Disposal of Marcellus Shale fracking waste caused earthquakes in Ohio

by American Geophysical Union

Before January 2011, Youngstown, Ohio, had never had an earthquake since observations began in 1776. In December 2010, the Northstar 1 injection well came online, built to pump wastewater produced by hydraulic fracturing projects in Pennsylvania into storage deep underground. In the year that followed, seismometers in and around Youngstown recorded 109 earthquakes—the strongest of the set being a magnitude 3.9 earthquake on December 31, 2011.

In a new study analyzing the Youngstown earthquakes, Kim finds that the earthquakes' onset, cessation, and even temporary dips in activity were all tied to the activity at the Northstar 1 well. The first earthquake recorded in the city occurred 13 days after pumping began, and the tremors ceased shortly after the Ohio Department of Natural Resources shut down the well in December 2011. Also, the author finds that dips in earthquake activity correlated with Memorial Day, the Fourth of July, Labor Day, and Thanksgiving, as well as other periods when the injection at the well was temporarily stopped.

Further, the author finds that the earthquakes were centered in an ancient fault near the Northstar 1 well. The author suggests that the increase in pressure from the deep wastewater injection caused the existing fault to slip. Throughout the year, the earthquakes crept from east to west down the length of the fault away from the well—indicative of the earthquakes being caused by a traveling pressure front.

The author notes that of the 177 wastewater disposal wells of this size active in Ohio during 2011, only the Northstar 1 well was associated with such induced seismicity.

Regular Article 

 

Free Access

Induced seismicity associated with fluid injection into a deep well in Youngstown, Ohio

Won‐Young Kim

First published: 19 June 2013

 

https://doi.org/10.1002/jgrb.50247

MAY 1, 2014

Wastewater disposal may trigger quakes at a greater distance than previously thought

by Seismological Society of America

Oil and gas development activities, including underground disposal of wastewater and hydraulic fracturing, may induce earthquakes by changing the state of stress on existing faults to the point of failure. Earthquakes from wastewater disposal may be triggered at tens of kilometers from the wellbore, which is a greater range than previously thought, according to research to be presented today at the annual meeting of the Seismological Society of America (SSA). As an indication of the growing significance of man-made earthquakes on seismic hazard, SSA annual meeting will feature a special session to discuss new research findings and approaches to incorporating induced seismicity into seismic hazard assessments and maps.

The number of earthquakes within central and eastern United States has increased dramatically over the past few years, coinciding with increased hydraulic fracturing of horizontally drilled wells, and the injection of wastewater in deep disposal wells in many locations, including Colorado, Oklahoma, Texas, Arkansas and Ohio. According to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), an average rate of 100 earthquakes per year above a magnitude 3.0 occurred in the three years from 2010-2012, compared with an average rate of 21 events per year observed from 1967-2000.

"Induced seismicity complicates the seismic hazard equation," said Gail Atkinson, professor of earth sciences at Western University in Ontario Canada, whose research details how a new source of seismicity, such as an injection disposal well, can fundamentally alter the potential seismic hazard in an area.

For critical structures, such as dams, nuclear power plants and other major facilities, Atkinson suggests that the hazard from induced seismicity can overwhelm the hazard from pre-existing natural seismicity, increasing the risk to structures that were originally designed for regions of low to moderate seismic activity.

A new study of the Jones earthquake swarm, occurring near Oklahoma City since 2008, demonstrates that a small cluster of high-volume injection wells triggered earthquakes tens of kilometers away. Both increasing pore pressure and the number of earthquakes were observed migrating away from the injection wells.

"The existing criteria for an induced earthquake do not allow earthquakes associated with the well activity to occur this far away from the wellbore," said Katie Keranen, assistant professor of geophysics at Cornell University, who led the study of the Jones earthquake swarm. "Our results, using seismology and hydrogeology, show a strong link between a small number of wells and earthquakes migrating up to 50 kilometers away" said Keranen. The study's result will be presented by co-author Geoff Abers, senior research scientist at Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory.

While there are relatively few wells linked to increased seismicity, seismologists seek to anticipate when activity might trigger earthquakes and at what magnitude.

"It is important to avoid inducing earthquakes large enough to be felt, that is, earthquakes with magnitudes of about 2.5, or greater, because these are the ones that are of concern to the public," said Art McGarr, a geophysicist with USGS.

