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.

Read the paper: A process-based approach to understanding and managing triggered seismicity

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 | 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?

Determining whether the worst earthquake has passed

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.

Fluid-rich extinct volcanoes cause small earthquakes beneath New Zealand

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

By Sahir Doshi  August 25, 2021

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.

RELATED

• How Infrastructure Reform Can Prioritize Ocean Climate Action
• Resources From the State House to the White House: Progress on Climate, Justice, and Jobs

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

 

Fracking comes at the expense of water quality

by University of Rochester Medical Center

Well head after all the Fracking equipment has been taken off location. Credit: Joshua Doubek. Wikimedia Commons/CC BY-SA 3.0

In a perspective piece that appears in the journal Science, Elaine Hill, Ph.D., an economist in the University of Rochester Medical Center Department of Public Health Sciences, calls for tighter regulation and monitoring of unconventional oil and gas development, commonly called fracking, as more evidence points to the negative health consequences of the practice.

The rising toll in the form of increased rates of chronic diseases, stress on rural health care providers, and growing need for mental health and addiction services, ultimately diminish the economic returns for communities that host the fracking industry. "Many of the impacts have lifelong consequences on individual well-being, including future health, education, and labor market outcomes," said Hill and co-author Lala Ma, Ph.D., with the Department of Economics at the University of Kentucky.

The debate over fracking is often viewed through either an economic lens that emphasizes jobs and energy independence, or an environmental one that warns of the damage to air and water quality and human health. Because fracking technology has been operating on a significant scale in the U.S. for the past two decades, the scope of the public health impact due to long-term exposure to air, water, and noise pollution is only now becoming clear.

Hill's research focuses on the complex local health, environmental, and economic implications of oil and gas extraction in the U.S. Her previous research was the first to link shale gas development to drinking water quality and has examined the association between shale gas development and reproductive health, and the subsequent impact on later educational attainment, higher risk of childhood asthma exacerbation, higher risk of heart attacks, and opioid deaths.

The perspective piece accompanies a study in Science that shows increased concentrations of four chemicals associated with fracking in the surface water near well sites, suggesting that wells could be a source of pollution in drinking water. These findings highlight one of the barriers to understanding, and mitigating, the health impacts of fracking as these operations are often shrouded by "trade secrets" and lax oversight. The new study contributes to the need to rethink regulations and monitoring systems, and require regulatory agencies to collect and release reports of additional chemicals in order to better assess the long-term health impacts, according to Hill and Ma.

"Understanding the exposure pathways at play is necessary for policy to effectively control the environmental damages from these operations tightening the stringency of currently regulated chemicals should be considered," said the authors.Study links hydraulic fracking with increased risk of heart attack hospitalization, death

More information: Elaine Hill et al, The fracking concern with water quality, Science (2021). DOI: 10.1126/science.abk3433

Journal information: Science 

Provided by University of Rochester Medical Center 

Fracking and poorer surface water quality link established – new research

During fracking, water is mixed with fluids and injected into the ground.

Wikimedia Commons

August 27, 2021 

Fracking – hailed by some as the greatest recent advance in energy production, criticised by others for the threat it poses to local life – continues to divide opinion.

The term fracking refers to the high-pressure injection of water mixed with fluid chemical additives – including friction reducers, gels and acids – and “propping agents” such as sand to create fractures in deep rock formations such as shale, allowing oil or gas to flow out.

Tens of thousands of hydraulic fracturing wells have been drilled across the US, generating huge benefits for its energy industry and economy: yet the practice remains globally controversial. It is not permitted in numerous other countries, such as France, Germany, Ireland and, since 2019, the UK.

While some see fracking as the most important change in the energy sector since the introduction of nuclear energy more than 50 years ago, others raise health and environmental concerns: in particular, the threat fracking could pose to our water.

Fracking works by injecting fluid into cracks in the earth to extract oil or gas. Wikimedia

Starting in 2010, many US states began to regulate fracking, obliging operators to disclose the substances used in their fluid mix. As economists, we were curious to see whether mandatory disclosures of what’s in fracturing fluids made the practice cleaner, or reduced potential water contamination.

To do that, we needed to compare the environmental impact from fracking before and after the new disclosure rules. We assembled a database that put together existing measurements of surface water quality with the location of fracking wells, and analysed changes in surface water quality around new wells over an 11-year period.

