Saturday, August 28, 2021

HYDROGEN H2

Hydrogen: fuel of the future? | The Economist

Aug 25, 2021

The Economist

It’s been hailed as fuel of the future. Hydrogen is clean, flexible and energy efficient. But in practice there are huge hurdles to overcome before widespread adoption can be achieved. 00:00 How hydrogen fuel is generated. 02:04 How hydrogen fuel could be used. 02:46 Why hydrogen fuel hasn't taken off in the past. 03:40 Is hydrogen fuel safe? 04:31 Hydrogen's advantage over batteries. 05:00 How sustainable is hydrogen fuel? 06:13 Why the hype about hydrogen may be different this time. 

Find The Economist’s most recent coverage on climate change: https://econ.st/3zCt2uW

 




Linde says it will triple the amount of clean hydrogen production by 2028

By Joanna Sampsonon Aug 27, 2021

Translate NEWS


Linde will invest more than $1bn in decarbonisation initiatives and triple the amount of clean hydrogen production by 2028, the industrial gas giant has set out in its 2020 Sustainable Development Report.

Published today (August 27), the report highlights that Linde is investing across the hydrogen value chain to accelerate the clean energy transition.

Linde says it will pursue competitive low-carbon sources of hydrogen, including energy-efficient steam methane reformers (SMRs) with carbon dioxide capture, electrolysis with renewable power and piloting new low-carbon technologies.

Grey and blue hydrogen are “important stepping-stones” on the path to green hydrogen, the Hydrogen Council member says in the report, as they “allow the necessary frameworks and infrastructures to be developed” while green hydrogen reaches the “necessary scale”.


Clean hydrogen is a cornerstone of Linde’s clean energy strategy.

The firm says it has the largest liquid hydrogen production capacity and distribution system in the world today and it also operates the first commercial high-purity hydrogen storage cavern.

Linde also has around 200 hydrogen stations and 80 hydrogen electrolysis plants worldwide.

Read the report in full here.

How Linde is scaling up to serve the growing hydrogen mobility market in North America



© Linde

Linde is currently in the process of retrofitting its Ontario, California plant to produce green hydrogen to fuel the US state’s mobility market. Targeting the second quarter of 2021 for full commercialisation, the facility will manufacture green hydrogen using renewable methane, in addition to producing conventional hydrogen.

With this investment, the US-German industrial gas giant will be able to initially produce 2.6 metric tons of green hydrogen per day – enough to fuel up to 1,600 vehicles a day – helping to avoid up to 50,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide per year. As demand for green hydrogen grows, Linde plans to expand its capacity accordingly, and revealed to H2 View that the US mobility market is a big focus for the company.

Read the full article here.

Hyundai to show next-generation fuel-cell systems, hydrogen society ideas
AUGUST 27, 2021 

Hyundai plans to host a "global forum" called Hydrogen Wave on September 7, with the goal of showcasing next-generation fuel-cell systems, and promoting different uses for fuel-cell tech.

The online event will present Hyundai's "vision for a future hydrogen society," according to a company press release. Hyundai said it will showcase fuel-cell vehicles, as well as other applications for fuel-cell tech.

Three short teaser videos provided hints of what the reveals might be. One showed a car lapping a racetrack in the black-and-white camouflage typical of auto-industry prototypes. The second showed what appeared to be a fuel-cell truck, and the third seemed to focus on hydrogen distribution. It's another manifestation of Hyundai's eagerness to find uses for fuel cells beyond passenger cars.


Teaser for Hyundai Hydrogen Wave event


Hyundai has been a strong advocate of a future hydrogen economy, and it launched an HTWO fuel-cell brand last December, and this event is likely going to expand on what exactly that means.

We do know that Hyundai plans to test fuel-cell semi trucks in California. Last month, the automaker announced a 12-month pilot program using two trucks, which will be followed by the rollout of a 30-truck fleet in the second quarter of 2023.

To distribute hydrogen, Hyundai is also considering ideas that use existing infrastructure, like transporting hydrogen in oil.

However, Hyundai's only fuel-cell passenger vehicle is the Nexo crossover SUV, which is only available through a handful of California dealerships. Lack of infrastructure has proven challenging for the Nexo and other fuel-cell cars, and that provides more incentive for Hyundai to find other uses for fuel cells.

Hydrogen now firmly at the heart of the global race to net zero — for better or worse

New policy announcements by the US, EU, UK, India and Russia show that major economies are getting serious about H2, but are they getting it right? asks Leigh Collins

LONG READ



National hydrogen strategies, according to Recharge analysis.Photo: Recharge



26 August 2021 10:48 GMT UPDATED 27 August 2021 11:48 GMT
By Leigh Collin

Four years ago, when Recharge began writing about clean hydrogen, it was little more than a fringe idea being discussed by forward thinkers rather than policy makers.

But today — after a series of recent announcements — countries accounting for more than a third of the world’s population (2.7 billion people) now have hydrogen strategies in place, putting the gas firmly at the heart of the global race to reach net-zero emissions.


Hydrogen: hype, hope and the hard truths around its role in the energy transition
Will hydrogen be the skeleton key to unlock a carbon-neutral world? Subscribe to Accelerate Hydrogen, powered by Recharge and Upstream, and get the market insight you need for this rapidly evolving global market.
Sign up now


August has been an extraordinary month for hydrogen. National strategies were officially announced by India, the UK, Russia and Colombia, while the US introduced a preliminary national hydrogen strategy by the back door — buried in the giant 2,702-page bipartisan infrastructure bill that was passed by the country’s Senate.

And in mid-July the European Commission unofficially expanded its existing hydrogen strategy — unveiled in July 2020 — through its Fit for 55 package.


UK backs hydrogen CfDs to repeat offshore wind success story
Read more


Modi pledges massive green hydrogen 'quantum leap' to Indian energy independence
Read more

All of this adds to the national hydrogen plans already announced by Japan, South Korea, Canada, Australia, Chile, Norway, Germany, France, Spain, the Netherlands and Portugal, while China, Brazil, Turkey, New Zealand, Ukraine and Oman are also working on their own H2 programmes.

