The Big Chill

This clip from a Horizon documentary broadcast on November 2003 forecast our weather changing to that of something similar to Alaska. The trigger was the collapse of the Oceanic conveyor belt current system, the same that became the subject of the Hollywood blockbuster The Day After Tomorrow. A full transcript of the programme is available.

Of course as has now became apparent, we don't have to wait for the conveyor current to collapse. The melting Arctic ice cap is having an effect on weather systems. 

As the US National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) points out 'Arctic sea ice has long been recognized as a sensitive climate indicator. The region’s sea ice extent--defined by NSIDC as the total area covered by at least 15 percent of ice—varies from year to year because of changeable weather conditions. However, ice extent has shown a dramatic overall decline over the past thirty years. This year’s minimum [2012] will be nearly 50 percent lower than the 1979 to 2000 average.

NSIDC lead scientist Ted Scambos said that thinning ice, along with early loss of snow, are rapidly warming the Arctic. “But a wider impact may come from the increased heat and moisture the warmer Arctic is adding to the climate system,” he said. “This will gradually affect climate in the areas where we live,” he added. “We have a less polar pole—and so there will be more variations and extremes.” '

Impacts of change

Clear impacts of the changes occurring in the Arctic are being observed. One particular phenomenon that was observed in 2012 was a record melting of the Greenland icecap since satellite measurements began in 1979. The graph below shows the pattern of surface melt over the years.

Greenland ice sheet standardized melting index (SMI). The index is calculated by subtracting the melt index (MI) from the 1979 - 2012 average and dividing by its standard deviation (Tedesco, 2007). MI is the number of days on which melting occurred multiplied by the area where melting was detected (Source, NOAA).

So how exactly is the Arctic climate changing and how are these impacts being caused?

The atmosphere

In order to understand what's going on lets briefly occupy the shoes of a meteorology student.

To simplify understanding of atmospheric processes, we will look at structure of the atmosphere and its circulation patterns.

At the equator there is a phenomenon known as the Inter-tropical Convergence Zone (ITCZ). This is caused by the convergence of trade winds from the north and the south. Its actual location varies according to season as the following map depicts:

In the northern and southern hemispheres there is another convergence zone known as the jet stream. This is where cold air masses from the polar regions converge with warmer air coming from the south. In the north Atlantic the jet stream carries the low pressure weather systems that we're all so familiar with here in the UK.

If we were to take a hypothetical cross section of the atmosphere it would be divided into cells:

The rising tropical air at ITCZ releases huge amounts of moisture carried by the trade winds resulting in wet conditions. However at the subtropical boundaries near the tropics of Cancer and Capricorn, dry air descends. The global patterns that results from this is a wet tropical region and a dry sub tropical region characterised by anti cyclones, which causes desertification on land and regions of calm at sea.

By contrast the sub polar regions are characterised by low pressure regions. In the north Atlantic this constitutes the Azores High and the Icelandic Low. The following diagram shows the patterns:
Understanding these atmospheric processes holds the key to understanding climate change. And this is where our story returns to the Arctic. 

Polar depressions and sub tropical highs are related to each other. In the north Atlantic the relationship between the Icelandic low and the Azores high is known as the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO). Usually this is in positive mode i.e. both areas are stable and weather patterns are what you would expect in this region. However, if the areas weaken the NAO is said to be in negative phase. A region of high pressure then predominates north western Europe and weather systems go into reverse with prevailing winds coming from east/north east. It was these conditions that characterised the recent extended winter that has just subsided (April, 2013).

The NOA is related to the Arctic Oscillation (AO), where high pressure dominates much of the high latitudes. The explanation is the same for that of the NAO. The severe winter of 2009/2010 had a record negative AO.
Left: Effects of the Positive Phase of the Arctic Oscillation. Right:Effects of the Negative Phase of the Arctic Oscillation. —Credit: J. Wallace, University of Washington.
The emerging evidence suggests that the melting of the Arctic ice cap is causing weather patterns to change, resulting in a shift in oscillation patterns between weather systems.

Arctic sea ice is an important component in the global climate system. The reduction in sea ice extent has a direct impact on heat exchange. Also 'changes in sea ice interact with dynamical processes related to changes in atmospheric wind and temperature fields, ocean currents and heat storage as well as to thermodynamic and radiative processes connected with water vapour, clouds and aerosol feedbacks.

'[It] suggests that Arctic sea ice influences the formation of mid-latitude teleconnection patterns and especially the NAO mode. Over the Atlantic Ocean and the European continent, the large-scale atmospheric response to Arctic sea ice cover variations is most significant in the free troposphere and resembles the internal mode of atmospheric variability, the NAO/AO' (Tellus, 2012).

The Article noted above concludes that 'These results deliver a dynamical background for understanding the role of Arctic sea ice decline on the Arctic temperature amplification and its impact on mid-latitudes contributing to the recent shift to the negative NAO phase. The reduced sea ice concentration at the end of the Arctic summer has the potential to change the large-scale circulation in the following winter that could feed back on the sea ice concentration. This sea ice–atmosphere relationship suggests a potential for use in operational Northern Hemisphere seasonal forecasts. Sea ice cover loss has the potential to preferentially shift the probability density function of the AO/NAO to the negative phase'.

It's clear that this is an area of considerable research interest, but there is little doubt that as the ice continues to melt it is going to have climate impacts that we are only just starting to contemplate.    

The Power of the Boycott

This particular post is different with respect to the fact that I'm not the author. The following account is produced by Tim Root, who is active with Friends of the Earth.

PLEASE CONSIDER this proposal, for which CAROLINE LUCAS has expressed support, for a global climate change boycott campaign. This is probably the only tactic which could slow climate change soon enough, and fits with Greenpeace strategy. Current climate campaigns are clearly not succeeding quickly enough. We have only about four years to slow emissions growth significantly, before we cross a threshold at which it becomes unlikely we will be able to keep temperature rise below 2 degrees C. 

Trends show that greenhouse gases will probably increase a great deal [causing significant permafrost melt] unless policies change radically soon. Massive amounts are being invested in fossil fuels, and the supply of oil is expected to increase by over a sixth by 2020.

More coal is being burned and twelve hundred additional coal-fired power stations are being planned globally.