McGarr's research investigates the factors that enhance the likelihood of earthquakes induced by fluid injection that are large enough to be felt, or, on rare occasions, capable of causing damage. The injection activities considered in McGarr's study include underground disposal of wastewater, development of enhanced geothermal systems and hydraulic fracturing. Of the three activities, wastewater disposal predominates both in terms of volumes of injected liquid and earthquake size, with magnitudes for a few of the earthquakes exceeding 5.

"From the results of this study, the total volume of injected fluid seems to be the factor that limits the magnitude, whereas the injection rate controls the frequency of earthquake occurrence," said McGarr.

Despite the increasing seismicity in the central and eastern US, induced earthquakes are presently excluded from USGS estimates of earthquake hazard. Justin Rubinstein, geophysicist with USGS, will present an approach to account for the increased seismicity without first having to determine the source (induced or natural) of the earthquakes.

The USGS is trying to "stay agnostic as to whether the earthquakes are induced or natural," says Rubinstein. "In some sense, from a hazard perspective, it doesn't matter whether the earthquakes are natural or induced. An increase in earthquake rate implies that the probability of a larger earthquake has also risen," said Rubinstein, whose method seeks to balance all of the possible ways the hazard might change given the changing earthquake rate.

But what's the likelihood of induced seismicity from any specific well?

"We can't answer the question at this time," said Atkinson, who said the complex problem of assigning seismic hazard to the effects of induced seismicity is just beginning to be addressed.

"There is a real dearth of regulations," said Atkinson. "We need a clear understanding of the likely induced seismicity in response to new activity. And who is the onus on to identify the likely seismic hazard?"

APRIL 12, 2017

Anticipating hazards from fracking-induced earthquakes in Canada and US

by Seismological Society of America

As hydraulic fracturing operations expand in Canada and in some parts of the United States, researchers at the 2017 Seismological Society of America's (SSA) Annual Meeting are taking a closer look at ways to minimize hazards from the earthquakes triggered by those operations.

Hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, is a method of hydrocarbon recovery that uses high-pressure injections of fluid to break apart rock and release trapped oil and natural gas. At the SSA Annual Meeting, experts will speak about the growing recognition that hydraulic fracturing or fracking can produce earthquakes magnitude 3 and larger, acknowledging that this type of seismic activity is difficult to predict and may be difficult to stop once it begins.

Most induced earthquakes in Canada have been linked to hydraulic fracturing, in contrast to induced earthquakes studied in the central and eastern United States. In the U.S., these earthquakes have been linked primarily to massive amounts of wastewater injected back into the ground after oil and gas recovery. However, some presentations at the SSA meeting will take a closer look at the possibilities for fracking earthquakes in the United States.

Michael Brudzinski of Miami University and his colleagues will discuss their work to identify swarms of small magnitude earthquakes in Ohio that appear to be correlated in time and space with hydraulic fracturing or wastewater disposal. Their work suggest that there are roughly three times more earthquakesequences of magnitude 2 or larger induced by hydraulic fracturing compared to wastewater disposal in the area—even though there are about 10 times more hydraulic fracturing wellsthan wastewater disposal wells. Their technique, they say, provides evidence of induced seismicity from hydraulic fracturing in Oklahoma, Arkansas, Pennsylvania, West Virginia and Texas as well.

Zenming Wang and colleagues are preparing for the onset of oil and gas exploration in the Rome Trough of eastern Kentucky, conducting a study of the natural background seismicity in the area to be able to better identify induced earthquakes if they occur. In their SSA presentation, they will also discuss how an area like eastern Kentucky might assess and prepare for ground shaking hazards from induced earthquakes, since the ruptures may occur on unmapped or "quiet" faults.

In western Alberta and eastern British Columbia in Canada, a significant increase in the rate of felt earthquakes from hydraulic fracturing has researchers looking at ways to mitigate potential damage to infrastructure in the region. In her SSA presentation, Gail Atkinson of Western University will discuss the factors that affect the likelihood of damaging ground motion from fracking-induced earthquakes. Based on these factors, Atkinson proposes targeted "exclusion zones" with a radius of about five kilometers around critical infrastructure such as major dams. This would be combined real-time monitoring to track the rate of seismic events of magnitude 2 or greater within 25 kilometers, with fracking operations adjusted to potentially reduce this rate to less hazardous levels.

