Tackling One Of The Fracking Industry’s Biggest Problems

By Robert Rapier - Dec 21, 2021

• The fracking industry has often been criticized for its tremendous water usage.
• Plasma Pulse Technology is a new fracking tech that requires no chemicals or water. 
• Its developers describe it as a technique that is complementary to fracking, at a fraction of the cost.

In the previous article, I discussed some of the issues involving water and hydraulic fracturing (fracking). In a nutshell, although fracking has proven to be a highly effective means of boosting oil and natural gas production, the process requires millions of gallons of water. Further, there is the potential to contaminate water supplies. Although fracking isn’t going away anytime soon, it would be beneficial if there were some complementary tools for drillers in the event that conventional fracking could prove to be problematic. For example, an extremely arid area with certain types of hydrocarbon resources could be ripe for such a technique.

Several years ago, I first heard about Plasma Pulse Technology. As with many new technologies, I approached it with a healthy degree of skepticism. I like to see data, and at that time there wasn’t a lot of data yet available on the technique.

Plasma Pulse Technology was invented at St. Petersburg State Mining University in Russia. Conventional fracking uses water at high pressure to break open channels that then enable the flow of oil or natural gas into the well. In contrast, Plasma Pulse Technology through a powerful electrical discharge produces a high-pressure plasma pulse (5,000 psi), and the subsequent compression shock wave propagates along the path of least resistance (i.e., in the perforations). These compression shock waves propagate over long distances.

The first two or three pulses clean the perforation. Subsequent pulses penetrate into the reservoir, clean the existing channels, and create a network of micro-cracks. This enables oil to more easily flow into the well. Following the application of the technique, oil production can be boosted for several years.

To be clear, this isn’t voodoo. The technique is described in some detail in multiple technical reports and research papers. For example, in Petroleum Research Karan Patal et al. report on the technical details of how the technology works and specific case studies in Plasma Pulse Technology: An uprising EOR technique.

Its developers describe it as a technique that is complementary to fracking, at a fraction of the cost. It doesn’t always work in the same niche as fracking, but it has been shown to boost production in previously fracked wells.

Novas Energy rolled out Plasma Pulse Technology in China, Kazakhstan, Russia, and the Middle East a decade ago, and in 2014 it was introduced to North America. Novas Energy North America President and CEO Ken Stankievech described the advantages of the technology to me in a recent phone call:

“The cost differential between Plasma Pulse Technology and hydraulic fracking jobs is substantial. On a vertical well, Plasma Pulse Technology is 75% cheaper than an equivalent hydraulic fracturing job. On a horizontal well, depending on the lateral leg length of the project, it can be 90% cheaper than a traditional job, while operating without the extreme consumption of water and caustic chemicals.”

He added that they have performed the technique on wells as deep as 13,000 feet, but says the original tools have now been modified for extreme depths of 30,000 feet.

So far Plasma Pulse Technology has been used primarily on small wells, but the results have been promising. Novas Energy provided several case studies, some of which are available in the published literature.

Here are some of the cases in which the technique has been used:

• The Kuwait Oil Company well RA-000A was producing oil of about 196 barrels of oil per day (bopd) before the plasma stimulation and after the job the well is producing a stable rate of about 363 bopd. Plasma pulse produced an incremental oil gain of 167 bopd — an increase of 85% from the initial oil production rate. (Source: Chellappan, Suresh Kumar, et al. “First application of plasma technology in KOC to improve well’s productivity.” SPE Kuwait Oil and Gas Show and Conference. OnePetro, 2015.)
• Alberta Case Study 1 – Vertical well Lower Mannville, Retlaw Alberta. Pretreatment oil production of 12.6 barrels of oil equivalent per day (Boe/d) increased after treatment to 26.5 Boe/d — a 109% increase. The average 24- month increase is 73%.
• Alberta Case Study 2 – Vertical well Lower Mannville, Alderson Alberta. Pretreatment oil production of 27.8 Boe/d increased after treatment to 48 Boe/d — a 73% increase. The average increase was 44% over a 40-month period.
• Russia Case Study 3 – Vertical well in the Taylakovskoe oil field, a tight sandstone deposit.  Pretreatment oil production of 40 Boe/d increased after treatment to 145 Boe/d — a 275% increase. The average increase was 80% over a 48-month period.

Case Study 1 and 2 are available from the public data fields GeoScout provided directly from the client to GeoScout, a third-party data management company authorized by the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER). The Russian study was done by Slvneft-Megionneftegas.

Early results are promising, but oil and gas companies are notoriously conservative when it comes to embracing new technology. But Novas Energy believes 2022 is going to be a breakout year for them, as they have a committed book of business of more than 100 oil and gas wells for plasma treatment.

According to Stankievech “More and more of our clients are realizing that Plasma Pulse is an environmentally-friendly and cost-effective technology that can boost hydrocarbon productivity without breaking the bank.”

By Robert Rapier 

Is the world ready to live without oil?

The climate crisis has put the end of oil onto the agenda, but achieving that is a colossal task given the world economy's deep dependence on petroleum.

"In 2021, several developments showed clearly that (the petroleum) industry doesn't have a future," said Romain Ioualalen at the activist group Oil Change International.

The International Energy Agency warned in May that an immediate halt to new investment in fossil projects is needed if the world is to reach net-zero carbon emissions by 2050 and to stand any chance of limiting warming to 1.5C.