How can we achieve sufficient emissions cuts in time? Campaign experts Chris Rose and Jim Shultz’s general advice is that we need to target those who have the ability to make the decisions we want 1. Potential supporters are much more likely to back targeting business compared to governments, which are seen to have failed repeatedly, and are widely disrespected, as Kumi Naidoo has pointed out 2 Governments do not consider public opinion strong enough for them to prioritise climate change. And the economic slowdown deters them from significant investment in climate change mitigation. So while part of our activity should pressurise governments, this should not be our priority.

Most current climate campaigns will not reduce the current level of emissions because they involve fighting initiatives by our opponents, such as additional fracking, and additional coal exports, which would increase emissions still further.  

While some of these campaigns have achieved a lot, we also need to start making significant inroads into existing emissions. Campaign decision makers face two different risks: choose too ambitious a target and risk failure, or choose too unambitious a target, achieve it, but find that the success is far too limited to cut emissions enough. While it is prudent not to overplay your hand, it is unwise to seek limited victories when we need a large and comprehensive victory. Therefore we have to stimulate much more active support. Greenpeace has nearly three million members throughout the world, and Friends of the Earth over two million. The Tck Tck Tck petition gained 17 million supporters. If one or more large NGOs starts a campaign which promises to cut climate change significantly, many of these millions would be keen to get onto the streets and social media to show ordinary citizens how they could back it.  

Research shows that people are more likely to devote their scarce time to activism if they believe others will do likewise, and that their participation can contribute to success 3. Therefore we need goals which sufficient people will consider achievable, and large enough to make a significant difference. Many people perceive the focus only on certain policies in their own nation as inadequate, given that other nations are neglecting the problem. Kumi Naidoo has emphasised that as most power is exercised at a global level, we need to act globally as well as locally 4. Many potential activists have been disillusioned by our previous setbacks (Copenhagen, Cancun etc.) Therefore it is vital that we show our movement HOW a campaign could succeed, and convince them that we can generate enough support to make it work. The audacity of a comprehensive and global campaign would also help it to gain publicity. Greenpeace has said it is aiming for a “global mobilisation strategy”, and that huge polluting corporations “must be challenged”.


The campaign most likely to succeed is probably a global boycott of selected companies whose activities make a major contribution to climate change. Business leaders consider boycotts more effective than other campaign tactics 5. Banks are already wary of financing polluting activities, and a boycott campaign could make the vital difference. We can generate the large-scale support needed to make a boycott succeed. 

A 2012 global survey found that 56% of people said they avoid environmentally harmful products [Another study has investigated consumer trends]. A June 2011 British survey found that 45% of consumers said they would avoid brands that failed to cut their carbon footprint. 

A six nation survey found that one person in seven fits the profile of an “advocate”, i.e. is strongly motivated to promote sustainable consumption, with “the potential to disproportionately influence others”. These people are a vast pool of potential supporters, but our current campaigns have not been of the right type to inspire them to join us. Every year about 3% of bank customers switch accounts, and millions of young people open their first account . All this constitutes substantial consumer power we could influence. A relatively small cut in income can reduce a company’s share price significantly and seriously hit executives’ income. Targeted companies would have a huge incentive to switch their investments into less polluting areas before their reputation and profits were seriously hit. We know which banks are most guilty of investing in climate destroying activity [see also my blog article on this]. 

Greenpeace has stated that “the time is right” to target banks as they “are at their most vulnerable in terms of public legitimacy”. 

Customers are currently deserting British banks “in unprecedented numbers”, and the government plans that soon customers will be able to switch their account to a new bank within a week. Research found that “when responding to material about high-emitters, participants in our focus groups often engaged in an environmental version of banker bashing”.


Many people lack confidence in other campaigning options, due partly to the failure of Copenhagen. But boycotting products on a campaign’s list is a simple action, which a great many people would find both convenient, attractive, and empowering. For most people, striking an immediate economic hit on a major polluter is much more appealing than a politician-focused action whose results will not be known for a considerable time. Moreover compared to the massive goal of an intergovernmental agreement, hitting specific companies’ profits can be seen as an achievable objective, which Rose recommends campaigns should pursue 1. Activists could enlist support for the boycott at any time, anywhere significant numbers of people are accessible. Therefore many more people would become active, beyond the minority who are prepared to travel for a day to a demonstration, or the even smaller number prepared to risk arrest in direct action. The evidence suggests that when direct action inconveniences ordinary people, it is perceived negatively by most people, and thus is likely to lose support. The media attention it gets is nearly all negative, and also reduces the space for media coverage of other campaigns which the public would perceive more positively 6.

Companies boycotted would need to be SUSCEPTIBLE in terms of making significant profit selling goods and services which enough potential supporters a) buy, and b) could be willing to cease buying or buy instead from a non-targeted company. The companies targeted would also need to be distinctive by arousing enough negativity to motivate sufficient people to boycott them. Most Westerners are accustomed to using many high-carbon products, and would resent a campaign which they felt tried to induce guilt about their lifestyle. Only a small minority are ready for the major lifestyle change of driving much less. Therefore if we targeted the whole of the fossil-fuel industry, we would almost certainly attract support from only a small minority. Some who might be sympathetic would believe we had chosen too tough a target. Instead the campaign should carefully research targets which not only arouse widespread indignation, perhaps as being particularly polluting, but are also perceived as susceptible to activist pressure. Focus groups would play an important role in this process.

Successful boycotts include one which led to the preservation of a vast area of Canadian forest, and another in which students in 130 universities worldwide got Russell Athletic to reopen a factory they had closed when the workers formed a union.

Jonathon Porritt has said that in future the defining political mood will be anger, and that we need to tap into it. This anger brings to the fore social norms of fairness and co-operation, thus eclipsing a discouraging focus on dire future climate scenarios some may consider unavoidable. Much of the anger at mass unemployment could be channelled into anger at investments in dirty fossil fuels rather than renewables and energy conservation, which create far more jobs. Our headline might be: Boycott climate polluters! Clean green jobs – not dirty coal and oil!


We could also boycott the worst car manufacturers, most of whose sales are of relatively fuel-inefficient cars. For instance, of the twenty car manufacturers which have the highest sales in Europe, five have significantly higher average emissions that the others. People who would not be amenable to appeals to drive much less could still help the boycott by deciding not to buy a car from one of these five companies.