We noticed some strong associations, but also discovered that these associations had not been previously documented. Deciding to study the link between new hydraulic fracturing wells and surface water quality, we were able to provide evidence for a relationship between the two

.

A fracking platform designed to extract oil.

Jwigley/Pixabay, CC BY

The link

Our study, published in Science, uses a statistical approach to identify changes in the concentration of certain salts associated with new wells. We discovered a very small but consistent increase in barium, chloride and strontium – for bromide, our results were more mixed and not as robust.

Salt concentrations were most increased at monitoring stations that were located within 15 km and downstream from a well, and in measurements taken within a year of fracking activity.

This figure plots the associations between salt concentrations and a new fracking well located within 15km and likely upstream of the water monitor.

The increases in salt we discovered were small and within the bounds of what the US Environmental Protection Agency considers safe for drinking water. However, since our water measurements were mostly taken from rivers, not all of the public surface water monitors we used are close to wells, or are in locations where they can detect the effects of fracking: for example, they may be located upstream of new wells. That means the salt concentrations in water flowing downstream from new wells could be even higher.

Our study was also limited by the public data available. We were not able to investigate potentially more toxic substances found in the fracturing fluids or in the produced water, such as radium or arsenic. Public databases do not widely include measurements of these other substances, making it hard for researchers to carry out the statistical analysis needed to detect anomalous concentrations related to new wells.

That said, the salts we analysed are not exactly innocuous. High concentrations of barium in drinking water may lead to increases in blood pressure, while chloride can potentially threaten aquatic life. Elevated strontium levels can even have adverse impacts on human bone development, especially in the young.
Next steps

It is undeniable that fracking has played a big role in replacing the fossil fuel coal as a source of energy. Some studies show that, relative to periods of massive coal-burning, the overall quality of surface water has improved. Fracking has also brought an economic boost to underdeveloped areas. Still, the question remains as to whether it is safe for local communities

.

Where fracking is heavy, roads and pipelines make a web across the landscape.

Simon Fraser University/Flickr

While our study is an important step towards understanding the environmental impact of fracking, more data are needed to truly answer these safety concerns. The good news is, with new disclosure rules, we have a better awareness of exactly which chemicals are being used.

The next step is for policymakers to make sure that government agencies systematically track these chemical in fracking fluids and produced waters, place monitoring stations in locations where they can better track surface water impacts, and increase the frequency of water quality measurement around the time new wells are drilled.

A more targeted approach could go a long way in enabling research and helping to protect the public health of communities for whom fracking could yet be a blessing or a curse.

Authors

Giovanna Michelon
Professor of Accounting, University of Bristol

Christian Leuz
Professor of International Economics, Finance and Accounting, University of Chicago

Pietro Bonetti
Assistant Professor of Accounting and Control, IESE Business School (Universidad de Navarra)

 

Canada's oil and gas sector filled up on federal COVID emergency cash

Critics say profitable oil and gas companies continue to give out big dividends to their shareholders while laying off workers.

Aug 13, 2021 

By: John Woodside, Local Journalism Initiative Reporter / Canada's National Observer

At a time when climate science demands a rapid transition off fossil fuels, Ottawa approved more 

than $1.3 billion for oil and gas companies through the Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy. 

Kartikay Sharma / Unsplash

At a time when climate science demands a rapid transition off fossil fuels, Ottawa approved more than $1.3 billion for oil and gas companies through the Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy (CEWS).

According to a January 2021 meeting note Canada’s National Observer received through a federal access-to-information request, “over $1.3B has been approved for the petroleum sector companies” as of Oct. 29, 2020 through CEWS.

“Alberta has by far the greatest number of CEWS applications from the energy sector, accounting for ~80 per cent of the applications, most of which were for companies within the petroleum sector,” the meeting note reads.

Quebec, Saskatchewan, Ontario, British Columbia, and Newfoundland and Labrador also had “a big uptick” within the energy sector, according to the document.

The total CEWS figures specifically for the petroleum industry are not known, but as of May 23, more than $2.3 billion has been dispersed to companies in the mining, quarrying, and oil and gas extraction industries. That does not include pipeline companies or refineries, whose amounts are buried within the broader industrial categories of “transportation” and “manufacturing,” respectively.