The call was a revolution for an agency created in the wake of the first 1970 oil shock to protect the energy security of rich, oil-consuming nations.

Another major moment in 2021 was the emergence at the COP 26 climate summit in Glasgow of a coalition of nations that pledged to phase out oil and gas production, although no major oil and gas producing nation joined that group.

"It is no longer taboo to talk about the end of the extraction of hydrocarbons during international climate summits," said Oil Change International's Ioualalen.

And fossil fuels - which still represent 80 percent of energy consumed - were explicitly blamed for driving climate change, which was not the case when the Paris climate pact was reached in 2015.

More recently, environmental defenders scored a symbolic victory when oil giant Shell decided to exit the development of the controversial Cambo oil field off Scotland saying the investment case was "not strong enough".

'Dependent'

"We've known for several years that the end of crude oil ... is near," said Moez Ajmi, an energy specialist at professional services firm EY.

"But is the world ready to live without oil? It is still very dependent in my view."

The IEA also believes that oil demand is still set to rise. It expects it to reach its pre-pandemic level of just under 100 million barrels per day next year.

With crude prices having rebounded in the past months, oil producers are rolling in cash and can afford to pursue new projects.

"Any talk of the oil and gas industries being consigned to the past and halting new investments in oil and gas is misguided," OPEC leader Mohammed Barkindo said recently.

The head of French oil firm TotalEnergies, Patrick Pouyanne, said he's "convinced the transition will take place because there is a real awareness, but it will take time."

He believes the issue is being approached from the wrong end. Instead of focussing on reducing oil, attention should be shifted towards consumption.

Demand for fossil fuels "will decline because consumers have access to new products like electric vehicles," said Pouyanne.

In the first half of the year, electric vehicles accounted for 7 percent of global auto sales, according to BloombergNEF. While that is still a small percentage, it is growing fast.

'Transformational year' 

Oil Change International's Ioualalen said that arguments put forward by oil companies and producing nations are cynical and focus on the short term.

"They're trying to justify an unsustainable trajectory at any cost," he said.

"We're still far from a decarbonised economy, of course, but it is the energy system investments that are made today that will lead us there," said Ioualalen.

Whatever the horizon for the end of petroleum, industry players are still only willy-nilly preparing for it as pressure upon them mounts.

US oil majors ExxonMobil and Chevron were long holdouts but finally announced this year investments into the energy transition.

"2022 has the potential to be a truly transformational year," said Tom Ellacott, senior vice president for corporate analysis at energy research and consultancy firm Wood Mackenzie.

"It's clear that sitting on the decarbonisation sidelines isn't an option" given the increasing pressure on the oil industry.

Experts believe that 2022 will see more investment in wind and solar power as well as technology to capture carbon emissions from fossil fuel power plants and factories.

NIGERIA

Fishermen say ExxonMobil yet to pay compensation years after oil spills

The fishermen estimate their losses at N11 billion but the company claims it does not know the case.

ExxonMobil Nigeria Headquarters

By Oge Udegbunam
December 27, 2021

Fishermen in Akwa Ibom State have accused ExxonMobil, the American multinational oil and gas corporation, of refusing to take responsibility and pay compensation for a series of oil spills that occurred in the state between 1998 and 2012.

The fishermen said they were encouraged to take their case out of the court in expectation a settlement will be reached. Years after, despite several petitions and reminders to government officials and the company, nothing has been done to help them.

The fishermen, under the Akwa Ibom Cooperative Fisheries Association, said oil spills occurred between 1998 and 2012, leading to the destruction of their nets and other fishing tools and livelihoods.

The group held a protest in Abuja in July to press ExxonMobil to pay for damages for hardships its members suffered in the last 14 years as a result of oil spills, estimating the compensation at N11 billion.

On October 4, 2021, it sent a petition to the National Assembly through the Senate President, Ahmed Lawan, requesting the Nigerian government’s intervention in the push for compensation from the oil firm.

On 24 September, 2021 the group sent a reminder to the lawmakers through the office of Ike Ekweremadu, the Enugu senator.

“We, the board of directors and members of Akwa Ibom Co-operative Fisheries Association Limited wish to remind you of our plight and request contained in our letter of 24 July, 2018 (copy attached) on the above subject and to express our utter disappointment at the way our matter of injustice and spiteful treatment is being handled by the Senate of the Federal Republic of Nigeria,” the notice read.

The union said it went to court in 2005 to seek redress, but ExxonMobil quickly approached Eme Ufot Ekaette, a former senator, to plead with them to withdraw the case from court, with a promise that they were willing to settle the matter and pay compensation to enable them to return to business.

Documents seen by PREMIUM TIMES showed that the group filed a suit against the oil firm in 2005 but on 7 January, 2008, the group withdrew the case with the applicant number CA/C/3/2006 from court.

In 2010, the Senate Committee on Environment and Ecology under the then chairmanship of Grace Bent told ExxonMobil to compensate the group for the ruin the spills wrought on the community. The company has failed to comply 11 years later, the group said.

In 2015, ExxonMobil replied to a letter from the group, acknowledging that oil was released on January 12, 1998 from its Usari Idaho pipeline after scientific investigation but no damage was discovered in the environment.