Another boycott target could be large DIY stores or garden centres which are failing to reduce the amount of peat in the compost and soil they sell. We could also boycott selected high-emitting large companies which use banks guilty of investing in polluting activities, and the newspapers or magazines in which these banks advertise. For instance, BT banks with Barclays, the fifth worst climate damaging bank in the world. We could persuade many people to switch from BT to one of its many competitors. If the boycott showed a bank that it stood to lose the account of a huge multinational company like BT, this would have a huge influence on its investment choices. We could also deter periodicals from accepting the bank’s adverts, and thus remind the bank’s shareholders that they were holding an asset which could soon lose a lot of its value.

We could also collaborate with the strong campaigns against corporate tax avoidance, or the arms trade, to target selected high-emissions companies, and thus add the strength of their activism to ours.

Of course, success is not guaranteed. While some boycotts have been very or largely successful, many have not won enough support. It would be wise to hold focus groups in a range of nations to test potential support. However, we have by far the world’s biggest issue. There are many celebrities who have supported environmental causes whom we could recruit. 

An important 2011 Vatican report warned of the need to tackle climate change promptly. There are several religious environmental groups which can reach huge numbers of believers. It should be possible to get some prominent religious leaders to urge their followers to back the boycott.

It could also be successful to target selected high-carbon products from certain countries whose governments permit particularly high-carbon practices. Such countries could include Canada, and Australia, the world’s major coal exporter. Targets could include mass consumption products such as exports of cars, beef, and lamb from, and tourism to, these nations. The recent horsemeat revelations will make many people more sceptical about meat in general, and therefore receptive to a boycott appeal.   The focus on guilty countries would put pressure not only on guilty companies, but also on politicians, who would not want their nation’s economy to suffer due to the actions of a minority of companies. Once the campaign had stimulated a lot of support, it could then confidently select harder targets. We should perhaps give certain producers some limited notice period before boycotting, so they had the chance to clean up their act first.

A further target for the boycott could be products from deforested land, or maybe selected high-carbon products from nations which are failing to curb deforestation. Rising food prices are encouraging more deforestation. 

A sixteen nation July 2010 poll asked respondents about four specific measures suggested “to help deal with climate change”. Preserving or expanding forests was the most popular, backed by four people in five. It was backed by over two thirds of people in every nation:. By trying to cut deforestation, the campaign could counter the impression that we were only hitting certain developed nations, ignoring the growing emissions of other countries.

FOOTNOTES

1. Chris Rose, How to Win Campaigns  (Earthscan, 2010), p. 5; Jim Shultz, The Democracy Owners’ Manual (Rutgers University Press, 2002), pp. 75-62. Speech at London School of Economics, 19/10/20123. Lubell, Mark, Zahran, Sammy, and Vedlitz, Arnold (2007) Collective Action and Citizen Responses to Global Warming, Political Behavior, 29:391–4134. Speech at London School of Economics, 19/10/20125. http://www.greenamericatoday.org/PDF/GuideBoycottOrganizers.pdf ;http://www.fuw.edu.pl/~pmh/boycott.html ; Nerys John (2000), ‘The Campaign against British Bank Involvement in Apartheid South Africa’, African Affairs, 99, pp. 415-433; Libby Brooks, ‘Giving Power to the People’, Guardian, 20/12/02  http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/dec/20/debtrelief.development?INTCMP=SRCH6. Gavin, Neil T. (2010), “Pressure Group Direct Action on Climate Change: The Role of the Media and the Web in Britain — A Case Study”, British Journal of Politics and Industrial Relations, 12, 459–475


I am a local group co-ordinator for Friends of the Earth in London.
Please share this proposal with other concerned people.Tim Root          tim@timroot.net                            ines@familymediation.org.uk

Comment
I think the points raised in this article have an important bearing on future actions against climate change and that's why I'm publishing it here. In addition, please check out this article from Ethical Consumer in which they ran a boycotts special feature.

Update
This alarming development in the US suggests that Monsanto should be at the top of the list regarding a global boycott.

Food for thought

It's been a while since I've posted. But over the next few months I'll be planning a series of articles that will look at our broken food system.

Genetically modified organisms have always been an emotive subject. Controlled by a small number of corporations there is an ongoing threat that more sustainable means of food production could be affected.

But on our high street we see the retail business being dominated by a handful of big supermarkets - an issue I reported on in my consumer blog.

More recently we've had the horsemeat scandal - very much a symptom of our system where prices are squeezed to a point where it seems no one has room to breathe. 

Then there's the issue of food waste. From field to fork, almost half the food produced ends up in the bin.

Add to this the consequences of an unequal world where a billion people in one corner of the globe are starving and a billion people in another corner are obese.

Throw in food commodity speculation and climate change for good measure with a pinch of biofuels and what do you end up with? 

Food for thought huh...

Fracking should be Shaleved - Update

Last week the Government in another display of breathtaking wisdom, gave the go-ahead to shale gas exploration in the UK.

According to Energy and Climate Change Secretary Edward Davey: 'Shale gas represents a promising new potential energy resource for the UK. It could contribute significantly to our energy security, reducing our reliance on imported gas, as we move to a low carbon economy.

My decision is based on the evidence. It comes after detailed study of the latest scientific research available and advice from leading experts in the field'. 

As to who those experts are isn't clear, but the Environment Agency (EA) is referred to in the statement.

So what has the EA got to say about it? Well on their web site its stated that the risks associated with shale gas exploration 'can be controlled through proper design and management of the drilling and extraction site'. 

The crystal ball commissioned by the EA goes on to reveal that 'Through effective regulation we will help ensure that any unconventional gas operations are conducted in a way that protects people and the environment'.

Most reassuring. I guess everyone will now drop their banners and endorse the latest natural gas revolution, especially given that these regulations only cover exploration not the commercial production of shale gas.

Unfortunately for the Government and the EA, the scientific consensus - as I reported previously - is somewhat critical of the current regulatory regime. And - continuing from where I left off before - The EU agrees. The European Commission's Environment Directorate-General has issued a comprehensive report (August 2012), which goes into the issues in considerable depth. 