Fracking—not wastewater disposal—linked to most induced earthquakes in Western Canada

by Seismological Society of America
MARCH 29, 2016

Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (outlined in black) is on a geological map of Canada. Credit: QYD

A survey of a major oil and natural gas-producing region in Western Canada suggests a link between hydraulic fracturing or "fracking" and induced earthquakes in the region, according to a new report published online in the journal Seismological Research Letters.

The study's findings differ from those reported from oil and gas fields in the central United States, where fracking is not considered to be the main cause of a sharp rise in induced seismicity in the region. Instead, the proliferation of hundreds of small earthquakes in that part of the U.S. is thought to be caused primarily by massive amounts of wastewater injected back into the ground after oil and gas recovery.

The SRL study does not examine why induced seismicity would be linked to different processes in the central U.S. and western Canada. However, some oil and gas fields in the U.S., especially Oklahoma, use "very large amounts of water" in their operations, leading to much more wastewater disposal than in Canadian operations, said Gail M. Atkinson of Western University.

It is possible that massive wastewater disposal in the U.S. is "masking another signal" of induced seismicity caused by fracking, Atkinson said. "So we're not entirely sure that there isn't more seismicity in the central U.S. from hydraulic fracturing than is widely recognized."

The fracking process uses high-pressure injections of fluid to break apart rock and release trapped oil and natural gas. Both fracking and wastewater injections can increase the fluid pressure in the natural pores and fractures in rock, or change the state of stress on existing faults, to produce earthquakes.

The Western Canada Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) contains one of the world's largest oil and gas reserves, and is dotted with thousands of fracking wells drilled in multi-stage horizontal operations. Atkinson and her colleagues compared the relationship of 12,289 fracking wells and 1236 wastewater disposal wells to magnitude 3 or larger earthquakes in an area of 454,000 square kilometers near the border between Alberta and British Columbia, between 1985 and 2015.

The researchers performed statistical analyses to determine which earthquakes were most likely to be related to hydraulic fracturing, given their location and timing. The analyses identified earthquakes as being related to fracking if they took place close to a well and within a time window spanning the start of fracking to three months after its completion, and if other causes, such as wastewater disposal, were not involved.

Atkinson and colleagues found 39 hydraulic fracturing wells (0.3% of the total of fracking wells studied), and 17 wastewater disposal wells (1% of the disposal wells studied) that could be linked to earthquakes of magnitude 3 or larger.

While these percentages sound small, Atkinson pointed out that thousands of hydraulic fracturing wells are being drilled every year in the WCSB, increasing the likelihood of earthquake activity. "We haven't had a large earthquake near vulnerable infrastructure yet," she said, "but I think it's really just a matter of time before we start seeing damage coming out of this."

The study also confirmed that in the last few years nearly all the region's overall seismicity of magnitude 3 or larger has been induced by human activity. More than 60% of these quakes are linked to hydraulic fracture, about 30-35% come from disposal wells, and only 5 to 10% of the earthquakes have a natural tectonic origin, Atkinson said.

Atkinson said the new numbers could be used to recalculate the seismic hazard for the region, which could impact everything from building codes to safety assessments of critical infrastructure such as dams and bridges. "Everything has been designed and assessed in terms of earthquake hazard in the past, considering the natural hazard," she said. "And now we've fundamentally changed that, and so our seismic hazard picture has changed."

The researchers were also surprised to find that their data showed no relationship between the volume of fluid injected at a hydraulic fracturing well site and the maximum magnitude of its induced earthquake.

"It had previously been believed that hydraulic fracturing couldn't trigger larger earthquakes because the fluid volumes were so small compared to that of a disposal well," Atkinson explained. "But if there isn't any relationship between the maximum magnitude and the fluid disposal, then potentially one could trigger larger events if the fluid pressures find their way to a suitably stressed fault."

Atkinson and her colleagues hope to refine their analyses to include other variables, such as information about extraction processes and the geology at individual well sites, "to help us understand why some areas seem much more prone to induced seismicity than others."

The scientists say the seismic risks associated with hydraulic fracturing could increase as oil and gas companies expand fracking's use in developing countries, which often contain dense populations and earthquake-vulnerable infrastructure.

Damaging Sichuan earthquakes linked to fracking operations

by Seismological Society of America

Schematic depiction of hydraulic fracturing for shale gas, showing main possible environmental effects. Credit: Mikenorton/Wikipedia

Two moderate-sized earthquakes that struck the southern Sichuan Province of China last December and January were probably caused by nearby fracking operations, according to a new study published in Seismological Research Letters.