It also confirmed that an oil spill occurred through the same pipeline in November 2012 but at the time of responding to the letter, its investigation was in progress.
A tale of endless havoc

Several oil spills occurred in Akwa Ibom between 1998 and 2012. An ExxonMobil pipeline in 2010 spewed multiple gallons of oil into the Akwa Ibom water, aggravating the unrelieved woe of environmental degradation in the Niger Delta.

The spill occurred at an ExxonMobil platform between 32 and 40 kilometres offshore at a platform, which feeds the Qua Iboe oil export terminal. The oil firm declared force majeure on Qua Iboe oil shipments due to the pipeline damage.

The leakage discharged barrels of crude into the Atlantic Ocean, contaminating the waters and coastal settlements in the predominantly fishing communities along Akwa Ibom and Cross River states.

The group of Akwa Ibom fishermen, whose members travelled nearly 1000 kilometres to Abuja, submitted a petition on July 8, to the National Human Rights Commission, requesting that the Nigerian government help them get justice.

The director, corporate affairs & external linkages, at the NHRC, Halima Oyedele, promised the aggrieved protesters that their grievances will be addressed.

The group said it has made significant efforts to get the oil firm to pay the compensation since the first oil spill in 1998.

They said a panel set up by ExxonMobil to handle spills-related issues received their complaints but has failed to redeem its pledge to pay them.

The leaders of the group, Johnson Ntegwung and Effiok Essien, said their members were asked by ExxonMobil to hand over all damaged fishing equipment, and that the submitted tools were destroyed by the company on the explanation that they did not want those items to be recycled for further claims.

“That pursuant to the above, the panel of enquiry, therefore, made recommendations that the total sum of N100, 000.00 (One Hundred Thousand Naira) be paid to each of the fishermen whose fishing equipment had been damaged as a result of the spills, at least to cushion the effect of the fishermen’s predicament due to the spills,” the group said.

When PREMIUM TIMES contacted ExxonMobil, the spokesperson, Ogechukwu Udeagah, denied knowledge of the case.

He requested details of the court case be sent to him. After the documents were sent, Mr Udeagah promised to send the documents to the legal department.

But at the time of filing this report, he did not respond.

Also, a spokesperson for the National Oil Spill Detection and Response Agency (NOSDRA), Idris Musa, Okey Emeh, said he could not comment on the case as it was in court.

“The DG cannot say anything for now, the matter is still in court. It is against the law to speak about a case that has no judgement yet,” Mr Emeh said in August.

But the fishermen group insisted the matter was agreed to be settled out of court in 2008.

NIGERIA
Shell, ExxonMobil Face Huge Remediation Costs over Abandoned Onshore Assets
December 28, 2021




Shell, ExxonMobil Face Huge Remediation Costs over Abandoned Onshore Assets

•Aiteo considers options against multinational oil company over Nembe spill

•Sector not ripe for full-blown deactivation processes, says industry regulator


•Stakeholders want enforcement of rules


By Emmanuel Addeh in Abuja


Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria and ExxonMobil are presently faced with huge remediation costs over their failure to properly decommission and cap oil and gas assets across the Niger Delta, especially the ones sold to Nigerians in recent divesture programmes. A situation that creates severe environmental risks and pollution to host communities in the oil-rich Niger Delta.

THISDAY gathered from stakeholders that the recent case of Aiteo’s Nembe wellhead blowout, brought to the fore the need to enforce the relevant laws and to ensure that the multinationals that sold the assets to the Nigerian companies pay remediation charges.

While Aiteo is presently engaged in a legal tussle with Shell, seeking the sum of over $2.5 billion compensation over the sale of Oil Mining Licence 29, THISDAY gathered that the Nigerian oil and gas company is also considering fresh legal action against the multinational over the Nembe spill and other wells not properly capped.

On the other hand, Seplat Energy Plc last month announced that together with its partner, that it was in competitive discussions to acquire ExxonMobil’s Nigerian shallow water business. With this, stakeholders have expressed concern about what would happen if the deal is sealed and some of the ExxonMobil’s assets that were not properly capped causes another environment challenge.

“The present environment challenge is what is likely going to be faced when Shell sells it entire SPDC oil blocs in the Niger Delta without properly capping the oil wells and providing for remediation” an oil and gas expert who pleaded to remain anonymous stated.

Findings by THISDAY have revealed that many of the oil and gas assets sold to Nigerians, mostly by the International Oil Companies (IOCs), are rarely decommissioned or properly abandoned, a development that clearly breaches existing laws regulating the industry.

Decommissioning is the cessation of operations at an oil and gas platform and returning the seafloor to its pre-production state for installations and any relevant structures that have come to the end of their productive life.


Onshore decommissioning involves capping oil wells, clean-up and taking out all production and pipeline risers that are sustained by the platform, removing the platform and getting rid of it in a junk storage area or manufacturing yard.

International conventions guiding decommissioning operations include the Geneva Convention on the continental shelf, 1958; United Nations Convention on Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), 1982; and Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and other Matters, 1972.

But despite extant regulations and the provisions of the Petroleum Industry Act (PIA), THISDAY learnt that there was rarely any adherence to full decommissioning for the infrastructure that had been sold and there might be no such arrangements for those for which buyers were being sought.

