Scott Anderson: Energy Exchange

Early this January, a geyser in West Texas started spewing tens of thousands of barrels of salty water a hundred feet into the air and coating the nearby land with salt deposits. It took about 10 days to discover the culprit was an old, dry oil well plugged in 1957 by Gulf Oil. By the […]

This piece originally appeared in the Houston Chronicle The Texas Railroad Commission has a unique chance to save the state’s oil and gas industry from one of its own worst habits — setting fire to over 100 billion cubic feet of natural gas each year, transforming a valuable asset into waste and pollution with zero […]

This post originally appeared in the Midland Reporter Telegram.  Nowhere is the current energy boom more apparent than in Midland, Texas. But with this dramatic growth in oil and gas also comes a growing amount of wastewater. Texas oil and gas companies alone produce over 300 billion gallons of wastewater a year, twice as much […]

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the state of New Mexico recently announced an agreement to create a working group to explore the regulatory landscape regarding potential new options for managing oil and gas wastewater. In 2017, New Mexico’s oil and gas operators produced nearly 38 billion gallons of wastewater – also known as “produced […]

Southern California is now in month three of one of the country’s worst environmental disasters. In October 2015, a natural gas storage well operated by SoCal Gas sprung a massive leak hundreds of feet underground, releasing nearly 1,400 tons of gas into the air each day at its peak. Thousands of local residents impacted by […]

One study cannot answer every question about water pollution risks from oil and gas drilling, nor should it be expected to. But as my colleague Nichole Saunders pointed out, the oft-quoted statement of EPA’s water study – that it found no evidence of “widespread, systemic impacts on drinking water sources”– implied to some that activities […]

The Texas Senate is poised to vote on House Bill 40, new legislation that threatens to gut municipal rules and oversight of oil and gas drilling. The bill, an over-the-top reaction to the Denton fracking ban, stacks the deck in favor of industry and if passed, will undo almost 100 years of local home-rule authority. […]

We all want easy answers. And often times the harder the question, the easier we want the answer to be. Increased natural gas use, for example, can help decrease U.S. greenhouse gas emissions as it has a lower carbon content compared to coal or oil. Natural gas also can help transition our energy mix to […]

On February 28, 2013, something went very wrong on a well site in Hemphill County, Texas: According to Railroad Commission investigators, there was “one injury from well head being blown off when casing parted.” According to the investigators, it took almost two weeks before this “frac water” stopped flowing out of the wellbore, and another […]

It’s not often that a new regulatory idea becomes so popular that one or more states per month climb on the bandwagon. But that is precisely what has happened with the push to disclose which chemicals are pumped into the ground to stimulate oil and natural gas production during the process known as hydraulic fracturing, […]

The University at Buffalo’s Shale Resources and Society Institute issued a report yesterday, “Environmental Impacts During Shale Gas Drilling: Causes, Impacts and Remedies,” which offers a quantitative data review of Pennsylvania’s regulation of natural gas development in the Marcellus Shale. The press release notes that I was a reviewer for the report. While I was […]

I received a flurry of emails this morning congratulating me on comments I made that appeared in a Wall Street Journal article titled, “Faulty Wells, Not Fracking, Blamed for Water Pollution.” It is a good article. It suggests that even if artificial channels created by hydraulic fracturing have not yet been shown to have caused […]

Today, at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Vancouver, the Energy Institute at the University of Texas at Austin released a major report titled, “Fact-Based Regulation for Environmental Protection in Shale Gas Development.” The report’s conclusions are those of the authors, though Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) helped the […]

I wrote last month that Texas House Energy Committee Chairman Jim Keffer, sponsor of a measure that would require oil and gas drillers to tell the public what chemicals are added to hydraulic fracturing fluid, said "the world is watching" to see how Texas handles the issue. There has been a lot to see. The […]

By Scott Anderson

Source: Bellona

EDF believes that, done right, carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) can be a safe and effective tool for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.  We also think it will be a necessary tool – especially for natural gas, which is poised to make up an increasing share of our national energy portfolio.

The environmental community doesn’t have a monolithic view of CCS, though.  Some groups are skeptical about its need.  Others have concerns about whether it can really work.  Fair enough!  We welcome debate and opportunities to learn from each other.

There are certain things, though, on which we can all agree.  More than 50 organizations recently came together to express our unanimous opposition to a couple of very bad ideas about how CCS projects should be treated – ideas that could lead to sloppy projects and put public health and the environment at risk.