The December 2018 magnitude 5.7 and the January 2019 magnitude 5.3 earthquakes in the South Sichuan Basin caused extensive damage to farmhouses and other structures in the area. The December earthquake was especially destructive, injuring 17 people and resulting in a direct economic loss of about 50 million Chinese Yuan Renminbi (roughly $US 7.5 million).

The Changning shale gas block in the South Sichuan Basin has been the site of fracking operations since 2010, with extensive horizontal fracking injection wells becoming more common since 2014. The earthquake rate in the Changning block rose dramatically at the same time that systematic fracking began.

In the United States, wastewater disposal from oil and gas operations, where water produced during hydrocarbon extraction is injected back into rock layers, is thought to be the primary cause of induced earthquakes, especially in Oklahoma. However, there is growing evidence that hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, which uses injected water to break apart rock layersduring hydrocarbon extraction, may have caused moderate-size earthquakes at some sites in Ohio, Oklahoma and western Canada.

Both wastewater disposal and fracking have induced earthquakes in the south Sichuan basin, say Xinglin Lei of the Geological Survey of Japan and colleagues. In their new study in SRL, the researchers present "a full chain of evidence" to show that the December and January earthquakes were induced by fracking operations.

They pinpointed the location of the earthquakes, finding that they were relatively shallow (between two and ten kilometers below the surface), as would be expected for induced earthquakes. The December and January quakes also coincided in time and space with injection at nearby fracking well pads. They did not have the exact injection volumes at these well pads to better understand the relationship between injection activities and the evolution of seismicity.

Lei and colleagues' modeling of seismic activity show that most of the activity came from the initial mainshocks, with little aftershock activity, which is also consistent with the pattern seen for induced earthquakes. Finally, their calculations show that overpressure on the rock pores, produced by the fracking injections, was strong enough to activate preexisting faults in the region. These faults were mostly unmapped and not in a favorable orientation to slip under normal tectonic activity, the researchers note.

"For most well pads, the associated seismicity fades out quickly after the hydraulic fracture ended or halted," said Lei, although he noted that their analysis did raise the possibility of seeing signs of fault reactivation from previous seismicity.

"In my opinion, repeated moderate earthquakes can be caused as long as the injection is continuing, since a moderate earthquake releases very limited strain," he added. "The national regulations in China should be updated with the requirement for operators to take action if some signs of fault reactivation were observed."

The researchers say more information is needed about faults and their stress patterns in areas of the Sichuan basin surrounding fracking well pads, to guide drilling in a way that would avoid moderate seismic activity. "Moderate earthquakes were observed in a limited number of sites," said Lei. "If these sites could be screened out, the risk of moderate earthquakes would be greatly reduced."

Lei and colleagues would like to see researchers, regulators and oil and gas operators work together to better understand what causes injection-induced seismicity in the South Sichuan Basin, to allow effective and safe fracking operations.

We can't expand airports after declaring a climate emergency – let's shift to low-carbon transport instead

by Jefim Vogel, Joel Millward-Hopkins And Yannick Oswald, The Conversation

Credit: EPA-EFE/NEIL HALL

The world may finally be waking to the reality of the climate and ecological crisis after 30 years of inaction. But while the UK government has declared a climate and ecological emergency, ongoing plans for airport expansions suggest we're flying full-speed towards crisis rather than away from it.

Globally, greenhouse gas emissions from aviation are rising rapidly, and set to further escalate. Passenger numbers are rising far too fast for efficiency improvements and alternative technologies, such as electric or biofuel-powered engines, to keep up. What's worse, the climateimpact of flights is two to three times larger than their CO₂ emissions alone, due to the release of nitrogen oxides—powerful greenhouse gases—and the contrails planes leave in their wake which trap even more heat in the atmosphere. The aviation industry has also evaded fuel taxes, emissions regulations, and is often completely omitted in emissions accounting.

This is particularly important as cities are setting targets to reduce their carbon emissions. While many of these cities have airports, their climate strategies tend to focus on the emissions released within the city's boundaries and from their electricity use. They don't account for emissions from imported goods and services that are consumed in the city but produced elsewhere, nor from flights through their airports. Any emissions from residents travelling outside the city are generally omitted.

Take Leeds for example

One example is Leeds in the UK, where the city council recently declared a climate emergency and committed the city to emitting no more than 42 megatonnes of CO₂ from 2018 until 2050. But the city's targets sit uncomfortably alongside plans to expand Leeds Bradford Airport.