So what do the new strategies actually say? Would the hydrogen be green or blue, or some other hue? How would the H2 be used? Are governments going to commit to the potentially expensive and inefficient use of H2 in cars and heating? And when will the mass manufacturing of clean hydrogen actually take off?
US: ‘Let the market decide’

The landmark $550bn Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act — passed by the US Senate last month, but yet to be signed off by the Democrat majority in the House of Representatives — assigns $9.5bn of federal cash to the hydrogen sector and spells out an aim to reduce the cost of green H2 to less than $2/kg by 2026 (from more than $5/kg today).

It also creates four regional clean hydrogen hubs, which the bill defines as “network[s] of clean hydrogen producers, potential clean hydrogen consumers, and connective infrastructure located in close proximity... that can be developed into a national clean hydrogen network to facilitate a clean hydrogen economy”.

The bill requires the Energy Secretary — a position currently held by Jennifer Granholm — to solicit proposals for these hubs within 180 days of the bill’s enactment.

US President Joe Biden speaks during a virtual meeting with governors, mayors and local officials on the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. Photo: AFP/Getty

Significantly, the bill also calls upon the Energy Secretary to select at least one hub proposal from each of three clean-hydrogen production routes: fossil fuels (with carbon capture and storage), renewables, and nuclear energy — also known as blue, green and pink H2, respectively.

Also, each of the hubs should demonstrate different uses of clean hydrogen: power generation, industrial manufacturing, residential and commercial heating, and transportation.

The US is therefore taking a “let the market decide” approach to the production and usage of “clean” hydrogen, despite recent evidence suggesting that blue H2 would be bad for the climate due to upstream methane emissions.

These criteria are not set in stone, however, as the bill merely requires the Energy Secretary to meet them “to the maximum extent practicable”.

The infrastructure bill also authorises the Energy Secretary to spend $500m over the 2022-26 financial period on multi-year grants — and contracts with companies and organisations — to advance clean hydrogen research, development and demonstration projects, including for production, processing, delivery, storage or usage of the H2.


Green, blue and pink: Bipartisan US infrastructure bill allocates $9.5bn to push down the costs of clean hydrogen
Read more


Blue hydrogen 'worse than gas for the climate': landmark study's damning verdict
Read more

The priority here, the bill states, is to increase the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of clean-hydrogen technology.

A further $1bn will be spent on grants and contracts as part of a research, development, demonstration, commercialisation and deployment programme that aims to cut the cost of hydrogen produced from electrolysers to less than $2/kg by 2026 — as well as “any other goals the [Energy] Secretary determines”.

This is a huge amount of money that could be used to fund giant factories that reduce the cost of electrolysers simply through economies of scale, or to develop new efficient technologies.

However, the lion’s share of the cost of renewable H2 is the price of the energy used to split the water molecules into hydrogen and oxygen, so reducing the cost of electrolysers on its own would almost certainly not be enough to hit the $2/kg figure. So the funding could be used to directly subsidise green H2.

The bill also requires the Energy Secretary to submit to Congress a “technologically and economically feasible national strategy and roadmap to facilitate widescale production, processing, delivery, storage, and use of clean hydrogen” within 180 days of the act passing. These will include interim goals and be updated at least once every three years.

Again, this gives significant leeway to Granholm, who could decide that using hydrogen for cars or heating is not economically feasible, as many independent analysts argue.

And in what could be seen as a new global standard, the bill makes a clear definition of “clean hydrogen” — as H2 “produced with a carbon intensity equal to or less than 2 kilograms of carbon dioxide-equivalent produced at the site of production per kilogram of hydrogen produced”.

The words “at the site of production” would be music to fossil-fuel industry ears as it does not include the upstream methane emissions that massively increase the greenhouse gas footprint of blue hydrogen.


'Part of our path to net zero': US seeds next-generation H2 technology with $50m fund
Read more


Iberdrola US green hydrogen plans span Atlantic offshore wind to Texas badlands
Read more

Grey hydrogen, produced from unabated natural gas or coal, emits 9-12kg of CO2 for every kilogram of hydrogen. Roughly speaking, this would mean that 80-90% of the CO2 emitted from steam methane reforming or coal gasification would need to be captured and stored indefinitely to meet the criteria for clean H2.

With blue hydrogen proponents such as Norwegian energy giant Equinor aiming to capture 95-99% of emissions, so the 2kg/CO2e figure is a low bar for the fossil-fuel industry.

UK: 5GW by 2030

The UK government finally launched its long-awaited hydrogen strategy on 17 August, which includes proposals to use a “contracts for difference” (CfD) subsidy mechanism similar to the one used to kick-start the nation’s rapidly expanding offshore wind sector.

Since the CfD was introduced in 2015, the cost of offshore wind from UK waters has reduced by two thirds.

Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s administration hopes to mirror that as it builds 5GW of “clean” hydrogen capacity — green or blue — by 2030, to be used in industry, transport and heating.

British ministers seem intent on using hydrogen in the existing natural gas network for heating, despite the massive costs of converting pipelines to cope with the smaller molecule, including metal gas pipes hidden in walls or under floorboards in people’s homes — not to mention the inefficiency of H2 boilers compared to electric heating solutions such as heat pumps. So hydrogen heating would be far more expensive to consumers than electric solutions.

Prime Minister Boris Johnson with energy secretary Kwasi Kwarteng on a visit to the Moray Offshore Windfarm East, off Scotland
 Photo: Getty

The strategy states that the government will undertake a review to support the development of transport and storage infrastructure and will assess the safety, technical feasibility and cost effectiveness of mixing hydrogen into the existing gas supply.

But much of the strategy pushes a lot of the key decisions into the future, with action only being taken after consultation with the public and industry.

The government wants to collaborate with industry to develop standards to give certainty to producers and users that the hydrogen the UK produces is consistent with net zero. Emissions from blue hydrogen would therefore have to be offset by tree planting or carbon capture.

Ministers will also consult on the design of a £240m ($331m) Net Zero Hydrogen Fund, which aims to support the commercial deployment of new low-carbon hydrogen production plants across the UK.

A hydrogen sector development action plan will be launched in early 2022 setting out how the government will support companies to secure supply-chain opportunities and jobs.

India: Mission quantum leap

Prime Minister Narendra Modi used his annual Independence Day speech on 15 August to launch India’s National Hydrogen Mission, declaring that green H2 produced from renewables would help the nation make a “quantum leap” to energy independence by 2047.