NDP environment critic Laurel Collins pointed to Imperial Oil taking $120 million in wage subsidies, then paying out $324 million worth of dividends to shareholders as one example of how the program was badly managed.

“Clearly, they did not need this wage subsidy, and I would argue similarly for the billions of dollars that are going to support oil and gas exploration, production, transportation, refining, etc.,” Collins said. “These profitable oil and gas companies continue to give out big dividends to their shareholders while laying off workers. This is not protecting jobs in the oil and gas sector.”

The meeting note also includes a summary of a September meeting between Natural Resources Canada and a dozen oil and gas industry groups. The meeting was an opportunity for incoming deputy minister Jean-François Tremblay to introduce himself, where he confirmed his desire to “continue serving as the sector’s champion in government, and to continue to tell the sector’s story within government,” the note reads.

At that meeting, industry groups also aired their concerns and made requests.

The Canadian Gas Association was concerned that adhering to a clean fuel standard, or the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, would be “challenging to comply with.” According to the meeting note, it generally felt the industry was “under siege,” and the group warned, “there is a need to consider what environmental goals are doing to the cost of living for the average Canadian.”

According to the document, the Explorers and Producers Association of Canada said there “is a need for government programs to support the transition of Canadian companies to net-zero.”

Julia Levin, senior program manager for climate and energy at advocacy group Environmental Defence, says it shouldn’t be the federal government’s responsibility to transform companies.

“When Blockbuster was going out of business, it wasn't the government who had to spend billions of dollars updating Blockbuster to make it compatible with where consumer demand was,” she said. “These are companies who have seen the writing on the wall for 40 years … they had all of that time to figure out how to transition and how to fit into a clean energy future.

“If they failed to do so, that failure is completely theirs to own.”

With the IPCC report out this week detailing the environmental catastrophe that is ahead without rapid and large-scale global emissions reductions, Levin says every decision Ottawa makes, including whom it gives money to, should align with a plan to cut emissions in half by 2030.

“The UN secretary general was right when he called this report a ‘death knell for fossil fuels,’ and that has to be the message our political leaders take from it,” she said. “We'll have to start putting in place plans to stop all new oil and gas projects, and then rapidly wind down the oil and gas sector; cutting it in half in the next decade, and winding it down completely over the next two decades.”

Natural Resources Seamus O’Regan has made clear that is not in his plans. In a recent interview with the Financial Post, O’Regan said “the end goal is not to shut down the fossil fuel industry, the end goal is singularly to lower emissions.”

“People have to really absorb the fact that we’re the fourth-biggest producer of oil and natural gas in the world, whether you like it or not, whether you’re proud of it or not, I do not care … you have no alternative than to be practical,” he added.

Similarly, Environment Minister Jonathan Wilkinson told the CBC this week that the plan was to maximize revenue from the Trans Mountain pipeline to help pay for a clean transition.

“You have people like Minister O'Regan maybe being a little more upfront about the fact they’re going to continue publicly financing fossil fuel companies to the tune of billions, and our being what he termed 'practical' about ignoring the climate crisis,” said Collins.

The meeting note outlines a number of other financial lifelines available to the sector. In Ottawa’s $10-billion Corporate Bond Purchase Program (CBPP), the energy sector accounted for 21.3 per cent of the CBPP’s reference portfolio, behind only the financial sector at 24.7 per cent.

As of Dec. 15, mining, quarrying, and oil and gas extraction accounted for roughly $71 million from the Canada Emergency Business Account, which provided interest-free loans to small businesses and non-profits. There is also a “Large Employer Emergency Financing Facility” that is described as a “lender of last resort” for companies with revenues above $300 million.

The meeting note says uptake through that program is “low, so far,” but it was expected some of the 60 eligible oil and gas companies would tap into the fund in 2021.

Natural Resources Canada did not return requests for information about these funding programs by deadline.

Venezuela Details Suffering Caused by US Sanctions in Report to ICC


Caracas asked the ICC to open an investigation into alleged crimes against humanity committed by the US through unilateral coercive measures.