Climate impact of all flights through Leeds Bradford Airport if passengers increase to 8m (red), remain at 2018 level of 4m (yellow) or fall to 1m by 2030 (green), compared to the target emissions for Leeds as a whole (black dashed curve). Credit: Jefim Vogel, Author provided

The expansion should double the number of passengers using the airport every year from 4m to 8m by 2030. The climate impact of all those flights would be more than double the 2030 target emissions for Leeds as a whole. If passenger numbers continue growing after 2030, even at a slower rate, the overshoot would escalate to a factor of nine by 2040.

By 2050, the combined climate impact of all flights through Leeds Bradford Airport since 2018 would exceed the carbon budget for Leeds as a whole by a factor of 2.5. Even if only one in four passengers are Leeds residents, their flights alone would use up 62% of the city's entire carbon budget by 2050.

As aviation is governed mostly at a national level, Leeds City Council may argue it has little control over the expansion, but is it even trying to stop it? Their Inclusive Growth Strategy suggests the opposite: endorsing the expansion and promising new transport links to the airport with a new commercial centre nearby.

Preparing an emergency landing

If the number of passengers using Leeds Bradford Airport remained at their current levels, all flights from 2018 to 2050 combined would still produce a climate impact equivalent to the entire carbon budget of Leeds. Only if passenger numbers fell drastically could flying become remotely compatible with climate targets.

Even if passenger numbers remain at 2018 levels, air traffic at Leeds Bradford would overshoot the city’s carbon budget. Credit: Jefim Vogel, Author provided

If cut in half by 2022 and 75% by 2030, the flights of Leeds residents alone would use up 8% of the city's carbon budget. This might be just low enough to squeeze all other activities in Leeds into the remaining carbon budget—if these are also radically decarbonised.

Such a drastic reduction might seem difficult, but perhaps some flights are more dispensable than others. For UK residents, 70% of all flights in 2014 were claimed by just 15% of the population, and while many business leaders fly every week, more than half of the population didn't fly at all in 2014.

Given how sharply the number of flights has to decrease, the difficult question then is who gets to fly, and for what purpose. Should priority be given to someone taking their fourth flight this year to their second home in the Mediterranean, or to someone visiting their family living abroad? And how is this decided? A first step might be to increase taxes in line with the number of flights a person takes, with what's called a frequent flyer levy.

But that's not enough. Price mechanisms can't make the value judgements at the heart of this—and they could just make flying exclusive to a rich elite who could still afford it. It seems more appropriate to make these decisions through democratic deliberation processes like citizens' assemblies.

Read more: To tackle the climate crisis we need more democracy, not less

Expanding and improving rail travel could make some flights redundant. Credit: Blanscape/Shutterstock

A low-carbon transport system

Reducing flights will need to come with wider changes in transport systems and society. A large share of current air traffic could be made redundant by using video conferences for meetings. Improving rail transport could make for a low-carbon and affordable alternative to flying for medium-distance travel. More overnight trains with sleeping facilities and better cross-border integration of rail operators would help. Carefully developing attractive holiday locations closer to home, made accessible by electrified public transport, and promoting low-carbon activities like bike trips could also reduce demand for flights.

Another major issue is car transport which accounts for the lion's share of transport emissions and causes severe air pollution, with dramatic impacts on public health. Road accidents are a major cause of death worldwide, far exceeding deaths from malaria or war, and road networks and car parks take up lots of public space.

Making transport systems sustainable means ending the dependence on car travel. This involves massively expanding reliable and affordable, low-carbon public transport within and between cities. It also means better urban planning, with more bike lanes, bike sharing and car-free zones. Suburbs should be designed so that a car isn't necessary for getting around. And a drastically reduced car fleet could be bound to fuel efficiency standards before eventually becoming fully electric.

Deep and rapid changes to the world's transport systems are needed to halt climate change, and many of these would also improve human well-being and public life. But to get there involves challenging powerful vested interests in aviation and the car and oil industries. The challenges are vast, but doing nothing means accepting an unacceptable future.

Predicting seismic activity at fracking sites to prevent earthquakes

by University of Bristol

Aerial view of the hydraulic fracturing rig at Cuadrilla’s Preston New Road site. Credit: Matthew Hampson, Cuadrilla Resources Ltd

Scientists from the University of Bristol have found a more effective way to predict seismic activity at hydraulic fracturing sites, ensuring that potential earthquake activity remains within safe levels.

Hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, is a technique designed to recover gas and oil from shale rock by drilling down into the earth and injecting a mixture of water and sand at high-pressure, creating fractures that allow the gas or oil to flow out.

Like many other industries, such as coal mining, hydro-electricity and geothermal energy, fracking has in some cases been known to cause earthquakes.

In 2011 test operations near Blackpool had to be suspended after tremors of 1.5 and 2.2 magnitude were detected.

Investigations carried out after this concluded that it was highly probable that the drilling had caused the tremors and new 'traffic light' regulations were introduced at fracking sites across the country.

If earthquake magnitudes are below a certain level, then the injection can proceed as normal. If the earthquakes exceed a certain amber light magnitude, then the operator must proceed with caution by, for example, reducing the injection rate, pressure or volume. If the magnitude exceeds the red light magnitude, then the injection must pause.

Currently, there is little scientific basis for how the amber and red-light thresholds should be decided.

Lead author, Dr. James Verdon from the University's School of Earth Sciences, said: "Many industries can create induced earthquakes, including both longstanding ones like coal mining and hydroelectricity, and newer ones like geothermal and hydraulic fracturing for shale gas.

"Our goal is to manage induced seismicity, ensuring that these industries conduct their activities in a safe manner, without posing a risk to nearby buildings and infrastructure."

The Bristol-led research, published today in the journal Seismological Research Letters,shows that using microseismic data to make forecasts about expected seismicity can provide a far more effective approach than the simple traffic light scheme (TLS) system which is currently used.

Dr. Verdon added: "The TLS is a retroactive method. This means that the red-light threshold must be set far below the actual level we need to avoid, otherwise the operator would only stop after larger earthquakes have occurred.

"This is a problem because on the one hand operators may be required to stop their work even though everything is actually at a safe level. However, on the other hand if they set the red-light level too high then they may allow damaging events to occur.

"Our work is about developing and testing a model that can take the observations we have at an early stage in the operation and make predictions that are robust and accurate about what will happen as the injection proceeds, thus allowing an operator to make decisions while ensuring that any earthquakes remain within a safe level."

All subsurface industries (for example, oil production, mining and geothermal) produce very small magnitude "microseismic events"—these are far too small to be detected even by sensitive instruments at the surface.

Instead, recording instruments called geophones are installed in monitoring boreholes that are within a few 100 meters of the injection point.

This allows them to pick up the pops and cracks of the rock as the fluid is injected. To give an idea of scale, a typical microseismic event might consist of a fracture the size of a dinner plate moving by less than a millimeter.

Dr. Verdon said: "These microseismic events can give us clues about whether the injection might be about to reactivate a larger fault and give us larger events, and it can give us clues as to what magnitude that event might be.

"So, our aim is to use the microseismic data, which is far too small to be felt by people at the surface and make models and predictions of whether the injection might be about to give us a larger event, and therefore should be stopped."

The team developed a statistical model that takes the small-magnitude microseismic data and makes predictions about what magnitude the tremors might reach as injection continues.

Previously they tested their approach using past data from older sites. However, in this case they were analyzing live data from the Preston New Road site in Lancashire, and providing the operator, Cuadrilla, with their results, which they used to inform real-time decisions about how to proceed.

Dr. Verdon said: "Importantly, our modeling approach was successful—the magnitudes that actually occurred were in line with the magnitudes that we predicted from our model. This gives us confidence that our approach is robust and can be used for decision making at future injection sites.

"This approach has implications not only for today's shale gas industry, but for future industries like geothermal energy and carbon capture and storage that are being planned in the UK.

---

Explore further

Man-made earthquake risk reduced if fracking is 895m from faults

---

More information: Huw Clarke, et al. Real-Time Imaging, Forecasting, and Management of Human-Induced Seismicity at Preston New Road, Lancashire, England. Seismological Research Letters, 19.06.2019.

Journal information: Seismological Research Letters 

Provided by University of Bristol 

Net Zero Natural Gas Plant -- The Game Changer  (NOT SO FAST) 

The process involves burning fossil fuel with oxygen instead of air to generate electricity without emitting any carbon dioxide (CO2). Not using air also avoids generating NOx, the main atmospheric and health contaminant emitted from gas plants.