Modi pledges massive green hydrogen 'quantum leap' to Indian energy independence
Read more


'Use green hydrogen' rule for oil and fertiliser plants as India eyes world-leading market
Read more

“We have to make India a global hub for green hydrogen production and export,” he said. “This will not only help India to make new progress in the field of energy self-reliance but will also become a new inspiration for clean energy transition all over the world.”

Such high-profile backing of renewable hydrogen is a hugely important signal to potential investors, but Modi’s speech lacked details.

However, a few days earlier, India’s power and renewable energy minister RK Singh announced plans to compel oil refineries and fertiliser plants to use green hydrogen.

The draft policy — which has been sent for cabinet approval — will force oil refiners to use at least 10% green H2 in their overall hydrogen consumption from 2023/24, rising to 25% by the end of the decade, it was reported.

The fertiliser sector would have to use 5% renewable hydrogen by 2023/24 and 20% by 2030.

About 98% of the 70 million tonnes of hydrogen currently used each year by oil refiners, fertiliser producers and chemical manufacturers is currently grey — ie, produced from unabated natural gas or coal. Which is why analysts have long argued that grey hydrogen needs to be replaced with green or blue H2 before scaling up the use of hydrogen in other sectors such as transport.
Russia: Eyeing exports

Prime Minister Mikhail Mishustin unveiled Russia’s “concept” for hydrogen development on 6 August, with an aim of becoming one of the largest exporters of clean H2 — mainly the blue variety — to Europe and Asia.

He also alluded to the reason behind the new hydrogen strategy — namely, that the hydrocarbon-reliant Russian economy would otherwise lose billions of dollars in oil & gas sales as the world strives for net-zero emissions.

“Hydrogen energy will reduce the risks of losing energy markets and support economic growth through development of new production facilities, as well as the creation of high-tech jobs, and the export of products and technologies,” said Mishustin.


Russia eyes large-scale export of blue hydrogen in partnership with local oil & gas majors
Read more


Putin special envoy: 'Russia can take over the European clean hydrogen market'
Read more

The 25-page “concept” document sees the Russian hydrogen industry being built up over several stages between now and 2050.

The first stage up until 2025 will involve the creation of at least three hydrogen hubs in different parts of the country and the implementation of pilot projects for the production and export of H2, as well as the use of the gas in the domestic market.

The pilot projects under this initial stage will likely focus on the production of blue hydrogen, making use of Russia’s vast gas resources combined with carbon capture and storage technology — although the draft concept also includes potential electrolysis projects using “low-carbon” electricity.

One of the three hydrogen hubs, or industrial clusters, will be in the northwest of the country, focused on exports to the EU, as well as reducing the carbon footprint of the manufacturing of other export products.

An eastern cluster will focus on exports to Asia and the development of hydrogen infrastructure for transport and energy.

A third hub, dubbed the Arctic cluster, will focus on the creation of low-carbon power supply systems for territories in Russia’s Arctic zone.

The second phase of Russia’s hydrogen development plans, from 2025-35, will concentrate on launching Russia’s first commercial-scale clean-hydrogen projects, targeting the export of up to two million tonnes of H2 per year. It will also focus on the widespread adoption of hydrogen technologies in various sectors of the Russian economy, from petrochemistry to housing and utilities.

The third stage, from 2036-50, would see its hydrogen exports grow to as much as 15 million tonnes annually by 2050, with widespread commercial application of hydrogen technologies in the fields of transport, energy and industry.
EU: Hydrogen mandates

On 14 July, the European Commission unveiled its long-awaited Fit for 55 package — policy proposals that would enable the 27 EU states to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by at least 55% (compared to 1990 levels) by 2030.


EU unveils new 40% renewables target for 2030 and green hydrogen mandates
Read more


EU’s new green H2 targets are great, but where are the support mechanisms needed to hit them?
Read more

This included a mandate for all industrial users of hydrogen to source 50% of their H2 from renewables by 2030 — but without establishing how the extra costs would be paid for — and the introduction of carbon pricing for heating fuels, road transport and maritime and aviation sectors.

As Recharge has previously reported, studies show that a carbon price would have to be higher than €200 ($235) per tonne of CO2 — up from recent record highs of €58 — to make green H2 cost-competitive with grey.

The package also called for one hydrogen refuelling station every 150km along the Trans-European Transport Network of major trunk roads, as well as in every “urban node” within it, as part of plans for all new cars and vans to be zero-emission by 2035.

New targets were also announced for the aviation and shipping sectors. By 2030, 5% of aviation fuel would be have to be “sustainable” — ie, produced from carbon-neutral biofuel or synthetic fuel derived from clean hydrogen — by 2030, up from less than 0.1% today.

The package also calls for a 13% reduction in greenhouse-gas intensity in shipping fuels by 2035. Clean hydrogen and its derivatives, ammonia and methanol, are widely thought to be the most likely fuels to reduce the huge amount of emissions from the maritime sector.

A world-first carbon border adjustment mechanism — a kind of import tariff — would be brought in to ensure that imports have the same embedded price on carbon as within the EU.

Under the original EU H2 strategy, unveiled in July 2020, the commission called for 40GW of green hydrogen by 2030, with blue hydrogen to be used only in the short to medium term.

Both the H2 strategy and Fit for 55 package still need to be signed off by the bloc’s 27 member states.
‘Dreams’ and reality

Disappointingly for green campaigners everywhere, most of the national strategies see a significant role for blue hydrogen, even though it is not a net-zero solution, could be even worse for the climate than burning natural gas and will require a continued reliance on often-imported fossil fuel.


Using clean hydrogen for domestic heating and transport is ‘nonsensical’, says Enel CEO



SPECIAL REPORT | Is the future role of green hydrogen in the energy mix being overstated?
Read more

Governments also seem to be more interested in pushing for the use of clean hydrogen in cars and heating — despite the inefficiencies and added expense compared to pure electric solutions — when their focus should be on removing the existing emissions from grey H2.

Europe’s current annual consumption of grey hydrogen is about 10 million tonnes per year, resulting in 100 million tonnes of CO2, the equivalent of about 22 million fossil-fuel cars.