It makes no bones concerning the risks of fracking. Here's a summary of its findings:

• Ensuring the integrity of wells and other equipment throughout the development, operational and their post-abandonment lifetime so as to avoid the risk of surface and/or groundwater contamination
• Ensuring that spillages of chemicals and waste waters with potential environmental consequences are avoided during the development and operational lifetime of wells
• The potential toxicity of chemical additives and the challenge to develop greener alternatives
• The unavoidable requirement for transportation of equipment, materials and wastes to and from the site, resulting in traffic impacts that can be mitigated but not entirely avoided

The report also notes that:

• Land use requirements are considerable, occupying about 3.6 hectares per well pad. With multiple installations, this could result in a significant loss or fragmentation of amenities or recreational facilities, valuable farmland or natural habitats
• Emissions could affect air quality. Emissions include: Ozone; diesel fumes from pumps; hazardous pollutants from fracturing fluids; fugitive emissions
• Noise pollution onsite and from traffic
• High risk of surface and groundwater contamination leading to greater cumulative impacts
• High water resource use

The report also identifies considerable gaps in EU legislation.

This is an impressive document from the point of view that it is completely transparent about the risks that fracking imposes and the potential health impacts from the process. 

It is also clear on the shortcomings of the current regulatory regime.

Compared to the UK government, the approach of the EU to this issue has been night and day. All we've had is a somewhat vague statement from the Department of Climate Change (DECC), which totally lacks any substance.

Given the findings of this document and when you consider the wide spread opposition to incinerators, which do have tight regulation are we to accept the prospect of a gas well in our back yard sometime soon?

Perhaps those objecting to wind farms ought to change their perspectives.

One thing is clear here. The EU has listened to the 'real' experts. The UK Government quite frankly hasn't paid attention. Ideological self-delusion has displaced science and common sense. But then this has become a trademark of this government, one which was reinforced recently by an undercover investigation by Greenpeace. 

Greenpeace effectively exposed corrupt dealings within the Tory Party, with our dear Chancellor George Osborne right in the thick of it. Briefly  there is a presence within the Tory Part that is hell bent in totally scuppering the green economy. 

In a supplementary article, Greenpeace focuses on George Osborne's role in this debacle.

And just to reinforce the case, Greenpeace captured the whole thing by covertly filming the investigation!  

The EU opens the door to the public

On December 20 2012, following the release of the report discussed above, the European Commission (EC) launched a public consultation on unconventional fossil fuels (e.g. shale gas) in Europe. This consultation is open to individual citizens and organisations in the EU. External Civil society can also comment on the process. It runs to March 20 2013.

This is perhaps the most important development of all as it could decide the fate of 'unconventional's' in Europe.

Suffice to say everyone should try and make an effort to participate in this consultation. It might be the most important few minutes you've ever spent. However do note the way the questions are framed and don't allow yourself to become sidetracked.

Now that Europe has put the unconventional's debate into the public domain, this raises an important question about the decision here in the UK to go ahead with fracking operations. 

Was Ed Davey and his department aware of the EC report that had came out earlier? And perhaps more importantly, were they aware of the forthcoming consultation and was the DECC announcement an attempt to pre-empt it by a week?

I'm asking these questions because of this Governments track record to date and the general attitudes towards sustainable energy solutions - particularly in the light of the Greenpeace evidence noted above.

I will be contacting Ed Davey and I will pose these questions to him. I'll note his reply here in an update in due course.

This new EU consultation offers an opportunity to decide whether we - along with the rest of Europe - embark on a new dash for gas, or whether to tread the path towards sustainable energy. Please grab this opportunity with both hands.

Email to Ed Davey MP
This is a copy of the email I sent to DECC:
FAO Rt Hon Edward Davey MP

Dear Mr Davey

I am writing to you with regards to your recent announcement on December 13, when you signalled the go ahead for shale gas operations in the UK.

Prior to this announcement, a report was published by The European Commission's Environment Directorate-General on 10 August 2012. Support to the identification of potential risks for the environment and human health arising from hydrocarbons operations involving hydraulic fracturing in Europe, is a highly detailed and comprehensive document running to almost 300 pages. It makes the DECC statement on the issue look like a back-of-the-envelope sketch. 

In addition to this, on December 20 exactly one week after your announcement, the European Commission launched a public consultation on unconventional fossil fuels (e.g. shale gas) in Europe. This opens up the entire issue to all individual citizens and civil society groups within the EU.

The question I wish to ask is: were you and your department aware of any of these developments taking place?

Kind regards

Barry Dalgleish

Fossil Fuel companies working for DECC
Yesterday (Sunday 30 December), the Guardian reported that representatives known as secondees from the oil and gas industry are working inside DECC. In return, DECC officials are working within the industry. It seems rather ominously that the proverbial revolving door is turning on a frequent basis.

Update
There have been interesting comments about this article on Facebook. Of note is criticism of the EU for not coming out against unconventional's from the point of view that it would effectively undermine it's green aspirations.

It's a fair point and without further research I'm unable to frame the issue at the moment. But the fact is the EU has been open and transparent about the whole issue now, so it is up to citizens and civil society to use this as a platform perhaps to engineer change and really put it out into the public domain.

I have my reservations concerning the EU, but lets give this the thumbs up and start campaigning. Anything can happen and sometimes it does. 

I'd also like to draw attention to a letter that was was drafted to David Cameron by a delegation consisting of groups around the UK. Please take the time to read it here and share.

Fracking should be shaleved 2

<Previous

The expansion of the shale gas industry in the US was encouraged by the previous Bush administration. But the rot set in during the Regan era of the 1980's, as an investigation from the New York Times reveals. Following a conclusion from the EPA that some drillers’ waste from the oil and gas industry at the time was hazardous and should be tightly controlled, Congress effectivelly ignored the advice. Since then, 'More than a quarter-century of efforts by some lawmakers and regulators to force the federal government to police the industry better have been thwarted, as E.P.A. studies have been repeatedly narrowed in scope and important findings have been removed'. 

The report from the NYT also points out that history could be repeating itself as the EPA undertakes its current investigation - noted above - into fracking. The EPA has already come under pressure from certain people to produce a 'favourable outcome', in a manner of speaking.