By José Luis Granados Ceja
Aug 25th 2021 

Venezuelan Vice President Delcy Rodríguez shares content from a report submitted to the ICC during a press conference at the Miraflores Presidential Palace in Caracas. (Alba Ciudad)

Mexico City, Mexico, August 25, 2021 (venezuelanalysis.com) – The Venezuelan government submitted a second report to the International Criminal Court (ICC) on Monday detailing the negative impacts of the United States’ unilateral coercive measures.

The report is part of Caracas' efforts to hold the US accountable at The Hague.

"With this report we are showing the damage caused to the population as a result of the crimes that have been committed by the US Government and those who have joined this criminal blockade against Venezuela," said Vice President Delcy Rodríguez in a press conference on Tuesday.

The government of Nicolás Maduro asked the ICC to open an investigation into alleged crimes against humanity committed by the government of the United States of America against Venezuela through the use of unilateral coercive measures, commonly referred to as sanctions, on February 13, 2020. The investigation is presently in “phase 2” where the ICC prosecutor will determine if there is a legal basis for a full enquiry.

As part of her presentation, Rodríguez demonstrated statements by US institutions and officials that she deemed “confessions” that served as proof that officials knew that the measures would have a negative impact on the civilian population.

“They do not care about the suffering they have caused the Venezuelan people,” said Rodríguez. “They have a political objective: to oust a government that is not aligned with their interests, that is not subservient to its mandates, its orders.”

Washington’s sanctions against Venezuela formally began under President Barack Obama in 2015, and were greatly intensified by his successor, Donald Trump, who first imposed economic sanctions in 2017 and strengthened them over time.

President Joe Biden has maintained Trump’s hardline policies toward Caracas, including the ban on oil-for-diesel swap deals, in which Venezuela exchanged imported diesel for crude. The closing of this lifeline has exacerbated severe fuel shortages in the Caribbean country.

Nineteen US House Democrats recently demanded the Biden administration lift sanctions against Venezuela and support ongoing dialogue efforts between the government and the opposition being held in Mexico.

The report submitted to the ICC also detailed how US Treasury sanctions were responsible for the grave economic situation that Venezuela is facing, particularly through the measures against the oil industry since 2017. The vice president likewise shared a number of instances where public companies in Venezuela were unable to import critical equipment and supplies as a result of the US blockade. She stressed that the obstacles have affected utilities such as electricity and water supply.

Rodríguez placed special emphasis on the impact of US sanctions on the country’s ability to address the Covid-19 emergency.

At its outset in early 2020, experts called on Washington to lift its unilateral measures on various countries, including Venezuela, so they could count on the resources necessary to confront the pandemic.

Rodríguez shared an anecdote where she detailed how the president of the country’s central bank—seeking funds to buy medical supplies—was rebuffed by Citibank, where Venezuela had a 342 million dollar deposit frozen, attributing the decision to consequences of Treasury sanctions. These funds were subsequently transferred to the US government’s Federal Reserve and used to finance the activities of self-proclaimed “Interim President” Juan Guaidó.

US sanctions notoriously interfered with Venezuela’s ability to pay for vaccines through the United Nations' COVAX program after funds were frozen or blocked. As a result, Venezuela has lagged in its vaccination campaign compared to its neighbors, with an article in The Lancet calling on the international community to act.

This case at the ICC is unrelated to a separate preliminary investigation by the court that was initiated by the Venezuelan opposition and a handful of US-aligned governments who filed a suit accusing the Maduro government of carrying out crimes against humanity in its response to violent “guarimba” protests. A decision by ICC Prosecutor Karim Khan on that case is expected soon.

Edited by Ricardo Vaz from Mérida.

US Democrats Call for Venezuela Sanctions Relief and ‘Direct Dialogue’ with Maduro

The representatives urged the White House to allow crude-for-diesel swaps and “constructively engage” with actors on the ground.

chuy_garcia.jpg

Jesús “Chuy” García (D-IL) and other representatives asked for a new US policy towards Venezuela stepping away from the “maximum pressure” campaign and violent destabilization efforts. (Jim Young/Reuters)

By Andreína Chávez Alava and Ricardo Vaz
Aug 14th 2021

Mérida, August 14, 2021 (venezuelanalysis.com) – Nineteen US House Democrats demanded the Joe Biden administration lift “broad and indiscriminate sanctions” against Venezuela and support ongoing dialogue efforts.