As Enel chief executive Francesco Starace recently told Recharge, each kilogram of green hydrogen requires about 50kWh of electricity. “That’s about 500TWh of energy just to displace the existing grey hydrogen,” he said. “So can we then afford to lose money and time to dream about hydrogen being used to cook meals or drive cars? No, that’s stupid. It will not happen.”

He added that one kilogram of hydrogen — produced from 50kWh — would enable a fuel-cell car to travel 80-90km. “Now I take the 50kWh and I put them in an electric car, that car would drive 250km. It’s even worse with heating.

“So why should I do this stupid thing and put this stuff into hydrogen just because someone wants to use some [gas] pipes to move it? Forget it.”

It could be argued that ministers are paying more attention to oil & gas lobbyists pushing to swap petrol and natural gas for clean hydrogen than power companies or independent academics and analysts calling for hydrogen to only be used in sectors where no other options seem possible — such as fertilisers, chemical production, shipping and aviation.

And despite all the announcements, it is worth noting that the global production of green and blue hydrogen is currently minimal, and not one single country has yet put policies in place that would help to make clean H2 cost-competitive with grey.

In fact, no nation has definitively decided what that policy should be, with every published hydrogen strategy pushing that key decision back to an undetermined future date.

In other words, while these national policies offer a direction of travel to potential investors that can encourage investment in hydrogen, they are — so far, at least — merely ambitions, or wishful thinking. A lot of talk, but little action.

And it is plain to see that the planet cannot wait many more years for us to start slashing our greenhouse gas emissions. 

Additional reporting by Rob Watts, Josh Lewis and Andrew Lee.

Alaska’s Oil Industry May Be On Its Last Legs

Last week a judge halted the latest Alaskan oil project following a year of disappointment due to the Covid related drop in oil demand and the cancellation of project after project as the green transition takes hold. It’s hard not to be concerned over the future of Alaskan oil. As locals say they need Alaskan oil for jobs and income, Biden and other forces seem insistent on curbing production in the oil-rich region. 

Just last week, a U.S. judge rejected approvals for a large oil project on Alaska’s North Slope, already approved by ex-President Trump’s administration in 2020, largely due to environmental concerns. ConocoPhillips’ Willow Project in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska previously approved development included three drill sites, associated processing facilities, gravel roads, and pipelines on the North Slope, with the potential for further development in the future. 

The project was expected to produce as much as 160,000 bpd of oil, meaning a total of around 590 million barrels over three decades. In addition, the project would have created around 1,000 construction jobs and 400 long-term operations jobs. 

Is it for this reason that many locals are battling it out against environmentalists and international agencies to keep the state’s oil and gas industry running for as long as possible. With an economy largely built on energy, many believe that halting oil and gas developments will leave Alaska with high levels of unemployment and significantly reduced revenue levels.

Alaskan oil and gas has already been hit hard by the Covid-19 pandemic, which left thousands unemployed and saw the lowest levels of Alaskan oil production in over 40 years. In 2020, Alaska lost around 3,000 oil and gas jobs, a reduction from 10,000 employed in the industry to fewer than 6,900, representing the lowest employment rate in the industry in 30 years. 

This is a trend that looks set to continue following the inauguration of President Biden in January this year, who made his stance on climate change and his intended shift away from oil and gas clear; as well as recent landmark reports on the need to replace fossil fuels with renewables over the next decade by both the IEA and the IPCC

This August, Biden has once again been bashed for his movement away from national oil, as several complain that it’s costing both jobs and the national economy, while the U.S. continues to rely on foreign oil to meet its needs. 

Biden was criticized by U.S. and Canadian oil supporters earlier this month when he plead with Saudi Arabia and OPEC+ to increase output in order to stabilize international oil prices. Oil majors and politicians suggested that North America would not be in this situation if new projects had been carried out, and output had returned to pre-pandemic levels. After Biden’s request was denied earlier this month, much of the public reiterated this sentiment, as millions of Americans are currently facing ever-rising gasoline prices in the wake of a global pandemic. 

The Governor of Alaska, Mike Dunleavy, sent out a strong message to Biden and the federal judge on their decisions to move away from fossil fuel production in the oil-rich Alaskan region. Dunleavy stated, “Make no mistake, today’s ruling from a federal judge trying to shelve a major oil project on American soil does one thing: outsources production to dictatorships & terrorist organizations”. “This is a horrible decision. We are giving America over to our enemies piece by piece. The Willow project would power America with 160,000 barrels a day, provide 1000s of family-supporting jobs, and greatly benefit the people of Alaska.” 

Related: House Democrats Seek More Oil Drilling Bans

However, the mismanagement of oil revenue in Alaska cannot be overlooked. Despite establishing the Alaska Permanent Fund in 1976 as a means of investing a percentage of the state’s oil revenue in investments in bonds, stocks, real estate, infrastructure, and private entities for the future of the economy, the Alaskan government and big oil operators have been repeatedly criticized for spending on shareholder interests rather than giving oil revenue back to Alaskans themselves. 

In addition, Alaskan oil revenue had been declining long before the pandemic hit, with the government facing a deficit of $1.5 billion at the beginning of 2020. With the largest oil field discovered in North America, Alaskan oil boomed in the late 1960s and following decades. However, it has been in a state of decline since its peak in 1988, falling from a production level of 2 million bpd to under 1 million bpd in 2002. By 2020, Alaska was producing around 460,000 bpd of oil.  

So, while we can blame Biden and environmentalism for the recent loss in Alaska’s oil economy and its rising unemployment levels, Alaska must respond to the decades of decline that came before. It may still have a few years left in it, with existing production remaining relatively steady, but one thing is sure, Alaska must invest more heavily in its non-oil sector if it hopes to thrive once again.  

By Felicity Bradstock for Oilprice.com 

Earthquakes triggered by underground fluid injection modelled for a tectonically active oil field

An analysis of the Val d’Agri oil field in Italy provides insight into how processes associated with wastewater disposal trigger earthquakes — and how such effects can be reduced to maintain the economic viability of mature oil fields.

Mirko van der Baan

Gas and oil extraction generates wealth — it can significantly boost the gross domestic product of a country. But water is also extracted with the hydrocarbons, and is often reinjected into the ground for disposal. Unfortunately, large-scale fluid injection can induce earthquakes1, potentially leading to the termination of extraction before the full economic potential of an oil field has been realized. Writing in Nature, Hager et al.2 describe a multidisciplinary process to manage earthquake hazard in an active oil field, maintaining the economic viability of a field that uses fluid injection for water disposal, while minimizing the likelihood of seismic activity that is sufficiently strong to be felt by humans.

