurrence of fugitive methane in the air was supported when, some three years ago, methane was found bubbling freely up through the Condamine River, and further confirmed by Southern Cross University Researchers who recorded methane levels within the gas fields many times higher than elsewhere.

Any claim that the industry didn't know this would occur should be summarily dismissed. Any engineer would have known the risks, they simply ignored them as an expedient measure to support their grab for riches, and it's still being ignored.

This poses a serious problem for the government which has committed to the Paris agreement calling for emissions reduction because, with every new well drilled, the problem worsens, and those leaks continue for ever, even after extraction ceases and the wells are capped.

- John Edwards

This article was originally published in the VOICES FOR THE EARTH column in The Daily Examiner on November 14, 2016   

FRACKING UNDER THREAT IN ENGLAND

Public opposition to fracking (hydraulic fracturing), a controversial process in shale gas mining, has forced changes to policy in England.  According to an analysis by The Guardian, fracking is set to be banned on two-fifths of the land being offered in England for shale gas mining by the government.

The new protections rule out fracking in national parks, areas of outstanding natural beauty, sites of special scientific interest, and groundwater source protection zones.

The Guardian's report of February 2 stated: " Ministers were forced to accept Labour's new environmental rules last week to avoid a rebellion by Conservative and LibDem backbench MPs, many of whom are facing opposition to fracking from constituents." (The Conservative Party and the Liberal Democrat Party are the parties currently in government in the United Kingdom.)

The decision has been welcomed by those opposed to fracking.  Friends of the Earth campaigner Donna Hume said, "The fracking industry is in retreat, with public opposition forcing MPs to respond as the election approaches.  But it would be cynical of ministers to accept one day that no fracking can take place in any groundwater protection area, and then try to water it down the next day.  Any attempt to play politics with rules to protect people's drinking water would be met with contempt by the public."

Other opponents of fracking are suggesting that if it's unsafe in one area, why is it not ruled out elsewhere.  Louise Hutchins, Greenpeace UK, said, "The shale industry's seemingly irresistible advance is now looking more and more resistible every day.  Unless ministers can explain why fracking is too risky for the South Downs but perfectly safe in the Lancashire countryside, the next obvious step is to ban this controversial technique from the whole of the UK."

Recently a committee of senior MPs, including former Conservative environment secretary Caroline Spelman called for a UK wide moratorium on fracking arguing that fracking was incompatible with the nation's climate change targets and brought risks to health and the environment.  This proposal was defeated in the Commons (the UK lower house of parliament).

It is significant that the Scottish Government recently imposed a moratorium on fracking.

Would the English changes have occurred if an election had not been imminent? Probably not. There's no doubt that the imminence of an election forces politicians to consider what their constituents want rather than just pandering to the big end of town. We could do with more of that in NSW - particularly in relation to gas mining - as our state election approaches.

GAS MINING AND WATER USE

Whenever the subject of unconventional gas mining is discussed, underground water contamination is invariably the foremost concern. This contamination can result from leaked toxic drilling and fracking fluids, or through cross contamination of water at different levels facilitated by the fractured rock strata, or through fugitive methane leaks that can also pollute underground water.

There are also concerns raised by landowners who are reliant on bore water, reporting that the process of pumping out the groundwater, to allow the free flow of gas, is lowering the water table to a point where they are running out of water.

What isn't so commonly understood, is the amount of water that is actually trucked in for hydraulic fracturing (fracking), a process the industry likes to claim is not especially water intensive. However, recent reports from the USA have highlighted the fact that hundreds of gas wells have required vast amounts of water. The Sabine Oil and Gas company owns the thirstiest well, situated in Harrison County, Texas, followed closely by Encana Oil and Gas' Federal 36 Well in Colorado, with both using well over 100 million litres each.

According to the researchers, some two-thirds of these water-hogging wells are located in dry states like Texas, and that water is ultimately pumped back out as toxic “produced water” requiring treatment before it can be reused. Unfortunately, some Californian operators didn't want to incur the significant expense of treatment, and simply pumped the toxic mix back underground into the state's drinking water source.

That is in America, and Australian companies are quick to claim it couldn't happen in Australia. However, in Queensland, ground water depletion and contamination is a real issue, with some landowners finding their bores now producing more methane than water.

Amazingly, the Energy Resource Information Centre, an industry mouthpiece, is claiming (The Daily Examiner November 20, 2014) that by treating the produced water and making it available for reuse, that Queensland farmers are benefiting from “new water availability”.

Make no mistake, in this the world's driest continent, water protection is of paramount importance, and fracking will put that precious resource at unacceptable risk.

- John Edwards 

 This post was originally published in the VOICES FOR THE EARTH column in The Daily Examiner on    December 8, 2014.