According to Section 232, (1) of the new Petroleum Industry Act (PIA), “The decommissioning and abandonment of petroleum wells, installations, structures, utilities, plants and pipelines for petroleum operations on land and offshore shall be conducted in accordance with good international petroleum industry practice.”

In Section, 233 (1), the new law affirms, “Each lessee and licensee shall set up, maintain and manage a decommissioning fund held by a financial institution that is not an affiliate of the lessee or licensee, in the form of an escrow account accessible by the commission.

“The decommissioning and abandonment fund shall exclusively be used to pay for decommissioning and abandonment costs. Where a lessee or a licensee fails to comply with the decommissioning and abandonment plan, the decommissioning and abandonment fund shall be accessed by the commission to pay for the performance by a third party.”

Arising from one of the deals, Aiteo recently claimed in a suit that it paid $799 million to Shell for the acquisition of the NCTL pipelines and the assets and that $389.6 million had been lost by the company as a result of the leakages in the pipelines and the degraded conditions of the asset.


Aiteo also claimed that $933 million had been expended for the repairs of the pipelines and acquisition of equipment, including well-heads, generators, and pumps, as well as replacement of the flow lines within the NCTL, which it bought from Shell.

It was learnt that the big oil companies had continued to sell “dead” assets to the country’s local businessmen under the guise that they could no longer cope with militancy or community issues, especially in the Niger Delta.

What they have not told buyers is that there would be huge remediation cost down the line from over 30 to 40 years of neglect.

The recent case of Aiteo’s Nembe wellhead blowout, stakeholders said, brought to the fore the need to enforce the relevant laws and implement proper shutdowns of oil and gas assets in the abandonment and restoration process. Many experts believe that if the wellhead was properly and permanently plugged and decommissioned, since it was not commercially viable, the blowout that happened in Nembe would have been avoided.

It is believed that Nigeria’s transitory regulatory environment and inability of the authorities to strengthen environmental and petroleum laws for the deactivation of abandoned wells and aging oil facilities have also not helped matters.

Speaking with THISDAY, the immediate past Chairman of the Society of Petroleum Engineers (SPE), Nigeria Council, Joe Nwakwue, stated that the availability of regulations had not always been the problem, but enforcement. However, he explained that it was not wholly an IOC issue, noting that there are usually agreements with whoever is buying non-producing assets on steps to take to decommission them.

Nwakwue said, “There are regulations around assets that are no longer in use and it has nothing to do with the transfer of the assets. So, whether it’s Shell or Aiteo, for instance, there are rules.

“When a wellhead is no longer producing, there are two steps: it is either there’s a TP&A, which is to temporarily plug and abandon it or you permanently plug and abandon.

“The problem was that neither of those happened, so that means that it was still theoretically operational. There was need to have abandoned the well when it was no longer in use. That didn’t happen and that’s why we had that spill.”

He said it did not matter who owned the assets because transfer was a different issue entirely, which should not be mixed up with the decommissioning process.

According to Nwakwue, “What happened to the commitments? When you talk about asset transfer you’re talking about decommissioning commitment, because when you are selling the assets that’s when the issue of who should decommission will come in because it goes into the pricing.

“If I’m buying an asset from you with what is called retirement obligation, I will have to deduct that cost from what I will pay you. I am sure that Shell transferred its commitment to Aiteo.”

Nwakwue maintained that the Aiteo facility was just one of several that had been left without proper decommissioning operation, noting that there are even many more assets that have not been sold.

He held, “There might be a lot of wellheads that are no longer producing but they are active, they are exposed to pressure. Whoever owns the asset should have a programme to temporarily abandon them to make them safer.

“There are regulations, but who is monitoring? That is the question. Who is ensuring that the regulations are followed? Those are the questions that need to be answered.

“The regulator should step up their game. They need to have a programme where facilities that are not no longer in use are temporarily or permanently abandoned and decommissioned to keep the environment safe.

“Irrespective of who is operating them, the primary issue is that there are regulations that have not been followed through and is important that the commission is alive to those responsibilities.”

Secretary General of the Niger Delta Ethnic Nationalities, Capt. Bassey Henshaw, told THISDAY that the oil companies must clean up the environment they had degraded over the years as well as pay compensation before any talk about leaving their onshore and shallow water operations in the region.

Henshaw said, “We do not dispute the fact that they can go green or whatever, but there has to be some closure. You have a business running and there are issues emanating from those businesses. You do not wake up and say you are going green. All the issues have to be fixed and resolved.

“We cannot hold them to ransom if they want to leave, but they have to have a closure of the previous business they have done, the degradation of the environment, the oil spillages and all.”

An oil industry enthusiast, who had covered the sector widely, Ms Ijeoma Nwogwugwu, wrote in a recent article, “As a result, oil multinationals that want to avoid spending several millions of dollars on decommissioning, have taken advantage of the loopholes by selling their oil assets, including aging and rusting infrastructure, to local oil firms.

“Since the late 2000s, Shell, Chevron and ConocoPhillips have sold their stakes in about 20 to 25 oil blocks to local oil operators at ridiculously exorbitant prices.

“All the acquisitions were leveraged buyouts that left several Nigerian banks with massive exposures to the oil and gas sector. Many of the loans are yet to be repaid to date.”

