Menu

Fugitive CSG emissions are proving a big deal

Photo Bosc D'Anjou/flickr.com

Photo Bosc D’Anjou/flickr.com

Paddy Manning, Crikey business editor

Leaking methane is the Achilles’ heel of Australia’s $60 billion-plus coal seam gas export industry, so there was a rush last week to welcome the CSIRO’s first measurements of these so-called ‘fugitive emissions’, which found very little leakage.

But the finding was much narrower than initial reports suggested.

The CSIRO scientists themselves were acutely aware of the limitations of their study, but their qualifications got lost in the headlines.

The Australian Financial Review trumpeted: Coal-seam gas releases very little Greenhouse gas, CSIRO finds.

The Australian had fun trivialising the issue: CSG leaks ‘equal to that of cows’ (That line by the way was plucked straight from oil and gas lobby group APPEA’s press release, comparing daily fugitive emissions of methane to that of four cows).

ABC Rural’s report online read: Coal seam gas well fugitive emissions lower than previous estimates: CSIRO.

Sadly these headlines don’t stand up to scrutiny: the jury is still well and truly out on fugitive emissions from CSG.

Let’s back up a little. Gas burns more cleanly than coal, but there has been a ferocious argument whether higher emissions are associated with unconventional gas production, a loose category that includes coal seam gas, shale gas and tight gas.

The debate has huge significance because if even a small proportion of methane leaks into the atmosphere, as little as 4 per cent of lifetime production, then the advantage of gas over coal is lost, because methane has more than 20 times the global warming potential of carbon dioxide.

If leakage rates are below 1-2 per cent, then gas is likely to be cleaner than coal, CSIRO says.
American studies found leakage rates of 4 per cent or more, but the results could not be translated here because their unconventional boom has been overwhelmingly in shale gas, while Queensland’s industry is exporting coal seam gas, which lies shallower and requires less fracking.

Southern Cross University scientists Isaac Santos and Damien Maher caused a furore in 2012 when they did the first field work, driving through the most densely populated coal seam gas field in Australia, at Tara on the western Darling Downs, with a spectrometer and GPS, detecting elevated ambient gas levels in the production field and hotspots of methane and CO2.

They noted that existing techniques concentrated on leaks from gas equipment and did not account for leakage through the soil or water:

‘When techniques such as directional drilling and hydraulic fracturing are used, methane can diffuse into overlying sediments and groundwater aquifers. The magnitude of the atmospheric flux associated with this diffuse source is currently unknown and difficult to estimate.’

The two scientists’ work was slammed by the gas industry and by then energy minister Martin Ferguson, when really they were calling for more study. They did not arrive at a percentage estimate of leakage rates from coal seam gas production.

Now the CSIRO has found leaks from 43 wells are around 0.02 per cent of lifetime production. But there are three huge caveats around this.

Initial reactions criticised the size of the sample, but that’s missing the point: the wells were chosen by the industry partners in the study, who would be extremely unlikely to offer their oldest or worst wells for testing.

Secondly, the study provides only a snapshot in time. To really assess the total leakage rate one has to track the life cycle of a coal seam gas well, from drilling, completion, production, repair and maintenance, all the way through to decommissioning.

Scientists suspect the venting stage, after the well is drilled but before it goes into production, could have particularly high fugitive emissions. None of this counted in the study (which the authors acknowledge).

Lastly, the CSIRO study only looked at emissions from the well pad, the slab of concrete the CSG wellhead sits upon.

There are lots of other potential sources of fugitive methane emissions from a coal seam gas field, both in terms of the equipment and, as Santos and Maher’s work suggested, through soil and water.

The study itself notes that an order-of-magnitude higher leakage rate was detected at a gas relief vent on a water-gathering line, but this was not included in the study, which noted:

there are many other potential emission points throughout the gas production and distribution chain that were not examined in this study. These include well completion activities, gas compression plants, water treatment facilities, pipelines and downstream operations including LNG facilities. Emissions from some of these sources are often estimated for reporting purposes using methodology based on emission factors largely derived from the U.S. gas industry. However, reliable measurements on Australian facilities are yet to be made and the uncertainty associated with some of these estimates remains high.’

The implications could not be more serious. National emissions data is based on inventories that often rely on estimates rather than direct measurement.

Are US emissions really falling due to the unconventional boom and fuel switching from coal to gas? Scientists suspect there is serious underestimation going on.

Then there are the imponderables. Two years since after bubbling gas was first detected along long stretches of the Condamine River, we are no closer to knowing whether it is attributable to coal seam gas extraction.

Farmers and gas companies disagree over whether the bubbling gas was there before, but we may never know for sure because no baseline study was ever done. The river is still bubbling away.

The CSIRO is working on a top-down methodology that will measure all sources of fugitive methane emissions. It will take years. Let’s not jump to conclusions here.

*Paddy Manning is author of What the Frack: everything you need to know about coal seam gas, published by NewSouth Books


Support The Echo

Keeping the community together and the community voice loud and clear is what The Echo is about. More than ever we need your help to keep this voice alive and thriving in the community.

Like all businesses we are struggling to keep food on the table of all our local and hard working journalists, artists, sales, delivery and drudges who keep the news coming out to you both in the newspaper and online. If you can spare a few dollars a week – or maybe more – we would appreciate all the support you are able to give to keep the voice of independent, local journalism alive.


One response to “Fugitive CSG emissions are proving a big deal”

  1. Firstly, the 20 times the impact of CO2 figure is outdated and wrong. Over a 100 year period the figure is at least 32 times CO2. Over a 20 year period it is from 72 – 105 times the Greenhouse impact of CO2. If we are to have any impact on climate change before it is too late, on the faint chance that it is not already too late, then the twenty year period is what we must look at.
    Don’t think for a moment that old wells are worse than new wells, these people are cowboys, nothing has changed in the way these companies conduct themselves, accidents, not reported unless word gets out, still happen and the companies still operate without any oversight and in government endorsed secrecy. Any assertion that newer wells are safer is simply spin unless it can be backed up with truly independent data.
    Then there is gas migration, fugitive emissions are those emissions that occur around the well due to the impossibility of actually sealing such a construction 100%. Migration is where the gas once released by de-watering and depressurizing the coal seam sets off on a journey to find it’s own way to the surface via all the faults and fissures in the surrounding rock strata. This gas can exit the ground many many miles from where it was released from the coal. The gas bubbles that have recently appeared in the Condamine river are an example of Gas Migration. The coal seams here in the Tara region all slope from the North East to the South West, so the gas as soon as it is released starts to migrate to the North East, all it wants to do is go up and it will take any route it can find. So just testing around the wells is pathetic when trying to determine the Greenhouse impact of this industry. The whole coal seam area must be measured, not just the tenement.
    If the industry does not release the base line data they acquired when searching for the good areas to drill then we can assume that prior to drilling there was no methane entering the atmosphere in that area prior to drilling. There is a helicopter fitted with laser detectors that is based in Roma that can scan the whole area to get accurate data, what has it been doing? The industry knows all of this, that is why they don’t tell us what they know.
    As to the CSIRO, it has be one of the proponents of this industry. Corporate funding and government pressure mean that any report from the CSIRO is no better than any report from the industry itself.
    The only clean gas is no gas.
    Graeme Henderson
    Tara

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

 

Echonetdaily is made possible by the support of all of our advertisers and is brought to you by this week's sponsor, Enspire Furniture & Homewares.