The previous Bush administration was of course particularly culpable in bending over backwards for the oil and gas industry and corruption was widespread within the administration.

One particular 'favour' tends to stick out. Known as the 'Halliburton loophole': 'Former Vice President Dick Cheney, who previously served as Halliburton’s CEO, was instrumental in getting the so- called ‘Halliburton Loophole’ inserted deep within the pages of the infamous 2005 energy bill. This loophole stripped the EPA of its regulatory oversight of hydraulic fracturing in natural gas development, a technique pioneered by Halliburton.' Given that Halliburton would gain enormously from it's association with fracking, the Cheney/Halliburtion link is very much an industry/political hand in glove association and very much typifies what was going on during the Bush era and indeed reflects US politics in general.

With the EPA pushed into a corner and critics gagged it was very much a free-for-all. 

DesmogBlog goes on to list the industry exemptions that were won during this period:

• Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA)
• Clean Water Act
• Clean Air Act
• Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,
• and Liability Act CERCLA (Superfund Act)
• Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
• (Hazardous Waste Act)
• National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
• Toxic Release Inventory under the Emergency
• Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA)

Another key development that has taken place was the gradual wholesale takeover of the shale gas industry by big oil and gas. These corporations have also been involved in intensive lobbying and include the likes of Shell, BP, ExxonMobil amongst others.

As part of a coordinated attack strategy against regulators, environmentalists and critics, the industry has formed 'Energy in Depth' (EID). Its this outfit that has been leading the 'crusade' against the film Gasland.  

Given EID's stance, it was interesting that a search for the Tyndall Report produced 'no results'! However EID did publish an article called Debunking DeSmog in an attempt to undermine DeSmogBlogs report. EID was also critical of the NYT investigation. Reading through the article, I found it a ramble and difficult to follow. Indeed the site as a whole seems to be cleverly constructed to give an impression of genuine legitimacy, but with 'sensitive' information impossible to find.

Of particular interest was a memo that reveals the true nature of EID, and the funding provided by the oil and gas majors.

So is this the shape of things to come here in the UK and elsewhere?

There's no doubt that the big oil and gas companies have an interest in shale gas extraction.

One of the biggest gas companies in the UK is Centrica. Hidden in the middle of a document called Energy Security is this paragraph: 'We continue to monitor developments in shale gas as its production expands in North America. Centrica is not currently involved in the extraction of shale gas. Should we decide to invest in extracting shale gas at a later stage, we will apply the same rigour to managing and minimising the adverse impacts as we do with all other areas of our operations'. The document also notes that 'In November 2011, Centrica signed a strategic agreement with Statoil ASA worth £13bn for the supply of 50 billion cubic meters (bcm) of gas to the UK. Sufficient gas to meet around 5% of total UK annual demand, enough for 3.5 million homes'. As noted in the DeSmog report, Statoil is involved in shale gas production in the US.

But all is not what it seems as this Mail online article reveals. Centrica has a subsidiary in the US called Direct Energy and it appears that they will going into the shale market any time soon.

So time will tell if the future sees a world being fracked inside out, with the oil and gas majors at the helm. Its a foreboding vision to say the least.

Local focus
Having looked at the Global state of affairs and considered the UK situation as it stands, I'm going to zoom in closer to home and look at current developments in Scotland in more detail.

On the 5th August 2009, the Scottish Climate Change Act came into being (back in March 2009 I published a piece on the Bill before it became law). This piece of World leading legislation broke new ground and sparked headlines around the Globe. It is therefore of great concern that unconventional gas exploration should be raising its profile here and has sparked debate that such an expansion would impact climate change targets. The Scottish Government is keen to build an economy based on renewables, so this appears to fly in the face of common sense. 

So what is exactly the current state of play?  

Well as I touched on above, Dart Energy and Greenpark Energy - now Alkane Energy - appear to be the key players in Scotland at the moment. I'll have a look at the 2 companies track record. But first it should be pointed out here that hydraulic fracturing isn't the only method for extracting unconventional gas. The main process being pursued in Scotland will be Coal Bed Methane (CBM).

Coal Bed Methane
Montana State University has an excellent FAQ's page on CBM, which covers just about everything you would want to know about CBM. It tends to focus on the Powder River Basin region of Montana and Wyoming, which in terms of overall production is the most active region in the US as far as CBM extraction is concerned. 

The EPA has produced Coalbed Methane Extraction:Detailed Study Report, which as the title suggests gives a more detailed analysis of CBM.

I'll give a brief synopsis of the process here.

In order to extract methane gas from coal seams, large quantities of water has to be pumped out. The water is held within the coal under pressure. When the water is extracted, the pressure drops causing a release of gas, which is collected. The following diagram is taken from the EPA report:

EPA summarises the process: 'CBM wells go through the following production stages:

• An early stage, in which large volumes of groundwater are pumped from the seam to reduce the underground pressure and encourage the natural gas to release from the coal seam;

• A stable stage, in which the amount of natural gas produced from the well increases as the amount of groundwater pumped from the coal seam decreases; and

• A late stage, in which the amount of gas produced declines and the amount of groundwater pumped from the coal seam remains low'.

The main problem with underground water sources is the high proportion of Total Dissolved Solids. This means a high level of salts, which can impact drinking water, aquatic life and agriculture. It is therefore imperative that care is taken when disposing of this water in order to avoid environmental impacts. 

In some cases where the water table is low, hydraulic fracturing may be employed. Here we are looking at the same problems associated with shale gas extraction.

In Scotland and indeed within the UK as a whole, CBM will likely be the predominant means for extracting gas unconventionally. And again the question has to be posed. Is the regulatory framework up to the task of monitoring these developments?

The conclusion has to be similar to that of shale gas extraction. We are dealing with a new species here and as such it must be considered whether it is worth the risk.

Scotland the rave

With so much focus on fracking, less attention has been given to CBM. 

So lets look at the players in more detail.

Dart Energy originally existed as the international arm of Australian based Arrow Energy. But after a takeover deal which resulted in a 50:50 share of Arrow between Shell and Petrochina, Dart Energy superseded Arrow International as a new entity. Aparently under the deal 'Arrow shareholders will receive $4.70 per share, plus one share in a new listed entity, Dart Energy Ltd'.