Nwogwugwu said one way to avoid this debacle was to adopt what obtains in other jurisdictions where it is mandatory, prior to asset sale, for prospective bidders to possess the wherewithal to decommission aging oil and gas infrastructure. She mentioned the $3 billion sale of the Bass Strait operation in Australia, as a case in point.

But in a reaction, the Nigerian Upstream Petroleum Regulatory Commission (NUPRC), the industry regulator, stressed that the industry was not mature enough for wholesale decommissioning activities.

Head, Health Safety and Environment, NUPRC, Mr Afeez Balogun, told THISDAY that for divested assets, the buying companies were always encouraged to look holistically at the liabilities and factor them into the purchase arrangements.

According to Balogun, “The premise for full-blown decommissioning is not yet there in the Nigerian oil and gas industry, as many of the assets still have long mileage to offer. Add to that the fact that we are currently investing technology for improved oil recovery that will save a lot of costs and further increase the mileage of these assets.

“So, there is really no crisis, as many uninformed people would want to assume. However, for divested assets, the buying companies are always encouraged to look holistically at the liabilities and factor that into the purchase arrangements.

“Fortunately, the divesting companies are currently the big ones that have JV agreements with NNPC, and we are aware that decommissioning arrangements with the companies are being put in place.”

However, he stated that the PIA was now more explicit and gave more strength and bite to the rudimentary regulations that the defunct Department of Petroleum Resources (DPR) already had in place.

“So, before we reach a crisis level, if we ever will, all these arrangements should have given us adequate protection to make things easier,” Balogun said.

“We are also watching and are set to tap from all the numerous innovations being brought about by the developed world on decommissioning on all fronts, including environmental and legal considerations, technology, service provision and financing,” he added.

Minister of State for Petroleum Resources, Timipre Sylva, recently said the federal government would carefully scrutinise oil companies that would bid for the takeover of assets that Shell and other oil majors will be divesting from in the country.

“In the past, companies were just allowed to buy assets that they had no capacity to operate. We would no longer allow that to happen again because government is the ultimate loser,” Sylva stated.

Shell and ExxonMobil are two of the most vocal IOCs in the country, which have been in talks to sell off some of their assets, especially those onshore and in shallow waters.

A leading global oil and gas consulting firm, Wood McKenzie, had put the total value of Shell Petroleum Development Company (SPDC), the subsidiary Shell proposes to totally divest from, at $2.3 billion.

According to the document, 19 Oil Mining Leases (OMLs) will be put up for sale by the oil giant in onshore locations and shallow waters in the company’s eastern and western operations in the Niger Delta.

Only last month, Nigerian oil and gas company, Seplat Energy, revealed that it was actively engaged in negotiations to acquire ExxonMobil’s shallow water assets in the country. A Reuters report had in 2019 put the expected potential disposals at $3 billion.

AUSTRALIA

Federal Resources Minister’s grant to fracking company invalid

Local NewsThe Echo -December 29, 2021

Sunrise in NT. Photo Max Christian via EDO.

In July 2021, Minister Keith Pitt announced that the first grants from the $50 million Beetaloo Cooperative Drilling Program would go to private company Imperial Oil and Gas to support three new exploration wells to help accelerate the development of gas projects in the Northern Territory.

The Federal Court has found that Mr Pitt’s decision to grant $21 million of public money to Imperial Oil & Gas to pursue fracking was invalid.

Federal Court Justice Griffiths found it was ‘legally unreasonable’ for the Minister to enter into contracts over the grants while they were the subject of court proceedings, an action which breached model litigation obligations.

Did not need to consider the risks of climate change

However, the court found that in this particular case, Federal Resources Minister Keith Pitt did not need to consider the risks of climate change when deciding to grant the public money to private company Imperial Oil & Gas to pursue limited exploration in the Beetaloo Basin.

It was found that the greenhouse gas emissions from the seven wells for which the grant was awarded were not significant, due to being solely for exploration for fracking.

Co-Director of the Environment Centre NT, Kirsty Howey, said this doesn’t close the door on the scrutiny of fossil fuel grants. ‘Fossil fuel subsidies are not a reasonable use of public money. Under Australia’s commitment to the global Glasgow Climate Pact, we need to phase out funding of new oil, gas and coal projects.

NT suffering significantly from the impacts of climate change

Ms Howey said the Northern Territory is already suffering significantly from the impacts of climate change, and this will only worsen unless we take drastic action. ‘Our own Environment Minister recently said that the Northern Territory may become uninhabitable for humans due to climate change. The public has an expectation that taxpayer money will not be used to accelerate climate catastrophe by funding projects that will release vast amounts of emissions, without due consideration of these risks.

‘Unfortunately, we’re being left behind in the global renewables transition by our government, which insists on propping up polluting fossil fuel projects with taxpayers’ funds.’

On 29 July 2021, the Environment Centre NT (ECNT), represented by the Environmental Defenders Office (EDO), commenced judicial review proceedings in the Federal Court challenging the lawfulness of the Beetaloo Cooperative Drilling Program and the grants to Imperial.

A critically important case

Director of Legal Strategy at EDO Elaine Johnson, said this case was critically important and put fossil fuel subsidies in the spotlight. ‘The findings reinforced that Federal Ministers have a legal obligation to make reasonable enquiries about the proper use of public money when making funding decisions of this nature.

‘In this case, the court found those reasonable enquiries didn’t extend to climate risk given the project does not involve extensive gas extraction and production.