The first is so-called “liability relief.”  Believe it or not, on the one-year anniversary of the Deepwater Horizon oil-spill disaster, some in the coal and utility industries continue to call for a “Get Out of Jail Free” card for CCS projects.  They are basically saying that once a CCS project is sealed up, operators shouldn’t be held responsible if carbon dioxide (CO2) starts to leak or if displace formation fluids pollute ground water.  We believe this is a set-up for dangerous short cuts in project planning and implementation.  It boggles my mind that, at the same time Congress is struggling to lift liability caps for offshore drilling, anyone would entertain the idea of taking steps that would reduce incentives to properly manage CCS projects.

The second bad idea might be even more perplexing than the first – and we’re especially disappointed that it’s coming from the good folks at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).  Our environmental watchdogs at the agency are considering a proposal to exempt CCS projects from hazardous waste requirements under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, our nation’s landmark law that keeps us safe from the most toxic substances.  If CO2 streams at CCS projects get this exemption, it will eliminate important protections for clean-ups and remediation and for public participation.

EDF is helping lead the charge against these bad ideas – meeting with members of Congress and agency officials, sounding the alarm with the media, and working with other environmental groups to present a united front.  For more details, read our letter to the Administration, and stay tuned to the Energy Exchange.

By Scott Anderson

As early as tomorrow, the Texas House of Representatives Energy Resources Committee could approve HB 3328, a measure that is intended to be the most effective law in the country requiring public disclosure of the chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing fluid.

Last Wednesday night in a hearing room at the Texas Capitol, Representative Jim Keffer (R-Eastland), the Committee’s Chairman and author of the bill, told members of his committee that “the world is watching” to see whether Texas will require oil and gas drillers to tell the public what chemicals are added to hydraulic fracturing fluid. He declared that “the time has come” to mandate public disclosure of all chemical ingredients subject only to reasonable protection for trade secrets. Where trade secrets are concerned, he wants regulatory agencies and health care professionals to have the information on a confidential basis.

Keffer isn’t kidding. He and a growing number of supporters hope to create a model that can settle the issue once and for all, if followed in other jurisdictions as well.

EDF strongly supports Keffer’s mandatory disclosure legislation. So do others in the environmental community. Sierra Club and the Texas League of Conservation Voters were among those testifying for the bill at the hearing last week. Also heartening is the fact that Keffer’s initiative is attracting industry support.  Kudos to the half-dozen gas industry leaders who stepped forward at the hearing to support the bill: Apache, El Paso Production, Petrohawk Energy, Pioneer Natural Resources, Southwestern Energy, and Talisman Energy. These are companies that understand what it takes to earn the public’s trust. Additional industry support is likely to appear in the coming days and weeks.

By Scott Anderson

Yesterday I was interviewed on an energy-related television show about natural gas drilling in the U.S. and some viewers thought I was too pro-drilling, others thought I was too anti-drilling. My reaction to that is: PERFECT! That was precisely my intention – to be a balanced voice in the discussion of hydraulic fracturing (HF). HF may be an important process to extract what may be a cleaner-burning fuel source for our country; but if it is developed, adverse impacts for gas drilling must be reduced to assure public safety and to protect the environment.

Currently, the environmental impact of natural gas development is unacceptably high. From polluted water wells in Pennsylvania to an exploding home in Ohio, there are numerous recent examples of environmental disasters from natural gas production.

I said in the interview that HF can be used safely “IF” it is regulated more closely and companies are more transparent about the fluids they use. Regulation may be done state by state, but if states aren’t up to the task, it will need to be regulated at the federal level. So industry needs to step up to the plate and improve its practices. While there are issues with HF, many of the problems with gas are more widespread. A framework is needed that focuses on well construction and operation that goes beyond even HF to broader well construction issues and cementing. Additional issues that must be addressed include getting the cement and pipes right in the wells, and proper management of pressure. Additionally, for hydraulically fractured wells it is important to be sure wells are situated beneath a satisfactory cap rock — one or more layers of rock that's sufficient to prevent toxic chemicals from migrating into drinking water. Some areas are so important, such as drinking supplies for cities, that they need to be off-limits for fracking.

If natural gas is to fulfill its potential, we need much cleaner drilling practices. Results will be gauged by the improved health and safety of citizens and the earth in the short and long term. Stay tuned for more discussion on this vital topic.