Initially it wasn't immediately obvious if Shell or Petrochina have an interest in Dart Energy. Shell's press release on the merger doesn't give much away. However the following Document released by Dart Energy confirms a minor stake by Shell in the company.

Given what has happened in the US regarding the increasing influence of big oil and gas companies in unconventional gas, one can certainly speculate what future developments will hold regarding the future of Dart Energy.

As for movements on the ground, Dart Energy is intending to float on the AIM market on the London Stock exchange. The company recently secured a deal with Southern Scottish Electricity (SSC), which will run from April next year. The deal will involve SSC buying up to 11billion cubic feet of gas over a period of 8 years. It is likely that much of the gas will be produced from a key site at Airth near Stirling. Dart also has an arrangement with HSBC, giving the company a credit facility worth up to £100 million. 

Dart has other sites around the UK available for exploitation, but the Airth site currently is the most advanced. For the geologists among you, the BGS has produced a detailed map of the area.

Full information on Petroleum Exploration and Development License's (PEDL) can be found on the DECC website. The Airth development is listed as PEDL 133.

Alkane energy, which took over Greenpark in April this year is now the biggest producer in the CBM market in the UK.

For more background on unconventional gas extraction in Scotland, Friends of the Earth Scotland has set up the website Frack Free Scotland. It's a useful resource, which can also give a pointer to the UK situation.

Frack Off is another campaign group which has been challenging the unconventional gas industry for some time.

There's another site worth looking at that uses graphics to illustrate the dangers of fracking.

The Global Ban on Hydraulic Fracturing is another good source of information.

Finally, as I noted above, the UK's largest gas company Centrica has been hedging its bets over shale gas extraction. However its enthusiasm for CBM is much more pronounced. So it looks like British Gas customers can look forward to a new gas boom fueled by CBM.

Update
Excellent article featured in TomDispatch on 'extreme energy'.

16 October 2012
More reports and more evidence to back up the case against widespread expansion of unconventional gas exploitation.   

Due to other commitments I haven't been able to expand this article as much as I would have liked to. But I hope the external links I've provided will allow you look into this issue in more detail.
<Previous

Fracking Should be Shaleved 1

Next>

The sight of domestic water supplies being ignited due to contamination by natural gas has been one of the most enduring images left in peoples minds since the release of the film Gasland in 2010:

Gasland is an odyssey by film maker Josh Stone. In the film he uncovers the truth behind an industry that has become largely unregulated - a pattern that has become an all too familiar feature in the US.

In this article I'll be looking at the legacy that has been created by the shale gas industry and what it could mean for the rest of the world as the exploitation of unconventional energy sources continues apace.

Fracking - what is it?

Fracking is shorthand for hydraulic fracturing. This is a process that involves drilling a borehole into shale rock formations and then forcing a mixture of fluid and a propping agent (usually sand) into the well at high pressure, causing the rocks to fracture causing the release of methane gas. The following is a simplified diagram of the process:

Source: BBC

The initial drilling phase involves sinking a vertical well at a depth determined by the location of shale rock formations. This could range from several hundred to several thousand metres(m) below the surface. The next stage is to drill horizontally through the shale rock formation to about 1000m. A well casing needs to be installed to seal the well from surrounding formations and to add stability to the well.

The fluids injected into the well consist of a mixture of 98% water and sand and about 2% chemical additives. The extremely high pressure blasts the shale rocks apart creating fractures that can run up to a few hundred metres into the rock. The propping agent (sand) holds the fractures open allowing the gas to be released into the well.

Wells are generally constructed in the form of groups of wells or well pads, consisting of at least 6 or more wells.

The chemical constituents of fracking fluids can vary depending on the operation but can include friction reducers, surfactants, corrosion inhibitors, biocides, stabilizers and lubricants. As some of the chemicals used in the fracking process are not disclosed, it can be difficult to establish an accurate assessment. However in a report by the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, Shale gas: an updated assessment of climate change and environmental impacts commissioned by the Co-operative, an attempt is made to give a thorough overview of the whole hydraulic fracturing process from construction to extraction.

The report attempts to evaluate the potential impacts of shale gas exploitation in the UK. So far the only real comparison is what has occurred in the US. 

So what is the legacy of fracking in the US? And is Gasland a fair account of the environmental and human impacts of this industry?

The following map gives a representation of shale gas basins in the US:

The main production zones so far have been in the Marcellus shale in the north east and the Barnett shale in the south. But as the map shows, production has been expanding. 

To get an impression of the impacts fracking can have, we have to look at the process in more detail, based on data provided by the Tyndall report.

The resources required by a typical well will vary. But a large quantity of water is required by the process: 'Each stage in a multi-stage fracturing operation requires around 1,100-2,200m3 of water, so that the entire multi-stage fracturing operation for a single well requires around 9,000-29,000m3 (9-29 megalitres) of water and, with chemical additives of up to 2% by volume, around 180-580m3 of chemical additives (or 180-580 tonnes based on relative density of one).

'For all fracturing operations carried out on a six well pad, a total of 54,000-174,000m3 (54-174megalitres) of water would be required for a first hydraulic fracturing procedure and some 1,000-3,500m3 of chemicals (or 1,000-3,500tonnes based on relative density of one).' 

The effectiveness of the process will depend on water availability and this may involve some transportation by truck. Certainly the chemicals will have to be brought on site. These will be mixed on site to produce the fracking fluid.

Once the initial fracking process has been completed, the fluid will return to the surface as 'flowback'. The amount recovered can vary. According the US EPA 'estimates of the fluids recovered range from 15‐80% of the volume injected depending on the site'.

This means that 'each well on a multi-well pad will generate between 1,300 – 23,000m3 of flowback waste fluid containing water, fracturing chemicals and subsurface contaminants mobilized during the process, including toxic organic compounds, heavy metals and naturally occurring radioactive materials (NORMs). Similarly, any flowback fluid that is not recovered remains underground where there is concern that it is, or may become, a source of contamination to other formations including aquifers. Volumes remaining underground are equivalent to the inverse of volumes recovered, i.e. 1,300–23,000m3/well.'