‘Importantly, the door has been left open for climate risks to be considered in other decisions around the use of public funds for fossil fuel projects.

The Court heard in November that fracking the Beetaloo Basin could lead to a 13 per cent increase in Australia’s annual greenhouse gas emissions on 2020 levels, and fail to generate any economic benefit.

EDO argued on behalf of ECNT that the Minister was required to make reasonable inquiries into a range of matters before giving Imperial a large amount of taxpayer money, including how exploitation of the Beetaloo sub-basin would impact climate change and Australia’s ability to meet its Paris Agreement obligations.

Fracking the Beetaloo Basin would see a significant increase in global emissions

Ms Johnson said fracking in the Beetaloo Basin would see a significant increase in global emissions, so it is critically important that the government is held accountable for any decisions to use public funds for new gas in the Beetaloo.

‘This decision underscored the primacy of the rule of law, highlighting the need for the Federal Government to act appropriately and respectfully when litigation is on foot.’

Grants under this program are subject to the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 (Cth) which requires that the Minister not approve the expenditure unless he is reasonably satisfied that it is an efficient, effective, economical, and ethical use of public money.

The Government Is Handing Out $50 Million To Fund A Fracking Project—Here's What That Means

We explain what fracking is and why people are (rightfully) alarmed. - 

by Jess Pullar
01 DEC2021


The Morrison Government will move forward with a $50 million cash injection which will go towards a controversial fracking project in Beetaloo and wider McArthur River Basins, an area where an estimated 60 Indigenous groups live.

It comes after a motion calling to halt funding for the Northern Territory based fracking project fell through—Labor ended up voting with the Liberals to approve the cash boost.

The decision was met with anger from the Greens Party and other environmental groups after months of campaigning against it when the grant was first announced in August. Per AAP, Greens Senator Lidia Thorpe claimed the alignment from both major parties was because they were beholden to donations from fossil fuel companies.

"If you really really care, you would listen to the traditional owners of the NT who don't want their country fracked... and to protect sacred sites and the environment," she told parliament this week.

The Greens Party reports the fracking project could add up to 13 per cent to Australia's total carbon emissions each year.

 

Getty

Social change organisation Get Up also commented on the controversial project.

"Traditional Owners across the Territory have united in the fight against fracking, making it abundantly clear that they do not consent to these fracking projects in the Beetaloo," GetUp First Nations Justice Director Larissa Baldwin said in a statement.

"Decision-makers should be acting to phase out fossil fuels, not handing out public money to prop them up."

To add, Protect Country Alliance Spokesperson Graeme Sawyer said the fracking project had the potential to unleash up to 1.4 billion tonnes of greenhouse gasses.

"That’s two and a half times the amount of Australia’s annual carbon emissions. It's an absolute outrage the Morrison Government is subsidising this industry with public money," he said.

What exactly is fracking?

Fracking, which is short for hydraulic fracturing, is where a mixture of water, sand and chemicals are injected into the ground in order to open cracks in underground rock. From the cracks, natural oils, gasses and geothermal energy are extracted by miners. Ultimately it boosts oil production in countries, subsequently keeping gas prices low.

But the negatives far outweigh the positives given its impact on the environment. Fracking requires large amounts of water, in turn reducing water quality in surrounding areas. To add, environmentalists say carcinogenic chemicals can escape during the drilling, which leads to contamination of groundwater at the fracking site.

It also effects people who live close to fracking sites—it causes reduced air quality, night sky pollution and a lot of noise.

Why is fracking happening in Australia?

As mentioned, fracking can be a lucrative operation given it ultimately boosts oil production. To add, the Morrison government has commited to what it calls a "gas-led" economy, meaning it plans to utilise the country's gas resources for electricity generation, heating and select manufacturing industries.

Despite the detrimental nature of fracking to the environment, it's clear Scott Morrison is all for it and will continue to do it.

Fracking projects like the one at the Beetaloo Basin also suggests more gas projects will be given the green light—per Climate News Australia, work on the Amadeus to Moomba Gas Pipeline (set to begin next year) will see gas transported from the NT all the way to the East Coast.

The organisation reiterates that this could have a negative impact on the ecosystems the pipeline runs through, in turn, posing a threat to the traditional owners of the land.
Why is fracking bad?

The natural gas produced via fracking is responsible for around 19 per cent of Australia's greenhouse gas emissions—the pollution that is causing the Earth's temperature to rise.

This statistic is an alarmingly large chunk considering the country is one of the world's biggest contributors to greenhouse gas emissions. In fact, 2019 data from the UN National Inventory Report revealed per capita, it produced 21 tons of the stuff—that's three times the global average.

As outlined above, fracking also reduces water and air quality, particularly in the areas it takes place. Distressingly, fracking sites like Beetaloo are located on First Nations land.

What can I do to stop fracking in Australia?

The best way to make a change is to educate yourself, share information and sign petitions or write a letter to your local MP who can escalate the matter to local government.

Get Up has a petition which you can sign here, and an open letter you can sign here.

Jess PullarJess Pullar is the Culture Editor (digital) of marie claire and ELLE. When she's not gazing at sunsets, she enjoys tucking into a green tea and re-watching 'Sex And The City'.

TEXAS

 RRC to suspend all deep oil and gas produced water injection in Gardendale Seismic Response Area on Dec. 31

The move comes as the frequency of earthquakes in the area has increased.

