2018-04-30
Dr Ryan Vogwill
Fracking has become one of the most controversial issues of our times. But there are some antecedent large scale landscape changing events in modern Australian history which can place the possibilities and the threats from unconventional fracking in a more useful decision making frame.
At first glance, there seems little direct comparison between the unconventional hydrocarbon issue and dryland salinity. One relates to extracting deep gas deposits and the other relates to land clearing for farming. However, both have presented risks to water resources and the environment and on the positive side both have generated jobs and revenue. Clearing land for farming though has been in place over a much longer period and it is only now with some of this history in the rear view that we can see a pattern in the way land clearing and its attendant issues were undertaken.
Dryland salinity is a long standing and intractable issue for WA. It has seriously affected water resources, infrastructure, agricultural land and the environment in over one million hectares of land in the south-west of WA. It is a major cause of land degradation and threatens a further 2.8–4.5 million hectares of highly productive, often low-lying, valley soils, across the south west of WA[1]. The opportunity cost of lost agricultural production alone from dryland salinity in the south-west of WA has been calculated to be at least $344 million per year[2]. Road and rail infrastructure is also widely affected, with 2006 estimates of costs to repair roads and rail networks at $175.5 million per year (Sparks et al., 2006). There are other impacts to town infrastructure (building foundations, buried services, etc.) on top of this. Dryland salinity also threatens 1.36 million hectares of public land, impacting internationally recognised biodiversity values, with the costs to manage impacts in the most critical areas estimated at more than $850 million over 30 years in 2006[3].The long-term extent of salinity may take decades to centuries more to develop, especially in areas where clearing was staggered, the area cleared is small, or where the water table is deep, yet the programs focused on managing dryland salinity have mostly been cut due to budget constraints.
There is still uncertainty about the best way to manage dryland salinity impacts but solutions are universally recognised as expensive, technically challenging, typically requiring ongoing maintenance and there is no universally appropriate cure. The variable nature of impacts across the area affected, and our lack of ability to accurately predict these areas, complicates the issue and demonstrates the current lack of knowledge.
However, the potential impact from land clearing was recognised in the early part of last century soon after broadacre land clearing began across Australia. The earliest well documented work was published in 1924 by W.E. Wood, an inspecting engineer for the WA State Railway Department[4]. Wood based this on over a decade of observations of salinity increases in surface water resources being used by the railways for boiler water supply. Salinity levels were increasing in these surface water bodies to the point where they could no longer be used for steam boilers and Wood suggested a link between surface water salinization, rising groundwater and land clearing. There were other early reports of the increased fire frequency causing salinization, due to burning activities of traditional owners, but the 1924 report by W.E. Wood was the first that was well documented.
So by 1924 there was documented proof of land clearing affecting dryland salinity, but land clearing continued and even accelerated over the following decades, hence impacts increased. Im not sure anyone alive today can tell us exactly why land clearing continued in the face of this identified risk but one would suspect it was driven by socio-economic pressures. Now with the benefit of hindsight we now know that if we had been more selective about the land cleared and had reduced the clearing from near 100% to more like 60-70%, the extent and severity of dryland salinity could have been vastly reduced. This would have had subsequent benefits to agricultural productivity, water resources, the environment and infrastructure.
However, the area affected by dryland salinity continues to expand and there is a reduced focus on managing these impacts with many State government agencies no longer receiving funding to manage impacts. Recent media articles have shown how this problem is continuing to expand, with a large rainfall event in February 2017 causing a pulse of increased salinization in many areas[5].
As someone who has worked for more than 15 years across the public service, academia and the private sector in natural resource management in WA, my feeling is that the unconventional gas industry in WA in 2017 is at a similar stage now to the agricultural land clearing industry in 1924. In 1924 we suspected that broadacre land clearing created risks, but we decided to ignore them and proceed at our peril.
Both land clearing and the unconventional gas industry have the potential to mobilise undesirable groundwater (salinity and other contaminants) over large areas to shallow aquifers, risking environmental impacts and contamination of surface and groundwater resources. Both have a lack of detailed understanding of cause and effect, at a scale sufficient to facilitate management, but have documented impacts. Understanding can only be gained through detailed scientific analysis over long time frames, difficult in the current political climate.
Like dryland salinity in 1924, in 2017 there have not been systematic or comprehensive investigations into the long-term impacts of unconventional hydrocarbons. One of the worlds preeminent contamination hydrogeologists, Dr. John Cherry, in his recent testimony to the Canadian Commission on Hydrofracturing stated that “no place in the world was actually doing scientific monitoring of what happened to methane (and other substances) that leaked from shale gas wells”[6]. He has also stated that “From my hydrogeological perspective, shale gas development should be viewed as a big experiment for which we have minimal scientific basis for predicting the outcome for impacts on groundwater quality”.