“Our government should act urgently to alleviate the suffering of the Venezuelan people by taking immediate steps to lift the broad and indiscriminate sanctions while supporting internationally mediated dialogue efforts,” read the letter sent to Secretary of State Antony Blinken on Friday.

The signatories include Raúl M. Grijalva (D-AZ), Jesús “Chuy” García (D-IL), Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), Ilhan Omar of Minnesota (D-MN), Pramila Jayapal (D-WA), Maxine Waters (D-CA) and the chair of the House Rules Committee, Jim McGovern (D-MA).

Arguing that the former Trump administration’s "maximum pressure" campaign against Venezuela “has been a total failure,” the lawmakers recalled that the economic sanctions imposed since 2017 “have inflicted greater hardship and suffering in ordinary Venezuelans.”

The letter went on to recommend a new path in US policy towards the South American country, which includes removing “all US financial and sectoral sanctions." The first measure proposed would reverse “the (October 2020) Trump ban that prohibits Venezuela from exchanging crude oil for diesel, thereby hindering food production and distribution."

The members of Congress also asked the White House to "engage in direct dialogue" with the Nicolás Maduro government and “with a broader array of political actors.” They suggested approaching “moderate opposition sectors that are not aligned with (self-proclaimed ‘Interim President’) Juan Guaidó and moderate Chavista sectors that are critical of the Maduro government."

The signatories cited a number of studies that document the consequences of US policies against Venezuela, including a recent US Government Accountability Office (GAO) report which noted that “US sanctions have likely contributed to the country’s steep economic decline." They additionally quoted a preliminary report issued by UN independent expert Alena Douhan after a 12-day visit to the Caribbean country in February. The document detailed the “devastating” effects of US sanctions.

Likewise, the representatives pointed out the impact of Washington’s coercive measures in blocking Covid-19 relief. “Sanctions continue to deprive the country of the necessary resources with which to effectively combat the pandemic,” they wrote, adding that exemptions for medical goods “do not resolve issues with banking and supply chains.”

The lawmakers concluded that Washington's continuous support for coup attempts and violent destabilization efforts against Caracas have further strengthened the image of the US as a "bellicose and threatening power." Instead they argued for “constructive engagement” with actors on the ground.

For its part, the Maduro government has repeatedly called for improved relations with Washington. The administration has also made the removal of sanctions a key demand in the Norway-mediated dialogue with the opposition that kicked off in Mexico on Friday.


The Friday letter adds to the growing calls for sanctions relief coming from the Democratic Party.

In March, a group of representatives and senators headlined by Omar requested that the Biden administration “review” its overall sanctions policy amidst the Covid-19 pandemic. In June, McGovern likewise urged the White House to end “misguided and immoral” sanctions against Venezuela.

Washington has increasingly turned to unilateral coercive measures in recent years in its attempts to overthrow the Maduro government. In 2015, former President Barack Obama signed Executive Order 13692 declaring Venezuela “an unusual and extraordinary threat to US national security.”

The Trump administration considerably ramped up the US Treasury Department’s sanctions policy, freezing assets and targeting sectors such as banking, mining, food imports and especially the oil industry. The US imposed financial sanctions, an oil embargo, secondary sanctions, as well as a host of other measures meant to cripple Caracas’ main source of foreign income.

The blockade has decimated Venezuela’s oil output, which plummeted from an average of 1.9 million barrels per day (bpd) in 2017 to just over 500,000 bpd presently. Economist Francisco Rodríguez estimated US $17 billion of lost revenue between 2017 and 2019.

US economic aggression has severely compounded an economic crisis that has seen Venezuela’s GDP contract by almost 70 percent since 2013.

Washington’s sanctions have been classed as “collective punishment” and widely condemned by a range of multilateral organizations. United Nations (UN) Special Rapporteur Alfred de Zayas has estimated that sanctions caused at least 100,000 deaths until March 2020.

Most recently, a group of UN experts urged the US and allies to withdraw or minimize unilateral sanctions, arguing that they “hold countries back from development.”

“The punishment of innocent civilians must end,” the special rapporteurs stressed in a press release.

Andreína Chávez Alava reporting from Guayaquil, Ecuador, and Ricardo Vaz from Mérida, Venezuela.