Baseline Studies Back Up Shale Gas E&P

Covering one’s bases before E&P started was the message of Professor Michael Stephenson, Head of Science (Energy) at the British Geological Survey at Shale Gas World Europe 2011 in Warsaw, Poland.

Referencing the title of his talk, “Shale gas and the subsurface environment,” he asked: “What comes to mind? Confusion? Claims and counter claims. Lots of information, lack of trustworthy, independent information.”

Professor Stephenson noted that when people watch Gasland and search on the web, there was a distinct lack of independent content on shale gas.

He noted that public information campaigns at the local level were receiving plenty of attention by players in Poland, according to the presentations in Warsaw. He remarked, “Many of the companies here are doing a fantastic job at engaging people at the local level. This is a ‘nimby’ area, like objections to what drilling operations could have on housing prices.”

He explained that homeowners were not the only kind of people worried about shale gas. “There’s a different kind – the principled objector, who might be younger, educated, city dwellers, activists. They don’t want shale gas because it’s in conflict with their worldview.”

According to Stephenson, that group had no desire for carbon capture storage (CCS), either: “They don’t want clean coal.”

He suggested taking a look at the cold hard science of shale gas.

“You shouldn’t do this,” he said showing a PowerPoint slide that attempted to depict two kilometers below the subsurface on. “It makes people think shale gas is being exploited right below your feet and gets into people’s psyches.”

In terms of presenting research about shale gas, he said, “The understanding and awareness of it only lasts for a few days; it gets into the paper, and for a few days a few thousand people know about shale gas.”

He outlined the risks of shale gas drilling, like blowouts, and casing failures.

“Most of us would agree that the risks are fairly low,” he commented. “This is a pretty well understood business, we know the risks and can manage them.”

Peer reviewed independent science, said Stephenson, was necessary to assess the risk, determining what was not a worry versus what needed to be regulated carefully for public safety and public opinion.

“There’s a need to reassure them through independent research.”

He presented a 3-D graphic of where shales were drilled.

“The depth difference between the aquifer and where you’ll exploit the shale is so huge, most geologists would shake their heads; but that’s not enough, we need to point back to actual research to reassure the public,” explained Professor Stephenson.

In terms of determining whether or not shale gas has actually leaked back to the surface, he questioned whether types of methane apart could be differentiated.

“Methane occurs quite naturally in groundwater. Some of it is of thermogenic in nature (through geological cooking); while biogenic methane is also in water wells.

“In the public’s mind if we find some methane in a well; can we answer those questions with cold, hard science? Can we tell if shale gas has actually leaked?”

Doing a baseline study, he said, made it possible to look at the natural methane in groundwater.

“If someone claims to have methane from fraccing,” he said, “we can help to show that it’s not, or prove one way or another – this is what’s lacking in the shale gas business.”

Stephenson said that only patchy baseline studies had taken place in Pennsylvania, in the US, and that very few peer reviewed studies were available, and, in fact there was only one paper on actual hydraulic fracturing, authored by Osborn et al. 2011.

“They looked at methane in shallow water wells and found higher methane concentrations in water wells close to shale wells, concluding that it was ‘likely to be shale gas from the fraccing’.”

He said that entailed the suggestion of thermogenic gas.

According to the study, there was no evidence of contamination with fraccing fluids.

Stephenson explained: “It is so far down it would be pretty random in the way it was distributed. They said they thought the casing was faulty; all of the wells would have to have leaky casing, which I find difficult to fathom.”

He said there were rebuttals of the paper. “It’s much more likely that this is the result of thermogenic methane that has been there for time immemorial. They don’t know how much natural methane exists in these wells. This shows the importance of a baseline study.”

Incidentally, last month the British Geological Survey announced it was initiating a baseline study of methane levels in groundwater in the UK, to know what may or may not be underground before shale gas development starts.

Stephenson said such studies were also mandated by the earthquakes at Blackpool in the UK.

“We’ve shown that there were earthquakes, magnitude 2.3 felt by around 50 people,” he said of DECC. “We were able to compare the signals of the two earthquakes. I’m told that these are so similar they’re from the same kind of activity - a direct consequence of the fraccing.”

He provided his conclusions.

“Almost all the risk is known, but that doesn’t mean the public believes this. For newer risks we need to distinguish between what matters and what doesn’t.

“Peer reviewed independent science is important at local and higher levels. We need a selection of peer reviewed science articles - in that way they’ll be more convinced that this is safe.”

One query from the delegates was whether O&G operators should fund the independent research for baseline studies.

“They need to be seen to be independent,” explained Stephenson. “They public sector should fund these baseline studies, they ought not to be funded by companies. Companies need an independent body to prove that they’re doing a good job. There are some things that are probably better done in the public area.”