Worldwide hydrocarbon extraction of both natural gas and petroleum liquids has increased steadily (see go.nature.com/3hnqdat) since the mid-1980s (although the COVID-19 pandemic has interrupted this long-term trend). The water produced during the process must be treated, recycled or disposed of, because it is salty and contaminated by hydrocarbons and other organic and inorganic compounds3. Moreover, wastewater production tends to increase with the maturity of an oil field. This effect, combined with the sustained increase in hydrocarbon extraction, means that the disposal of wastewater is a growing global challenge.

Although most earthquakes are caused by tectonic forces, they can also be triggered by fluid injection into bedrock, most commonly when fluids penetrate pre-existing faults. The associated increase in fluid pressures reduces frictional resistance to slip, which, in turn, can reactivate the fault and trigger an earthquake (Fig. 1). Fluid injection and hydrocarbon extraction can also cause large changes in volume or mass underground that exert stresses on nearby, pre-existing faults, resulting in seismic activity1,4. In the past few years, various regions have undergone significant changes in earthquake-recurrence patterns owing to large-scale fluid injection — including Oklahoma in the United States5, the Sichuan Basin in China6 and the Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin7. Such changes have been observed for fluid injection associated both with water disposal1,5 and with hydraulic fracturing (fracking)8.

Figure 1

Figure 1 | Mechanisms through which earthquakes can be triggered by fluid injection at oil and gas fields. a, Crude oil and gas extracted by a producing well contains contaminated wastewater, which is often disposed of underground by an injection well. If the collected wastewater connects to a nearby fault, the increased fluid pressure in the fault can reduce frictional resistance to slip — potentially reactivating the fault and causing an earthquake. Tectonic forces (red arrows) can contribute to this process. b, Fluid injection and hydrocarbon extraction can also cause large changes in volume or mass that exert stresses (blue arrows) on underlying faults, resulting in seismic activity. Hager et al.2 report a computational model of the Val d’Agri oil field in Italy that combines multiple data sources to simulate the effects of fluid injection and tectonic activity on seismicity in that region. They use the model to estimate the maximum amount of fluid injection that can be tolerated without triggering earthquakes sufficiently strong to be felt by humans. (Adapted from ref. 1.)

Fluid-flow simulations are typically used to investigate correlations between earthquake patterns and fluid injection9. This approach provides insight into the underlying drivers of earthquake occurrence in tectonically quiet areas. However, fluid simulations alone are probably insufficient for developing strategies to manage seismicity, particularly in areas in which tectonic earthquakes are common, because the dominant cause in such regions is explicitly ignored.

Hager et al. have developed a multidisciplinary approach to earthquake mitigation in Italy’s Val d’Agri field, which is located in a tectonically active area. Val d’Agri is the largest onshore oil field in Western Europe. Extraction started in 1993, and the field now accounts for more than half of Italy’s oil production. Wastewater disposal started in 2006 and led to about 300 small seismic events (maximum local magnitude 2.2, which is too small to be felt). Historically, an average of about four tectonic earthquakes of moment magnitude equal to or greater than 5.5 (strong enough to shake and possibly damage buildings) occur each century within 100 kilometres of the fluid-injection site. So, what injection rate is safe — that is, unlikely to trigger substantial seismic activity?

The authors developed a multi-step, process-based approach to address this question. First, they produced a 3D structural model of the Val d’Agri region, 80 × 50 × 10 km in size, containing 22 known major faults, surface topography, the top of the hydrocarbon reservoir and the rock that seals it off. The model contains the entire Val d’Agri oil field and includes 24 active hydrocarbon-producing wells. Fluid flow is coupled with geomechanical processes in the model to replicate the effects of external tectonic forces, hydrocarbon extraction and fluid injection from 1993 to 2016. The model parameters were estimated and calibrated using many data sources, including GPS data, records of well pressures and reflection seismology (which uses reflected seismic waves to determine the structure of Earth’s subsurface).

Next, the authors constructed a smaller 3D model, 13 × 13 × 15 km in size, incorporating 17 faults and the producing wells in that region. This model focuses on the oil field’s fluid-injection well and the associated earthquake locations. Coupled modelling of fluid flow and geomechanical processes was again carried out using the larger model to constrain the behaviour of the smaller model at its boundaries. The smaller model was then used to evaluate local stress and slip conditions at faults over time.

The simulations show that stresses have stabilized in most of the area around the injector well, because hydrocarbon extraction has reduced fluid pressures and therefore increased resistance to slip on most faults. Conversely, fluids have penetrated a fault near the injector well, causing the observed small-magnitude seismicity in that area. The authors then combined the output of the smaller model with earthquake-physics models. They found that the results matched available observations of fluid flow within the hydrocarbon reservoir and observed seismicity patterns — including the dependence on past injection rates of the location, timing and evolution of the earthquakes. The calibrated model suggests that a rate of fluid injection of 2,000 cubic metres per day, which corresponds to 50% of current total wastewater production, is unlikely to trigger noticeable seismicity above the tectonic background rate, whereas small events are increasingly likely to be triggered at higher rates of 2,500 and 3,000 cubic metres per day.

Hager and colleagues’ work is unusual for several reasons. Their method relies on the availability of detailed data and expert knowledge of many aspects of the region and its wells. Unfortunately, it is unusual to have such detailed information. The authors’ results are the product of a highly fruitful partnership between academia and industry. As such, the findings provide insights that might result in the development of new industrial practices for managing and mitigating seismicity triggered by hydrocarbon extraction.

For instance, an ongoing case of triggered seismicity is the Groningen field in the Netherlands, the largest gas field in Europe. A gradual rise in seismicity since 1991 in this region caused property damage and led to increasingly vocal public discontent, resulting in the decision to terminate extraction in 2022. This will leave around 20% of potentially recoverable gas, worth about €70 billion (US$83 billion), in the ground (see go.nature.com/3blwz2c). Application of Hager and co-workers’ method to this region might enable the remaining gas to be extracted without causing further damage.