Included in a group of technologies known as carbon capture and sequestration (CCS), zero-emission fossil fuel plants have been a dream never realized in practice, as it always seems to cost a lot, adding between 5¢ and 10¢ per kWh. This is probably because most attempts just add on another step after the traditional electricity generation steps, almost as an afterthought.

Some fossil fuel plants have tried, and failed, the most famous one recently being the $7.5 billion coal power plant in Kemper, Mississippi.

But this new technology completely changes the steps and the approach from the ground up. It is based on the Allam Cycle, a new, high-pressure, oxy-fuel, supercritical CO2 cycle that generates low-cost electricity from fossil fuels while producing near-zero air emissions.

The CO2 angle is very unique. NET Power’s plant produces a high-pressure, high-quality CO2 byproduct that is pipeline-ready.This CO2 can be sequestered or used in industrial processes, such as enhanced oil recovery. EOR is a decades-old process that uses CO2 to extract significantly

Most industrial CO2 capture technologies cannot produce cost-effective, EOR-ready CO2, despite the fact that the industry is tremendously CO2-starved. NET Power will have both the capacity and economics to enable the EOR industry to unlock this vast resource while simultaneously sequestering CO2 from thousands of power plants below ground.

And it is the sequestering of CO2 that is probably the most difficult part of this process. Yes, we can use CO2 now, but if we go to these net zero plants in a big way, we don't have enough industrial need for all the CO2 from generating trillions of kWhs every year.

So it will have to be injected underground, and so far that hasn’t been successful in any big way without some side effects, like earthquakes. 

But that is a geoengineering need we can address.

READ THE REST OF THE ARTICLE HERE 


STEPS 1 & 2

This CO2 can be sequestered or used in industrial processes, such as enhanced oil recovery. EOR is a decades-old process that uses CO2 to extract significantly  more oil from old oilfields while permanently storing CO2 underground. 

THE MYTH OF CARBON CAPTURE AND STORAGE, IT’S NOT CLEAN OR GREEN

THE CLIMATE CRISIS IS GLOBAL

NATIONALISM IS A DETERRENT TO FIGHTING IT PART II

PUTIN AND TRUMP AGREE THERE IS NO CLIMATE CRISIS 

THEY WANT TO SELL MORE OIL / GAS 

BOTH RUSSIANS AND AMERICANS 

ARE IN CLIMATE CHANGE DENIAL 

[Above is] The start screen of the “Climadrom” site, kept by Aleksander Zhabskiy. The site is strongly oriented toward rejecting the current scientific interpretation of climate change, labeled as “climate alarmism,” “hysteria,” and the like. This view seems to be fashionable in Russia in all sectors of society and, nowadays, Russian science seems to have rejected the current understanding of climate change as seen in the West. Yet, we must keep trying to bridge the gap: if people don’t speak to each other, the only way they have to communicate is to fight. In this sense, the site by Mr. Zhabskiy has some merit in seeking for a discussion at the international level. I did present my views that he correctly published.

There was a time, during the 19th century, when Darwin’s ideas on natural selection were rejected by the whole French science. One reason was the influence of Baron George Cuvier who had interpreted the geological record in terms of mass extinctions periodically caused by planetary catastrophes (see this link to know more about this fascinating story). French scientists saw Cuvier’s role in nationalistic terms and thought that it was outrageous that their great master was contradicted by those silly Britons.

The concept of “National Science” was rather common throughout the 19th century and the first half of the 20th. Earlier on, scientists were still communicating with each other in Latin, but that was abandoned with the 19th century and that led to science being more and more constrained by national borders and national cultures. There are many examples of how this evolution affected the scientific debate: one is how the work by Alfred Wegener on continental drift was widely rejected in the 1950s in part because of anti-German sentiments in the West (a link). I could cite examples of how the Fascist government in Italy tried to purify Italian Science from foreign influences in the 1930s. Then, of course, there was “Soviet Science,” supposedly different from the decadent capitalist science practiced in the plutocracies collectively known as “The West.” An example is how the Ukrainian biologist Trofim Denisovich Lysenko fought Western Genetics.

But all that seemed to be past and gone with the internationalization of science after that the American legions had imposed English on the rest of the world, just as the Roman legions had imposed Latin long before. As a young researcher, in the 1980s, I perfectly understood that science was international: everyone, anywhere in the world, could be a scientist by accepting two fundamental tenets: publish in English and speak in English. International science was egalitarian, global, and suspicious of national borders. The researchers of my age even tended to mock the older generation of scientists because of their limited command of English. The fall of the Soviet Union, in 1991, seemed to give the final push to the full internationalization of science: there would be no more “Soviet Science.” Just as the world’s economy was being globalized, the same was taking place for science.