By Scott Anderson

By Tim O’Connor, Attorney / Climate Policy Analyst

A recent issue of the UK Guardian has brought to the forefront the findings of paper published in the Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering.[1] This paper, purporting to call into question the ability of carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) technology to serve as a solution for greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) is making waves in the scientific and climate change policy communities. Titled “Sequestering carbon dioxide in a closed underground volume,” the article suggests CCS is not a viable solution to the current problem of these emissions from fossil fuel power plants, an assertion flying in the face of accepted wisdom on the subject to date.[2]

Published by perhaps the only Texas-based husband and wife team specializing in petroleum and chemical engineering, Christine Ehlig-Economides and Michael Economides, the journal article has resulted in a significant amount of consternation[3] in the scientific community and an unfortunate level of attention by news outlets looking for a reason (scientifically supportable or otherwise) to undermine CCS as a bridge technology for greenhouse gas mitigation.[4]

In essence, the paper argues that CCS will require a much larger subsurface geographic area than previously thought to be effective.  According to the article, a single 500-MW power plant could require a land area about the size of a small U.S. state.  Due to this projected massive land need, the authors argue that CCS will be cost-prohibitive, essentially a boondoggle of the highest proportions in almost every foreseeable application.  Such an opinion is certainly not a sound bite the U.S. Department of Energy (which recently announced a $3 billion investment in CCS research, development and deployment) or power plants such as the proposed Tenaska Trailblazer site (projected to sequester 85% of its emissions using CCS) are likely to take seriously.[5]

This article has been met with an outpouring of support for CCS from a supermajority of experts making up the broader scientific community on this subject.  Indeed, a read of the responses to the journal, coupled with a review of the litany of CCS literature, show that the authors' opinions on CCS potential are extreme outliers in the growing scientific consensus surrounding carbon sequestration.

In response to journal article and Guardian story, no fewer than four formal responses by leading CCS experts in the scientific community have been added to the public discussion, with more likely to be published.[6]

In addition, the World Resources Institute (WRI) and American Petroleum Institute (API) issued statements in response to the article, pointing out the authors’ misapplication of known petrochemical and reservoir management principles combined with improper assumptions. Of note is that no responses from the scientific community have supported the authors’ extreme projections on subsurface area needs, or their conclusions regarding limitations on pore space "injectivity" that are known to be posed by pressure considerations or other factors.

In general, scientific community responses to the article include five fundamental critiques of the authors’ methodology:

1. A mischaracterization of reservoir outcropping leakage potential
2. A misunderstanding of pore space dynamics and availability
3. Fundamental errors in authors’ numerical model related to vertical and lateral migration potential (questioning the absolute impermeable boundaries assumption)
4. Failure to take evidence from current CCS projects into account
5. Inaccurate perception of reservoir pressure management at CCS sites

A sixth critique by the API questions the authors' estimates (or underestimates) of the amount of enhanced oil recovery available for CO2 sequestration, a critical part of their assertion that the U.S. doesn’t have enough capacity to mitigate emissions on the level necessary to meet long-term reduction targets.

Such critiques, however, while tending to disprove the authors' overall characterization of how much CO2 can be injected into an individual site, and how it will migrate, must make room for the valuable messages that can be drawn from their work.

First and foremost, the authors and response papers agree that, as an important first step to any project, it is necessary to confirm the aquifer size and characterize subsurface geologic conditions through an aquifer appraisal process before starting sequestration. This process of site selection will be the only way to know the subsurface characteristics of the injection site, model the probable plume migration pathways and make projections about storage potential.

Second, and perhaps as important, is that the authors and responders agree that reservoir pressure is linked to overall injectivity, and that detailed formation-scale capacity assessments should take pore volume and pressure into account.

Finally, since injected CO2 plumes can migrate laterally or vertically underground depending on geologic and injection conditions, it is critical that sequestration projects be equipped with sufficient subsurface monitoring to track CO2 migration once injection begins.

According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, when properly sited, operated and monitored, geologic sequestration projects can be expected to retain 99% of injected CO2 in the subsurface for 1000 years or more.

This finding underscores the importance of CCS as a low-carbon technology and shows the importance of educating the public about the merits of the technology.  With the fresh gut check provided by the Economides and the overwhelming response from both the scientific community, API and WRI, the desire to make CCS work as a mitigation option is receiving the attention is deserves.

The completion of a few successful commercial scale projects at home and abroad should quell concerns such as those raised in the article and allow CCS technology to grow as a major solution for reducing emissions and provide another reason to invest in innovative technologies that can help us transition to a clean energy economy.

[1] Guardian, April 27, 2010, “US research paper questions viability of carbon capture and storage”

[2] Ehlig-Economides and Economides, Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 70 (2010) 123–130

[3] Haszeldine et al., Response to the article April 27, 2010 article in the Guardian

[4] Canada Free Press, Feb., 25, 2010, “Geologic Carbon Storage Can Never Work, says new US study”

[5] The Clean Economy Group, April 19, 2010, “Tenaska agrees to capture, sequester 85% of CO2 emissions in settlement with Environmental Defense Fund”

[6] 1) Lawrence Berkeley National Lab, 2) Pacific Northwest National Lab, 3) ZEP (Zero Emissions Platform), 4) Formal Reply by A. J. Cavanagh, R. S. Haszeldine and M. J. Blunt