If the authors’ approach can be extended to seismicity associated with hydrocarbon extraction, as well as that associated with wastewater injection, it might help to manage and mitigate the associated environmental impacts if used at the nascent stage of seismicity. Their method might also be suitable for managing earthquakes associated with the sequestration of carbon dioxide10 and engineered geothermal systems11,12.

Phenomena associated with hydrocarbon extraction are often contentious13, but Hager et al. have developed a process for managing and mitigating one of the most important adverse effects: induced seismicity. It is to be hoped that this will help the oil and gas industry to manage the balance between the economic viability and the environmental effects of extraction.

Nature 595, 655-656 (2021)

doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-021-01997-7

 

The Oil and Gas Industry’s Dangerous Answer to Climate Change


Getty/Bonnie Jo Mount/The Washington PostPipelines extend across the landscape outside Nuiqsut, Alaska, May 2019.

No one is immune to the effects of the climate crisis—not even those responsible for its causes. Rising sea levels, record heat, unprecedented extreme weather disasters, and increasingly unstable environmental conditions are making it costlier and more difficult for oil and gas companies to operate in environments that their own destructive practices have altered. The same ecological fallout that hurts communities is hitting the industry’s bottom lines.

Nevertheless, the industry continues to fund climate science denial, initiate new destruction, and lobby to entrench the status quo. For example, in response to litigation from the oil and gas lobby, the Biden administration announced last week that it would resume the sale of new drilling leases on federal public lands. The administration had previously issued an executive order to pause the sales—a commonsense first step toward reforming a system that the Government Accountability Office considers “high risk.” The pause aimed to benefit taxpayers and communities already experiencing the devastating effects of climate change. Despite its reportedly mild to nonexistent impact on the industry’s operations, these companies filed suit to block this measure from going into effect.

However, the same oil and gas companies that are using such tactics to block energy reform are swift to acknowledge and mitigate the impacts of climate change when it threatens their operations. Even as the oil lobby impedes the overall population’s transition to a clean economy, companies are resorting to increasingly expensive and counterproductive ways to continue drilling amid the disastrous consequences of their own excesses. From artificial chillers refreezing a melting Arctic to taxpayer-funded seawalls protecting oil refineries on the Gulf Coast, this column covers examples of the fossil fuel industry’s extreme measures to insulate itself from the repercussions of its actions, often with government approval and support. These are reminders that the United States must address the root cause of climate change rather than continue to treat the symptoms.

The oil lobby’s answer to a melting Arctic: Refreeze the areas it wants to continue drilling

Nowhere is the oil industry’s misguided commitment to drilling clearer than in the Arctic, which is warming three times faster than the global average. These increasing temperatures reduce the efficiency of oil machinery designed to operate under frigid conditions. New construction must contend with a truncated calendar due to the shortening of the frozen season during which companies can use ice roads and bridges to move crews and materials. Projects are taking more years—and dollars—to complete. For example, Hilcorp, a private oil exploration and production company, had to double time estimates for its rejected offshore Liberty Project due to “historically abnormal ice conditions” in the Beaufort Sea. The company had intended to use sea ice, whose average seasonal duration has shrunk by almost two months since the 1970s.

Onshore, the logistics are even more precarious as rising temperatures cause permafrost—ground that should remain frozen year-round—to thaw. This not only threatens to exponentially worsen climate change by releasing the enormous amounts of carbon and methane sequestered in the region’s permafrost but also hollows out the land, leaving behind terrain that is unstable and unsuitable for construction. Homes and structures in parts of Alaska are failing due to this shift underfoot. Some of the supports that hold oil pipelines above the ground are starting to buckle, threatening collapse and spillage.

In response, oil companies are installing artificial “chillers” to manipulate the temperature around rigs and pipelines. Arctic communities have long used chilling tools such as thermopiles and thermosiphons to safeguard their houses, but climate change is causing a spike in demand, including from energy companies. For example, the Alyeska consortium—the major oil companies that own and operate the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System—is installing chillers along the pipeline system. But demand is also coming from unnecessary new developments such as ConocoPhillips’ Willow project, a planned drilling operation in previously undeveloped tundra habitat that the company projects will produce more than 100,000 barrels of oil per day for the next 30 years. ConocoPhillips plans to use chillers to construct 495 miles of ice roads, an ice bridge over the Colville River, miles of pipelines, and several permanent gravel drilling pads, roads, and airstrips. It also plans to embed in the ground temperature-recording devices that can alert crews just as conditions are about to become conducive to construction, allowing the company to squeeze every second from the shortened frozen season.

Initially approved by the Trump administration in 2020, Willow also received the backing of the Biden administration, which defended its predecessor’s arguments in court filings. Fortunately, the courts have struck down the permits and approvals due to the federal government’s failure to assess the full impact of the project’s greenhouse gas emissions, among other legal failings. In future reviews, the administration must recognize that Willow is incongruent with its own climate and conservation goals. The project is especially dangerous to local communities in Alaska, where constructing thickly dug gravel roads and drilling pads could hasten the pace of the same thaw these adaptations are meant to offset. The federal government should not force Alaskans—or the world—to bear these risks on behalf of oil executives.

The oil lobby’s answer to sea level rise: Build around it at the public’s expense

Meanwhile, sea level rise and storm surge are causing deadlier hurricanes along the Gulf Coast in Texas and Louisiana. This is an urgent and existential threat not only to coastal communities but also to the region’s many oil refineries—and therefore, to the industry’s bottom line. States have given more consideration to using seawalls to defend homes and businesses from these disasters. Oil interests have lobbied in support of this solution, even seeking fast-tracked funding and explicit prioritization of their facilities as targets for seawall protections.

But seawall construction is a short-sighted and counterproductive solution—not only because it is a Band-Aid that allows companies to continue contributing to climate change but also due to its negative impact on the local environment. Seawalls speed up erosion and abrade natural barriers such as corals, harming the environments they’re designed to protect. Waves crashing into the structures gain more energy as they rush back into the ocean, leading to greater land loss at faster rates. Coastal erosion—itself an effect of climate change—is already a huge problem in Texas, where some areas are losing 18 feet of coastline per year. Building seawalls to protect polluters from the impacts of their own emissions not only worsens the problem but also damages the surrounding area’s natural defenses against those same impacts—and often at the expense of taxpayers forced to foot the bill for their own marginalization.