Given the high volumes of flowback involved this will have to be stored on-site in pits and storage tanks: 'Water volume for a six well pad is suggested to be 7,900 to 138,000m3/pad for a single fracturing operation, with fracturing chemicals and subsurface contaminants making up to 2% or 160-2,700m3. Approximately 60% of the total flowback occurs in the first four days after fracturing, continuing and tailing off over a period of two weeks or so.' 

Clearly there are significant environmental and health & safety issues associated with these operations. The Tyndall Report identifies the following key risks and impacts:

• contamination of groundwater by fracturing fluids/mobilised contaminants arising from:

  o wellbore/casing failure; and/or

  o subsurface migration;

• pollution of land and surface water (and potentially groundwater via surface route) arising from:

  o spillage of fracturing additives; and

  o spillage/tank rupture/storm water overflow from liquid waste  storage, lagoons/pits containing cuttings/drilling mud or flowback water;

• water consumption/abstraction;

• waste water treatment;

• land and landscape impacts;

• impacts arising during construction:

  o noise/light pollution during well drilling/completion;

  o flaring/venting; and

  o local traffic impacts.

The report also points out that 'US Federal law currently exempts the underground injection of fluids for hydraulic fracturing purposes from regulation, there is no information on the identity and concentration of substances in hydraulic fracturing formulations.'

However some chemicals are listed and of note here is the fact that EU regulations would be much stricter than the US, so there would be increased disclosure here in the UK for example. The reference point here would be the European chemical Substances Information System (ESIS).

  

Out of the cocktail of chemicals listed:

• 17 are classified as being toxic to aquatic organisms (acute and/or       chronic);

• 38 are classified as being acute toxins (human health);

• 8 are classified as known carcinogens (Carc. 1A=1, Carc. 1B = 7);

• 6 are classified as suspected carcinogens(Carc. 2 = 6);

• 7 are classified as mutagenic (Muta. 1B); and

• 5 are classified as having reproductive effects (Repr. 1B=2, Repr. 2=3).

'It is clear that the presence of a number of the substances in fracturing fluids may present cause for concern, particularly given the intended use and the volumes being used.'

'Altogether, the toxicity profile of the flowback fluid is likely to be of greater concern than that of the fracturing fluid itself, and is likely to be considered as hazardous waste in the UK. ...[this] would tend to suggest mobilisation and presence of elevated concentrations of:

• heavy metals (of varying types);

• radioactivity and NORMs;

• total dissolved solids; and

• perhaps, hydrocarbons including benzenes (unclear whether this represents mobilised hydrocarbons or fracturing additives).'

The Tyndall report reproduces a list of chemicals in Annex 1 at the end of the report.

Pollution pathways are described in this diagram:

Groundwater contamination is another area of concern and clearly constitutes a possible pollution risk. The possible causes of contamination are: 

• catastrophic failure or full/partial loss of integrity of the wellbore (during construction, hydraulic fracturing, production or after decommissioning); and

• migration of contaminants from the target fracture formation through subsurface pathways including:

   o the outside of the wellbore itself;

   o other wellbores (such as incomplete, poorly constructed, or

      older/poorly plugged wellbores);

   o fractures created during the hydraulic fracturing process; or

   o natural cracks, fissures and interconnected pore spaces.

'Owing to its importance as both a source of drinking water and as source for rivers and wetlands, preventing its pollution is vital. If it becomes contaminated and pollution runs deep it can lead to long-term deterioration.'

Gas migration is another contamination factor and there have been several documented cases of this happening in the US. Riverkeeper has be monitoring the situation in the Marcelus shale region of the US. 

The Tyndal report concludes: 'Given that the development of shale gas requires the construction of multiple wells/well pads, the probability of an adverse event leading to contamination increases accordingly. As such, the likelihood of pollution incidents associated with wider development of shale increase from the ‘possible’ end of the spectrum at the level of a well pad through to the ‘probable’ as the number of wells and pads increases.'

Given the above situation in the US, the EPA has responded by initiating a comprehensive research study into the fracking industry. The results should be known by the end of this year (2012).

In addition, the EPA has also made available an ‘Eyes on Drilling’ Tipline for citizens to report non-emergency suspicious activity related to oil and natural gas development.

From a UK perspective, 'In England and Wales groundwater provides a third of drinking water on average and also maintains the flow of many rivers. In parts of Southern England, groundwater supplies up to 80% of needs. Owing to its importance as both a source of drinking water and as source for rivers and wetlands, preventing its contamination is vital.'

Additional impacts from development include:

• noise pollution;

• landscape impacts; and

• traffic and road damage.

These issues are likely be very contentious in a densely populated country such as the UK.

A major contention surrounding fracking is the potential greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from operations. Although there is limited data in so far as life-cycle GHG emissions are concerned, the Tyndall report does offer an approximate analysis and data from available information, which I won't go into in detail here. But from the perspective of cumulative global emissions - assuming high production and recovery - the figure given could be as high as 16 parts/million CO2 over the next 40 years, based on current data. This could rise though as there are possible hidden emissions. GHG data on chemical processing is unknown and fugitive emissions (gas escaping from wells) may rise.

Proponents of shale gas production argue that gas has lower GHG emissions than coal and that it could fill the gap left by diminishing conventional sources of gas. The Tyndall Report has this to say: 'Shale gas is promoted as a transition fuel offering security of supply and low carbon electricity when combusted in efficient CCGT power stations. It has been argued that the substitution of coal for shale gas in the production of grid electricity will assist in meeting emissions reductions targets. Gas fired power stations typically have a lifespan of over 25 years. Were a new round of stations to be completed in the next ten years they would become “stranded assets” or require expensive retro fitting with as yet untested carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology.'

In so far as implementing CCS to reduce emissions: 'CCS will always add costs to electricity production as it reduces the efficiency of the power station and requires additional energy input in transportation and injection of the captured carbon dioxide. CCS therefore increases the net quantity of upstream emissions of gas or coal production. Reduced efficiency means that greater quantities of fuel must be used for equal electricity output, multiplying emissions over and above those from fuel combustion. For unconventional gas these have the potential to be significant if mitigation is not in place.'

In plain English, shale gas is not a substitute for renewable's and it's a fiction to suggest that new 'dash for gas' will help us on our way to a low carbon economy.       

The UK perspective
The most 'promising' reserves of shale gas are located in north west England where the Bowland shale formation is located. 