Volume 0%

This ad will end in 8

 

Author: Jonathan Polasek (News West9)

Published: December 21, 2021

MIDLAND, Texas — A series of earthquakes near Gardendale over the last several months has caught the attention of the Texas Railroad Commission. The RRC believes they are linked to the oil and gas industry.

This is why starting on December 31, the RRC plans to shut down deep saltwater disposal sites in an area known as the Gardendale Seismic Response area, an area that spans about 100 square miles of Midland and Ector Counties as well as a couple others.

The disposal wells that are shutting down are those that inject saltwater at depths of 10,000 feet below the surface of the Earth. There are about 32 of these types of wells in the Gardendale Seismic Response Area.

"I think the moves by the Railroad Commission have been very measured and are appropriate. The industry is working with them on this too because we’re all citizens of the Permian Basin, and we don’t want to feel the quakes here either," Kyle McGraw, outgoing chairman of the Permian Basin Petroleum Association said.

When drilling for oil, there's a lot of wastewater that comes with it that gets injected back into the ground. The RRC believes that this method, the deep injections, are aggravating old fault lines and causing the earthquakes.

"They were smart to not just shut down all the shallow injection because it’s very unlikely that it’s the cause. That the logic was that it’s a deep injection, let’s limit it first, and we’ll see what we can do to improve things," McGraw said.

McGraw warns that we likely won't see immediate results after the suspension. He believes that this will be a process that takes time and asks the residents in the Permian Basin to be patient with the study.

"I do want to remind everybody that in this case, this injection water goes in, and it doesn’t cause something next day. Some of this injection has been going on for 7-8 years and all of a sudden now we’re at levels that are causing slippage," McGraw said.

What does this mean for the people working the wells in the Gardendale Seismic Response Area? McGraw believes that these wells will still be operation but will move towards shallower injections.

"They also were thoughtful enough. They gave the operators the ability to re-complete, stop deep, and you can come up to the shallow if you need, and of course many of these operators are going to need that because they’re like 'what do I do with the water? If I don’t produce my water, then I’ve got to shut in my oil,'" McGraw said.

To make substantial strides in conservation, we must consider biodiversity as more than a commodity

We must first recognize that all life is interconnected. Nature is not something separate from us. We are a part of nature.

By Olivia May Galloway Contributor
Mon., Dec. 27, 2021

Considering Canada’s recent COP26 pledge to allot 20 per cent of climate funding to address biodiversity loss, we must revisit the reasons why this issue is substantial.

Defined as the variety of life on earth, biodiversity underpins the health of our planet. When it comes to biodiversity loss, most arguments only mention natures “usefulness” to humans. We must step away from this anthropocentric, materialistic world view and toward considering ourselves a part of nature to invoke meaningful change.

Certainly, there are practical ways to understand why biodiversity loss is important. Global health implications mean millions of people face a future where food is limited and more vulnerable to pathogens. It means freshwater will be in short supply, and we will see more frequent health epidemics. Not to mention that ecosystems and biodiversity have an economic value more than 100 times greater than what it would cost to conserve them. However, biodiversity is more than a commodity.

We must first recognize that all life is interconnected. Nature is not something separate from us. We are a part of nature. We must consider nature as our home, not just a place we visit. Until we realize that we are one part within a larger whole, we will keep failing to preserve our planet for future generations.

All species play a critical role. Some are larger, such as keystone species and ecosystem engineers, and some are smaller, such as contributions to the food web, like seed dispersal or pollination. A diverse abundance of species supports essential ecosystem functions. When biodiversity is lost, we see cascading ecosystem failures and a loss of resilience.

Life on earth has existed for millions of years before humans. In centuries, we have caused considerable harm to the planet. Biodiversity is one of the myriad ways the universe evolved, and we should be the part that admires it. We can learn about the past from nature. Lake sediments provide insight into the climate and ecosystems of the past. Some reptiles have been around for thousands of years before the dinosaurs. Fossils are snapshots of history, showing how species evolved. Alas, the geological legacy of humans will be causing this planet’s sixth mass extinction.

Everything has a right to exist outside of the ability of humans to commodify it.

We are lucky to coexist with nature. Beautiful, strange, and diverse species of plants and animals invoke feelings of wonder and connection to the natural world. Nature provides enrichment that makes life meaningful.

Humans are not the central, most important entity in the universe. We do not exist among disposable resources created for us. Canada has taken a step in the right direction, but more action is needed than planting trees and funding “nature-based” solutions. Biodiversity must be conserved for its intrinsic value, not only for the resources it provides.

“Only when the last tree is cut down, the last fish eaten, and the last stream poisoned, will we realize that we cannot eat money” — Indigenous proverb

Olivia May Galloway is a biology student at the University of Ottawa.

 

Protected areas not enough to save South-East Asia's forests

by SciDev.Net

Logging in Malaysia. A new study says forest cover is being lost in South-East Asian protected forest areas at almost the same rate as non-protected areas. Credit: Stephen Codrington CC BY 2.5

Forest cover is being lost in South-East Asian protected forest areas at almost the same rate as non-protected areas in many countries amid ballooning populations, says a new eight-country study.

Forests play an integral part in the carbon cycle, support livelihoods and supply goods and services that can drive sustainable growth according to the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN).

