Follow me on Twitter: @JohnHQuigley

Friday, May 24, 2013

Report: Natgas industry should champion CCS in Europe

The ENGO Network, a global network on environmental NGOs, has released a study that calls on the natural gas industry to champion carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology in Europe. 

This latest ENGO study follows the release of its December 2012 report calling for urgent deployment of CCS.

Moving CCS Forward in Europe argues that, given the failure of governments, electric utilities and equipment suppliers in Europe (and, I would say, everywhere else) to drive CCS for a variety of financial and political reasons, natural gas industry leadership on CCS would both boost the urgency for CCS deployment and expand future prospects for gas in an increasingly carbon constrained economy. Indeed, CCS-equipped gas generation offers the opportunity to vastly lower the greenhouse gas emissions from electricity generation at manageable costs.  

In addition to a variety of policy prescriptions, ENGO called for early investment in transport and a storage infrastructure for clusters of large carbon emitters to build public support for CCS. This echoes recent papers in the U.K. that implicitly endorsed a forward-looking leadership path on CCS taken by Pennsylvania and the Clinton Climate Initiative four years ago.

Will the natural gas industry in Europe - and in the United States - seize the moment and the opportunity to enhance its long term relevance in a world that must aggressively reduce its carbon emissions? Will natural gas align itself with CCS?

Monday, May 20, 2013

Arguing from ignorance, part 2: gas development impact evidence not tracked - or even counted - in PA

Days after the publication of a study highlighting inadequate monitoring systems and technology leading to an argument from ignorance on the impact of hydraulic fracturing on water supplies, this must-read Scranton Times-Tribune article details the paper's investigation into suspected cases of damaged water supplies in Pennsylvania as a result of oil and gas development activity.

The Times-Tribune found that, while 77 percent of state investigations into water quality complaints between 2008 and the fall of 2012 lacked "enough evidence to tie them definitively to drilling", oil and gas development was determined by the state to have damaged the water supplies at least 161 Pennsylvania homes, farms, churches and businesses in that time period.

The complaints cover the broad swath of Pennsylvania where drilling is taking place

Reporter Laura Legere writes:

More than half of the records of contaminated water supplies confirmed by the state involved gas, loosened by drilling, seeping into drinking water aquifers. Faulty natural gas wells channeled methane into the water supplies for 90 properties... Three of those cases were tied to old wells, one of which caused an explosion at a home after gas entered through a floor drain and accumulated in a basement.

Drilling-related road construction contaminated water at two homes, while construction for a large water-storage pond called an impoundment contaminated another. Pipeline construction twice polluted water supplies with sediment. Stray cement or rock waste displaced by drilling, called cuttings, contaminated seven water supplies.

The state has never implicated the underground gas extraction process known as hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, in a contamination incident, but inspectors noted that brine contamination suggesting "an infiltration of frac water into the shallow ground water," damaged six fresh-water springs used for drinking water in northwestern Pennsylvania.

The article makes the case convincingly for tougher regulations and enforcement on all aspects of oil and gas development, and for pre- and post-drilling water quality monitoring.  But it also demonstrates the clear need for another regulation in Pennsylvania that is in the best interests of the public and industry alike - the regulation of the construction of private water wells.  Pennsylvania is one of two states in the nation that does not regulate private water wells.  That must change, immediately.

Perhaps most importantly, the article shows why transparency - from industry and from regulators - is critical to earning the public trust. The lack of transparency is on full display in this report and is one reason that almost two out of three Pennsylvanians support a drilling moratorium in order to study the risks. Amazingly, the Times-Tribune found that the state does not track - or event count - the number of letters it issues as a result of investigations of water quality damage complaints, and it took a state Open Records Law request - that had to be appealed to the state's Commonwealth Court - for the paper to obtain the information.  That is simply inexcusable.

The Times-Tribune reporting is a significant public service and highlights the risks and dangers - to the public and industry alike - from Pennsylvania's continuing argument from ignorance on shale gas development.

Arguing from ignorance, part 1: Is absence of evidence evidence of absence?

An argument from ignorance is a conclusion that a proposition is false because it has not been proven to be true. A new paper from researchers at the University of Pittsburgh and Penn State University published in Science magazine avoids that argument, finding that, while there is no evidence of water contamination as a result of hydraulic fracturing in Pennsylvania's Marcellus region, the actual impact of hydraulic fracturing on the environment remains unknown because monitoring infrastructure and technology have not kept pace with drilling.

Impact of Shale Gas Development on Regional Water Quality reviews the current status of shale gas development and discuss the possible threats to water resources and takes the argument from ignorance issue head-on.  In a U.S. News interview, University of Pittsburgh professor and paper co-author Radisav Vidic said that the density of monitoring sites in Pennsylvania is much lower than the density of wells, “which raises the question of our ability to actually pick up [evidence of contamination] with our current monitoring network. If somebody spills millions of gallons [of fracking wastewater], by the time you get down to where you have a gauge, you may not have picked it up at all.”

In addition, Vidic said that both industry and federal agencies have data that is not being shared with researchers “because of privacy issues or potential litigation, so we're doing the best we can with what we have available.”

This is a critical issue where arguing from ignorance could obviously prove to be disastrous.  Transparency and robust, ubiquitous monitoring for environmental impacts must be part of responsible production of natural gas. Until then, when it comes to shale gas development, absence of evidence must not be taken for evidence of absence.