That was just a brief spring: today, nationalism is returning everywhere with a vengeance and science is not immune to the trend. I can tell you how the capability of my younger colleagues to speak English seems to be going down every year a little more and one of the shocks of my life was when, a few years ago, one of the students engaged in a laboratory exercise complained to me that the instruction manual of the instrument he was using was in English.

The downfall of English is just a personal impression but it seems clear to me. Some people in Italy seem to find it totally incomprehensible that I keep a blog in English. Actually, I don’t know another example of an Italian scientist who keeps a blog in English, except for my coworker Ilaria Perissi. (If you know of other examples, please let me know!)

How about Climate Science? As it is normal, it is an international field that encompasses contributions from all countries with a significant budget in scientific research. But it seems to me that in Italy climate science is especially neglected. Don’t get me wrong: there are several excellent climate scientists in Italy, but the average effort in the field is not impressive. Some evidence of the problem is a recent petition denying the anthropogenic origin of global warming, said to have been signed by 90 leading Italian scientists. Actually, the “leading scientists” are a ragtag band of elderly scientists, scientists with no competence on climate, and people who are not even scientists — some of them belonging to all three categories at the same time. Nevertheless, that such petition exists is a symptom of deep problems. Much worse was when, in 2015, the president of the Italian Society of Physics (!!) refused to sign a statement on climate science in support of the ongoing Paris negotiations.

So, what’s the problem in Italy? Perhaps the same the French had with their Baron Cuvier. In Italy, we have Antonino Zichichi, an elderly particle physicist who has left a strong imprint in Italian physics and who, today well in his 90s, is still active in criticizing climate science in ways that we can define at least questionable. But it is also a question of science being intertwined with politics: the Italian movement called “sovranism” is clearly suspicious of climate science as a foreign scam.

And let’s go to Russia. Judging from what can be read in the scientific literature in English, Russia may be in the same conditions as Italy in terms of neglect of climate science, perhaps even worse. With the best of good will, I couldn’t locate much in terms of major contributions to climate science by Russian scientists working in Russia, with the work by Gorshkov and Makarieva being the main exception with their concept of the “biotic pump”. I asked my colleagues if they could name a serious Russian climate scientist working in Russia and they couldn’t. Maybe they are publishing in Russian? One of the problems with Russia may be the same as in Italy: a dominant figure blocking progress in a whole field of science. In the case of Russia, it seems to have been Kyril Kondratyev (1920-2006). He was a valuable atmospheric scientist but his views on climate change seem to me obsolete by now but, unfortunately, still affecting Russian science.

I may be wrong if I say that Russia is neglecting climate science, but there is clearly a problem, there: a much larger one which has to do with politics. I must admit that, If I were a Russian citizen, I would find it hard to dismiss the idea that the whole story of anthropogenic global warming is just one more psyop coming from the West. The Western media are producing so much propaganda and so many lies that the temptation is to disbelieve anything that comes from a Western source. It is the destiny that befell the Moon landings, now widely disbelieved in the very country that was so proud of having sent men to the Moon not long ago. The same destiny may be affecting climate science: despite decades of efforts of thousands of excellent scientists, it tends to fall into the same category of government-sponsored propaganda. All this goes together with the locking up of science and scientists within national boundaries, something that may turn foreign scientists from colleagues into enemy agents and foreign science into political propaganda.

And now? Could we ever recover a unity in science allowing us to act together against climate change? Could we do that before it will be too late? For sure, at present, we are moving in the opposite direction. As usual, when people refuse to talk to each other, the only possible way to communicate is to fight. And, unfortunately, it may be where we are heading to.

I am grateful to Mr. Aleksander Zhabskiy for the useful conversations we had on the matters covered in this post.

Ugo Bardi


Ugo Bardi teaches physical chemistry at the University of Florence, in Italy. He is interested in resource depletion, system dynamics modeling, climate science and renewable energy. He is member of the scientific committee of ASPO (Association for the study of peak oil) and regular contributor of "The Oil Drum" and "Resilience.org". 
https://cassandralegacy.blogspot.com/2019/07/the-brief-spring-of-global-science-how.html


SEE  PART I