The IUCN defines a protected area as an area of land especially dedicated to the protection and maintenance of biological diversity. Protected areas now cover more than 17 million square kilometers, or 15 percent of the earth's land area.

Yet results of the study published December in Nature show that protected areas in Indonesia lost just four percent less than unprotected regions.

That's significant because regional deforestation trends in South-East Asia are influenced largely by Indonesia, where about 40 percent of protected areas are located and where over half of the region's forests remain.

While the overall rate of forest loss across South-East Asia was three times lower inside protected areas during 2000—2018, the period studied, than in unprotected landscapes, there are significant variations.

Malaysia's protected area network performed the best, saving a sixth of the amount of forest cover which would have otherwise been lost, when compared to non-protected regions. Protected areas also helped Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam save over a tenth more forest cover than non-protected regions.

However, at the other end of the scale, protected areas in the Philippines lost more forest cover than in unprotected areas, due to the fact that the protected regions see high levels of human activity, a trend particularly evident on the island of Palawan which suffered more forest loss than expected, the study said.

Victoria Graham, an author of the study and researcher at the Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia, says that as human pressure intensifies, protected areas become less effective at conserving biodiversity, unless there is adequate investment.

"Protected areas in the Philippines have higher levels of human pressure than other countries. This, coupled with diminishing forest cover in unprotected landscapes across the country, means that protected areas must withstand escalating deforestation pressure due to a lack of choice in available forest resources," Graham said.

Overall, the expanding South-East Asian human population has contributed to the loss, degradation and fragmentation of its forests over the past decades, according to World Population Prospects, 2019, a UN publication.

The Philippines alone could lose almost a third of a million hectares of forests by the end of the decade unless there is a "transformational change in the country's approach to dealing with deforestation", says a separate study published November in the Journal of Threatened Taxa.

Geetha Gopinath, environmental educator and assistant professor at the Central University of Hyderabad, India, says that higher levels of management resourcing are necessary for greater reductions in carbon emissions and protection of South-East Asia's forests. "Good governance, sound design and plans for effective management are notable yardsticks to assess the standard of successful conservation outcomes," she said.

Macquarie's Graham added that stronger forest protection and conservation efforts are needed in South-East Asia's existing protected areas to avert projected trajectories of forest cover and forest carbon loss estimated by 2050.

"Achieving more widespread conservation objectives in protected areas across South-East Asia is possible with scaled-up investment, specifically in parks with threatened biodiversity," she said.Global study reveals effectiveness of protected area

More information: Graham, V. et al, Southeast Asian protected areas are effective in conserving forest cover and forest carbon stocks compared to unprotected areas, Sci Rep (2021). doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-03188-w

Bernard Peter Daipan, Patterns of forest cover loss in the terrestrial Key Biodiversity Areas in the Philippines: critical habitat conservation priorities, Journal of Threatened Taxa (2021). DOI: 10.11609/jott.6904.13.13.20019-20032

Journal information: Nature 

Provided by SciDev.Net

KURDISTAN

No justice for Roboski massacre victims after 10 yearsThe case is closed, and no one has been jailed for the massacre.
Wladimir van Wilgenburg

Victims wrapped in blankets lay on a rural road while relatives wait for tractors to take them to the village of Roboski in the Kurdish province of Sirnak, Dec. 29, 2011. (Photo: DHA)

ERBIL (Kurdistan 24) – Tuesday is the 10th anniversary of the Roboski massacre when Turkish airstrikes killed 34 civilians. Even though a decade has passed, nobody has been charged, held responsible, or punished.

On Dec. 28, 2011, the Turkish Air Force bombed 40 civilians who were smuggling goods on mules from the Kurdistan Region to the northern side of the border, killing 34 of them.

Read More: In letter from Turkey prison, Kurdish leader commemorates Roboski massacre

For the past decade, families of the victims have been waiting for justice in Turkey and through the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), but no one has been punished to date.


Since the necessary documents submitted to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) were sent too late, the ECHR rejected the application in 2018.

The case is closed, and no one has been jailed for the massacre.

The only ones who have been jailed or prosecuted are family members of the massacre victims.

Veli Encu, who lost his brother Serhat in the airstrike, and Barış Encu, who lost his brother Nevzat, are in prison for protesting the massacre, the Kurdish ANF agency reported.

Former politician of the pro-Kurdish HDP (People's Democratic Party), Ayhan Bilgen, told Kurdistan 24 that it's not acceptable the case was closed and no one punished for the massacre.

"Roboski is an open wound that bleeds and causes great trauma," he said.

The HDP in Europe tweeted that the government was responsible for the massacre.

"It's 10 years since the war planes of this government bombed and massacred 34 people in Roboski, the majority of them children," it said. "Neither Roboski, nor the massacres perpetrated in other cities to be forgotten."

Levent Gök, an MP for the Republican People's Party (CHP), recalled that incumbent Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan had said he would not allow the case to be forgotten. Erdogan was the prime minister when the Roboski massacre happened.

"But there is currently no mechanism in the judiciary, the state and under the auspices of parliament to handle this case," Gök told Kurdistan 24.

"This is because all government and state officials have a hand in this incident. The case is closed and lost," he said.

He said the CHP would set up an investigation in the parliament to investigate the incident.

Additional reporting by Vural Erişmiş.