Such a scenario played out in 2018 while Texas was putting together funds for a $12 billion “spine” of seawalls to protect its coastlines. Oil companies successfully lobbied to secure an initial $3.9 billion toward protecting the state’s oil refineries, including facilities owned by multibillion-dollar companies such as Chevron, DuPont, Phillips 66, Saudi Aramco, TotalEnergies, and Valero Energy. The state’s U.S. senators, Ted Cruz (R) and John Cornyn (R)—both of whom have been otherwise antagonistic toward climate science and spending—lent their support to this fast-tracked funding allocation. By contrast, Houston residents had to vote to take on debt to invest $2.5 billion toward riverine flood control, dam maintenance, and other community projects necessitated by the same climate impacts.

Oil and gas companies have invested in similar self-defeating adaptations since at least as far back as 1989. Companies have been raising offshore platform decks across the Northern Hemisphere even as they supported campaigns to discredit climate science. While Hilcorp was in court fighting to expand Arctic drilling, the company’s offshore operation in Alaska’s Prudhoe Bay was being hit by sea level rise. Oil companies appear content to alter their plans and degrade the environment to remain in production, but this only perpetuates an endless cycle of destruction and mitigation at the cost of nature, the climate, and communities.

What will come next: A just transition to a clean energy economy or more destruction

Climate change is wreaking havoc on landscapes and communities across the country. Other oil-producing regions are not invulnerable to changes such as those happening in the melting Arctic and the storm-ravaged Gulf Coast. In California, for example, more than one-third of the state’s oil fields have been burned by historic wildfires exacerbated, in part, by their own emissions. Across the drought-stricken West, fracking operations continue to require enormous amounts of water in fast-drying landscapes that once harbored carbon-sequestering, water-replenishing wilderness. The industry’s efforts to economize water use are welcome and necessary but must not come at the expense of addressing its ongoing contributions to the very shortage with which it must now contend.

As the economic, ecological, and human costs of drilling rise, the United States must avoid shoring up false hope of the viability of the fossil fuel industry whose own actions clearly demonstrate otherwise. Taxpayer dollars should support workers and communities in the transition to a clean economy, not subsidize and ring-fence the gambles of oil executives. In order to reach President Joe Biden’s ambitious and necessary climate goals, the United States needs to end fossil fuel subsidies, divest from drilling projects that lock in future development, and take proactive climate and conservation actions to undo the damage that has already been done.

Conclusion

Oil and gas companies are well aware of the dangers of climate change. They’re using short-sighted and self-destructive fixes to stay afloat in an ecological and economic environment that should put them out of business. In evaluating future projects such as Willow and reforming the broken leasing system on public lands, the federal government must use the best available science to confront the reality of climate change. Communities should not have to shoulder costs and risks on behalf of the companies that are causing the crisis. There is an opportunity right now to end subsidies for the oil industry and instead invest resources in a just economic transition, conservation of carbon sinks, and a drastic cut in carbon emissions. The Biden administration would do well to seize this chance—for the good of future generations as well as the communities already suffering climate change’s worst impacts across the nation and the world.

Sahir Doshi is the research assistant for Public Lands at the Center for American Progress.

The author would like to thank Shanée Simhoni, Zainab Mirza, Alexandra Carter, Sally Hardin, Jenny Rowland-Shea, Nicole Gentile, and Jackie Quinones for their contributions to this column.

TASMANIA

‘Frustration and angst’: King Island residents protest as US energy giant starts seistesting

As ConocoPhillips searches for gas off Bass Strait island’s west coast, fears grow for the effect on local fisheries

Commercial fisher Tony ‘Bear’ Alexander protesting against seismic
 testing off the coast of King Island.

Royce Kurmelovs
@RoyceRk2
Fri 27 Aug 2021 

Residents of tiny King Island, in Bass Strait, are objecting to seismic testing off its coast by a US oil and gas company, saying concerns it will affect local fisheries have not been properly addressed.

The energy giant ConocoPhillips was given final approval earlier this month to look for gas in a 4,089 square kilometre area, a little more than 20km off the island’s west coast. Work began this week.

Fishers joined surfers, environmental activists and other local residents of the 1,600-strong island population in a protest against the testing on Thursday. Two commercial fishing vessels, four dinghies and 20 people met on the water, while 100 residents gathered on the wharf.

Among the protesters was Tony “Bear” Alexander, 59, one of 14 commercial fishers based on the island. He said he had joined the rally to fight “for future generations”, and that locals were concerned they would end up with visible oil rigs offshore.
‘King Island says No!’: protest against seismic testing off King Island in Bass Strait. Photograph: Supplied

“I’m an old bloke, but if we don’t stand up to them, who will?” he said. “You can see some beautiful sunsets here, and there’s nothing worse than seeing an oil rig in it.”


Victoria consents to gas production from well near Twelve Apostles


Tom Allen, Tasmanian campaign manager for the Wilderness Society, on King Island to meet with locals, said it was an “existential” issue for islanders.

“For me it’s about climate change, but for the people of King Island, it’s their livelihood,” Allen said. “They’re angry. They’re really worried. There’s people in the fishing community who are leaving the island.”

Allen said the evidence was clear that oil and gas needed to stay in the ground. The International Energy Agency suggested in May that limiting global heating to 1.5C, a goal set out in the Paris agreement, meant exploration and exploitation of new fossil fuel basins had to stop this year.

The Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration Association (Appea), the industry association for the oil and gas sector, has said the IEA report should be “taken with a grain of salt” as it offered only one path to reaching net zero emissions by mid-century.

ConocoPhillips said it has strictly complied with regulatory requirements imposed by the National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority (Nopsema), which approved the testing.

Seismic surveys involve sending sound waves into rock layers beneath the sea floor and analysing the time it takes for each wave to bounce back, and the strength of each returning wave, to assess whether oil and gas deposits are present.


Green groups raise oil and gas clean-up fears as Woodside takes over BHP assets


Earlier this week ConocoPhillips released instructions for divers that said the low frequency sound waves it released would be in the range of 140 decibels to 148db – equivalent to the sound generated on the deck of an aircraft carrier.

Opponents are concerned about the effect these sound waves will have on marine life. Alexander said the company had told the community the underwater noise could reach 212db.