Dr. Cherry chaired a 2012-14 panel of 16 North American experts on a wide range of issues related to shale (unconventional) gas. Five of the panellists were groundwater experts while others were from disciplines including health, toxicology, engineering, geology, and sociology. After two years of reviewing the literature on hydraulic fracturing, the panel concluded that:
- Water contamination from leakage around improperly sealed well bores and migration through geological fractures, poses the largest risk from the industry;
- Increased greenhouse gas emissions, seismic activity, socioeconomic disruption and poor scientific monitoring pose a problem for shale gas extraction;
- There is a lack of knowledge of health and social effects from development; however minimally, a Health Impact Assessment framework is required at the provincial level to determine short and long-term impacts;
- There has been no comprehensive investment in the research and monitoring of environmental impacts;
- Of data that is available it mostly is not public; and
- If the shale boom takes investment away from renewable power, it could make climate change situation worse[7].
My review from this year, focussing on WA, has drawn similar conclusions[8].
Leaking from conventional and unconventional gas wells is a recognised risk, identified in a number of North American studies. Although the oil and gas industry is improving well design and construction, it is impossible for all wells to be perfectly sealed permanently, particularly in gas fields with the inherent seismic activity associated with gas production (fracking) activities and aquifer injection for wastewater disposal. Well casing and concrete degrade over time, particularly in the subsurface when aggressive (acidic or saline) conditions persist. So it follows that gas well leaks are inevitable and will increase through time. Who will bear the cost of monitoring and remediating these wells over the next 10, 100 to 1000 years?
These studies identifying the impact from unconventional gas production have typically been completed by third parties, not the oil and gas companies themselves. Oil and gas companies deny any risk of impact and criticise all who do as “academics, activists or conservationists”, as the industry group ERIC did with my review, while failing to tackle any of the scientific issues raised[9]. According to one of the worlds most eminent contaminant hydrogeologists, these companies also fail to release all available data or to conduct detailed monitoring of their activities. A recent United States Environmental Protection Authority report is by far the most comprehensive and unbiased document I have seen on this topic, clearly identifying that there are risks which are being poorly explored by the oil and gas industry[10].
All anthropogenic activities have a risk of impact; it is a question of identifying where, what and how serious these impacts will be so we can collectively decide if the potential financial benefits outweigh the risks and costs. At the moment, the debate on unconventional gas is being driven by politics and opinion ‒ not by scientific fact ‒ and we cannot make an informed decision on the benefits verses the risks. It is likely that these risks will vary significantly depending on local factors (such as hydrogeology, which is poorly understood at the level of detail required in most of the areas proposed for unconventional hydrocarbons in this State).
Research is needed both into the risks inherent in the production process and also the hydrogeological, hydrological and environmental content in which these impacts will occur. Like dryland salinity, the impacts could be wide ranging but highly variable in how they affect water resources, infrastructure and environment. Only with a better understanding can we make a balanced decision. A happy coincidence is that in this case a better understanding may also lead to the generation of more employment opportunities. We must learn from our previous mistakes in natural resource management and get this right, as once an area has been “fracked” there is no reversing the process. We can then only manage the impacts which, like dryland salinity, may take decades to centuries to be felt and could be essentially irreversible.
Header photo: Hydraulic fracturing pads in Wyoming, USA. Source: http://upachaya.com/holistic-living/fracking-ecocide/
[1] Adapted from the Department of Agriculture Website: https://www.agric.wa.gov.au/soil-salinity/dryland-salinity-extent-and-impact?page=0%2C1 accessed 27/07/2017.
[2] ibid.
[3] Sparks, T, George, R, Wallace, K, Pannell, D, Burnside, D & Stelfox, L 2006, Salinity Investment Framework Phase II, Western Australia, Department of Water, Salinity and Land Use Impacts Series Report No. SLUI 34, 86p.
[4] Wood W.E. (1924) Increase in salt in soils and streams following the destruction of native vegetation. Journal of the Royal Society of Western Australia, Vol. 10 No. 7 pp 35-47.
[5] http://www.abc.net.au/news/rural/2017-03-13/wa-salinity-issues-on-the-rise-after-unseasonal-summer-rain/8349042 accessed 28/07/2017.
[6] https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=11&ved=0ahUKEwjY4-Wg5sbWAhXJp5QKHZwFCxU4ChAWCCcwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nben.ca%2Fen%2Fpub-cons-commission-on-hydraulic-fracturing-2015-2016%3Fdownload%3D4165%3Areflections-and-updated-presentation-to-the-commission-on-hydraulic-fracturing-the-new-brunswick-anti-shale-gas-alliance-november-23-2015&usg=AFQjCNE2V7KG_3-HRiuSptOGT7PNwy-JVQ accessed 28/07/2017
[7] http://www.conservationcouncil.ca/chair-of-canadian-fracking-panel-encourages-continued-moratorium/ accessed 28/7/2017
[8] https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/ccwa/pages/6404/attachments/original/1493710594/Western_Australian_Tight_Gas_Risk_Published.pdf?1493710594 accessed 28/7/2017
[9] http://www.energyresourceinformationcentre.org.au/conversation/academic-overlooks-key-facts-history-regulation-wa-gas-industry/ accessed 28/09/2017
[10] US EPA, 2016, Hydraulic Fracturing for Oil and Gas: Impacts from the Hydraulic Fracturing Water Cycle on Drinking Water Resources in the United States. Executive Summary. Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC. EPA/600/R-16/236ES.