Shale gas: A burning issue

Photo: Reuters

The issue seems rather similar to that of unconventional oil and has already sparked a major controversy in the West. But its implications for the debate on climate change are hardly known in countries of the global South. On November 6, thousands of protesters staged a colourful encirclement of the White House, protesting against the Keystone XL pipeline-project and against expansion in extraction of tar sands oil. Four days after this, Obama ordered a thorough review of the pipeline plan and suspended decision-making on its construction.
The US president thus seemed to be bowing to the massive pressure which the environmental movement had brought to bear against the scheme. Yet critical observers were quick to point out that the victory may be just temporary, and that there is an urgent need to keep up political pressure -- not just against use of tar sands oil but also to oppose tapping of shale gas.
Drilling for shale gas has a history in the US. Extraction of the gas has skyrocketed over the last decade, and a huge number of drilling projects are on the drawing boardwith Obama's blessing. Hence the dire need to examine what implications such extraction, called "fracking," has for human health and nature, and particularly for debates on climate change.
At first glance, there seems little reason for alarm. It is common knowledge that CO2 emissions from burning of natural gas are substantially lower than those from coal and oil, perhaps as much as a third less. Yet, a major public controversy has erupted in the US over shale gas, paralleling the one over tar sands oil. Critics point out that drilling companies consistently underplay the risks from fracking. What are the facts?
Fracking, or hydraulic fracturing, is somewhat comparable to the in-situ mining of tar sands oil, which relies on high-pressure injection of steam into the subsoil to separate oil from tar sands. To obtain shale gas, high pressure is applied to pump vast quantities of chemical sludge into layers of shale rock located deep in the earth. This results in the fracturing of the shale and the release of natural gas trapped in the rocks. Massive quantities of water are required to undertake these operations. Also required are a range of chemicals, including lead and other toxics. Further, whereas a portion of the sludge is brought back to the surface and stored in waste ponds, a major part is dissipated and slowly seeps back to the surface. According to some reports the percentage is 50% of the total!
Companies involved in fracking are not obliged to disclose what chemicals they use, the lame argument being that these are "trade secrets." Hence a full picture of the environmental implications is hard to draw. Yet concerned scientists have repeatedly pointed at the risks to drinking water sources in areas close to the shale gas drilling wells.
A second risk that has made the headlines in the US is regarding release of methane. Methane is the second most important greenhouse gas after CO2. It stays in the atmosphere for a far shorter period of time, but within that time-span absorbs far more of the sun's heat than does CO2 through its century-long stay in the atmosphere. Some calculations put the potency of methane over a period of twenty years at 70 to 100 times that of CO2!
Further, a study published by the Nasa Goddard Institute in 2009 suggested that methane is not only very potent, but its effects also get amplified through interaction with aerosols in the atmosphere. In yet another study, brought out in April by a research team of Cornell University, the "fugitive" methane release from fracking was specifically highlighted. The study concluded that substantial quantities of methane are leaked into the atmosphere as the drilling wells are struck, and as the shale gas is brought to the surface and marketed.
Though published in a peer review magazine, the study was questioned by sceptics. But then, it should be seen as additional to what the US government's own qualified researchers had already pointed out. A late 2010 report of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the government's watchdog, contained concrete figures comparing methane releases from conventional and unconventional gas wells. Here again, the evidence went against extraction of shale gas.
The problems of assessment are compounded by the fact that shale gas drilling is largely unregulated, nay has been deregulated even as the industry's reach grew, when the need for regulation was the most. Since they are exempted from disclosing elementary data, the drilling companies are free to use toxic chemicals with impunity. They do not even need to reveal the results of their measurements of methane leaks. Further, in a move that has gained notoriety, companies drilling for shale gas in 2005 were exempted from complying with the US's Safe Drinking Water Act!
Responsibility for overseeing the sector's activities was taken away from EPA by the Bush administration. As to guarding the safety of drinking water, some US Congressmen belonging to the Democratic Party had thrice attempted to bring shale gas drilling back under the concerned Act, but without success so far. Hence, the example of the fracking of shale gas retells the story of deregulation, which has been so characteristic of the US's and the world's financial sector in the era of neo-liberalism. In both cases, the profit interests of corporations and of a small section of company executives have been put way above the welfare of the world's population.
At a time when the world is preparing for the climate summit to be held at the end of November, the extraction of unconventional oil and natural gas has come to the fore as a burning issue. Time is running out. Aside from the US, Canada, another producer of natural gas, is also planning to vastly increase reliance on shale gas extraction. Here too, public debate has picked up.
In September, the Pembina Institute, a critical research centre on energy, brought out a special report on shale gas and climate change. Along with the methane releases, the report underlines the large energy needs associated with fracking. A vast amount of energy is required to pump the chemical sludge under high pressure into the layers of shale rock. Hence, if extraction of shale gas is expanded, as foreseen, Canada very likely will fail to reach its emission reduction targetsand emission levels might even go up!
The question for proponents of the fossil fuel industry is, with maintenance of a 2 degree ceiling on global warming already beyond reach, how much more do you want humanity and other species to be put at risk? Clearly, broadly formulated international objectives to limit damage no longer suffice. If we are to avoid runaway climate change, we need a combination of stringent prohibitions on the most destructive forms of extraction, and global policies to limit energy use. Why not buttress the demand for a ban on all drilling for tar sands oil and shale gas? Why not add the demand for a global and equitable regime of energy rationing?

The writer is International Correspondent of The Daily Star. www.petercusters.nl