Fiona McLeod, the company’s general manager of government and external affairs, said its environmental assessment had not found a “cause-effect pathway” that could have a “stock-level impact on the sustainability of the fishery”.

She acknowledged seismic testing could have an impact but said the regulator had determined the risk of the work near King Island can be managed.

“Seismic activities do not operate to a no-impact standard,” she said. “Instead, the acceptable level of risk is determined and permissioned by the regulator Nopsema, taking into account consultation with stakeholders and the information they provide.”

King Island’s mayor, Julie Arnold, said the inability to rule out any impact on the fisheries was at the core of community concern, and the latest protest was evidence of a “groundswell” of opposition to the work.

“People had some optimism that all the work that was done and the explanations we’d given about why we felt this was not the right thing to do would have some cut through,” Arnold said. “They now realise it’s had no cut-through at all.

“Basically, the approvals have been given regardless of the feelings of the people and the businesses that are being affected by this.”

She said the company was under no legal obligation to pay compensation if damage occurred, but it had negotiated an “adjustment protocol” with “the relevant fishing associations”.

Julian Harrington, chief executive of the Tasmanian Seafood Industry Council, said he was concerned about the rock lobster and giant crab catch on King Island, a $20m dollar industry that had already been hit hard through the pandemic and Australia’s trade dispute with China.

“There are a lot of unknowns,” Harrington said.

“It’s been really up and down for 18 months,” he said. “This seismic testing is just another level of frustration and angst that the operators really don’t need on their minds right now.”
AUSTRALIA


Fracking at Beetaloo Basin given green light despite opposition

By Sarah Smit
-August 27, 2021

A crucial disallowance vote to prevent fracking in the Northern Territory has failed after both Labor and Coalition Senators opposed the vote on Wednesday.

The vote, moved by Greens Senator Larissa Waters, attempted to overturn a ministerial intervention to allocate $50 million in Federal Government grants to fund exploratory drilling for shale gas in the Beetaloo Basin, against the wishes of Traditional Owners, as part of the Commonwealth’s Gas-fired Recovery Strategy.

The vote came just one day after a report by a Senate Inquiry recommended a review of possible conflicts of interest around the grants.

The $50 million in grants has reopened the way for resource companies to drill on Aboriginal land in the Northern Territory, with Imperial Oil and Gas already having received $21 million to support three new wells in the Basin’s east.

Speaking to the Senate Inquiry into Oil and Gas Exploration and Production in the Beetaloo Basin, Traditional Owners from across the NT shared their concerns that fracking in the area could poison their traditional waters and lands.

Fracking uses a high-pressure mixture of water, sand and chemicals injected into bedrock to release underground shale gas.

What is contained in the water mixture is usually a trade secret, with resource companies unwilling to disclose what is being injected into the bedrock.

The impact of potentially toxic frack fluid spilling into the aquifer underlying the Beetaloo gas reserves has prompted Traditional Owners to speak out against the project.

Gudanji, Yanyuwa, Garrwa, Jingili, Mudburra and Alawa Traditional Owners spoke to the inquiry on August 2.

Yanyuwa Garawa woman from Borroloola Joni Wilson told the inquiry that Traditional Owners have not consented to fracking on their Country.

“Country is important to me because it’s my life. It’s part of my body, soul and spirit … Without our land and our water we are nothing — we’re nobody,” she said.

“We have not been given any information about fracking, we have not given anyone permission. No one has asked us, and even if our Old People had, no one understood what was being asked. So no, we haven’t given permission.”

Uncle Jack Green, a senior Elder from Borroloola said the underground water is part of his people’s Songlines.

“We’re really worried about fracking. The water that lies under the land is connected to Aboriginal people — our lore and culture fits into the ground as well as the land underneath,” he said.


“It feeds all Aboriginal people and non-Aboriginal people. Water and land is very important to all Aboriginal people. It doesn’t matter where you go, it’s all tied to our Songlines.”

Johnny Wilson, Chair of the Nurrdalinji Native Title Aboriginal Corporation, said he had a cultural obligation to speak out against the project.

“I, as jungkayi, means that, like a policeman, I must protect my Country, my grandfather’s Country. These wells that are going down now are going to ruin our Country,” he said.

“We have grave concerns for our Country, and our water especially.

“It is very disturbing that our government will not listen to us.”

The inquiry tabled their interim report on Tuesday, which made five recommendations, including to review the consultation processes used by resources companies to obtain consent from Traditional Owners for projects on their Country.

The report also recommended a conflict of interest investigation into the links between the Liberal Party and Empire Energy, the sole shareholder of grant recipient Imperial Oil and Gas.

The inquiry heard that Empire Energy Chair Paul Espie and its largest shareholder Tasmanian billionaire Dale Elphinstone have extensive connections to the Liberal Party — including as donors.

In October 2020, Empire chartered a private jet to fly Energy Minister Angus Taylor to the Beetaloo site.

In March 2020, the Energy Minister met with representatives of Empire again at the Minister’s office.

Eight days after that meeting, the $50 million dollar grant program opened to applications.

The report said these meetings enabled Imperial’s successful grant application.

“Given that the structure of the BCD Program was not merit-based, but ‘first-in first-served’, these meetings and the close ministerial relationship appear to have provided Empire Energy with a crucial advantage in early lodgement of its application and as a result, its wholly owned subsidiary has been the only entity to have so far received approval for grant funding,” the report reads.

Greens Senator Larissa Waters called the grant program a rort.

“Let’s be very clear what’s happened here: in the middle of a climate crisis the Morrison Government has gifted $21 million in public money to a major donor’s company to frack the Northern Territory. And Labor today has said, ‘Yes, we think that’s fine.’

“Unlike sports-rorts and Pork and Ride, the Senate could stop this rort from the start. The disallowance would have terminated a $50 million slush fund for Liberal Party mates to cook the planet, put groundwater at risk, and ignore the wishes of First Nations communities. $50 million that could go to health, education, public housing. Labor had the chance to do things differently, and they folded. Again.

“We’re disappointed, but we shouldn’t be surprised. We know that Labor and the Libs dance to the tune of their massive corporate donors. Today is proof that both parties will sell out the environment, the climate and First Nations people to keep their campaign coffers full.”

By Sarah Smit