Caudrilla Resources have been drilling exploratory wells in this area and fracking has taken place at one location.

According to Caudrilla, there are 5660bcm (billion cubic metres) of potential reserves. Working on the assumption that 20% recovery is possible, this amounts to 1132bcm. These figures may change in the future.

Greenpark Energy has been given permission by SEPA (Scottish Environmental Protection Agency) to commence fracking at a site near Canonbie in Dumfries & Galloway.

Dart Energy has 32 licences to explore various locations around the UK. The most advanced project is based near Airth, East of Stirling in Central Scotland.

In the Caudrilla Resources license area it is estimated that about 800 wells may need to be developed in order to exploit fully the shale gas reserves available. The setup will consist of 80 well pads of 10 wells per pad.

In a UK national context in order to achieve meaningful production (about 10% market share) up to 3000 wells may need to be developed. 

In so far as water and chemical use is concerned, activities so far suggest concentrations and volumes are lower than US typical values. Whether this will be a consistent pattern remains to be seen.

As for GHG emissions, these could represent as much as 15% total GHG UK emissions: 'The role of shale gas exploitation in the UK has potential ramifications for world energy markets. While it is possible that shale gas could substitute for coal, within the UK, this could be counteracted by global use of coal and shale gas. If shale gas resulted in no additional emissions in the UK, (e.g. it substituted for imported gas), in an energy-hungry world any gas not imported to the UK will likely be available at a lower cost to be used elsewhere, with an associated increase in global emissions. World demand for fossil fuels remains high and is projected to increase further in the absence of binding international agreements to limit greenhouse gas emissions. Based on the these projections any new sources of fossil fuel, even if relatively low carbon per unit of useful energy, are likely to be combusted and consequently add to the global emissions burden.'

The Tyndall report also highlights that a 'substantial move to exploit shale gas reserves could attract investment that might otherwise go to renewable energy. The House of Commons Energy and Climate Change Committee (2011) concluded that “shale gas has the potential to shift the balance in the energy markets that the Department has tried to create away from low carbon electricity generation”.'

There is of course the prevailing naive expectation that CCS will provide the magic bullet in terms of GHG reductions. But the available evidence shows that large scale CCS is about 30 years away. And as I discussed above there are drawbacks in terms of increased fuel consumption.

Earthquake!
The incidence of seismic events in relation to fracking activities has been given a great deal of exposure recently. But as this article in Scientific American details, you can get seismic activities with any underground activity that involves injection of fluids. That includes some conventional oil and gas wells as well as fracking.

In the UK, drilling near Blckpool was halted by Caudrilla Resources for a period, following which the British Geological Survey (BGS) concluded there was essentially a link between fracking and earthquakes in the region.

However, as the Tyndall Report notes - in connection with the Blackpool incident - 'seismic events can be caused by hydraulic fracturing and, whilst these are unlikely to be of a sufficient magnitude to cause structural damage on the surface, structural damage to the wellbore itself (and in all likelihood other wellbores in the vicinity) is possible and has been documented in this case.

According to a statement from Charles Hendry (UK Energy Minister) on 2 November 2011, the UK Government will look at the [Caudrilla] report carefully with the assistance of independent experts and regulators before deciding whether hydraulic fracturing operations should resume.'

Regulatory Framework
The Tyndall report cites strong reservations regarding the UK (and EU) regulatory framework. Such a response from a normally cautious scientific community perhaps underlines the fact that regardless of how stringent regulations may be, fracking by its very nature is a risky venture. 

According to DECC 'UK regulation is “well-designed with clear lines of responsibility among several different bodies including DECC, the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), the respective Environment Agency, and Local Planning Authority” and that the UK has a “robust regime which is fit for purpose” and will ensure that unconventional gas operations are carried out in a “safe and environmentally sound manner”.'

Groundwater protection is covered by the EU Water Framework Directive (WFD) and Groundwater Directives.

The Tyndall Report summarises that 'In the UK: The Environment Agency’s (EA) intention is not to routinely require an environmental permit, suggesting that shale gas operations do not constitute groundwater activity. Only ‘normal’ operations are considered when determining whether to require an environmental permit. ‘Abnormal’ operations such as from full or partial loss of well integrity are not considered in this decision. As such, regulation of these risks is via domestic health and safety regulation with regard to well construction and design. As this regulation does not include environmental risk in the consideration of what measures are justified to reduce risk “so far as is reasonably practicable”; the study finds that this set of regulation is inadequate and needs to be updated if it is to be used to control environmental risks in the place of an environmental permit. The current approach (which considers only health and safety risks avoided) is considered unlikely to provide the same level of construction and design standard as one that considers ALL of the risks avoided by proper well design and construction. As such, either well design and construction regulation needs to be updated if it is be used for this purpose, or all development should be covered by environmental permits to build in the additional controls. In a recent report on shale gas (IGEM, 2011), the Institution of Gas Engineers and Managers (IGEM) identifies that, for technologies such as horizontal directional drilling and hydraulic fracturing, there is a “distinct lack of standards for these processes”. It has recommended that “standards are needed within the UK and internationally to ensure the consistency of safety measures and to guarantee that environmentally damaging or dangerous practices such as have been recorded in the US do not occur within the UK”.

In the EU: The experience of the UK suggests that, for control of environmental risks from ‘abnormal’ operations, domestic regulation on well design and construction may be used instead of permitting under the Groundwater Directive. As there is no harmonised regulation on well design and construction in the EU, any Member State doing the same will be relying on its domestic regulation. This means that the risks associated with abnormal operations, such as from full or partial loss of well integrity, may not be consistently controlled across Europe and may rely on procedures and regulations operating in the Member State concerned, where these may or may not offer an adequate standard of risk control.'

As for chemicals used in the fracking process, these are controlled by the European Chemicals and Health Agency (ECHA) under the REACH (Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and restriction of Chemicals) Regulations. The European Commission states that 'shale gas operators are not allowed to use a substance which does not fulfil REACH requirements in their activities. Shale gas operators must in any case comply with requirements applicable to downstream users under Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 on REACH. Should they fail to comply with such requirements, they would face penalties for non-compliance from Member State enforcement authorities.' The EC also notes that 'it is up to Member State enforcement authorities to ensure that shale gas exploration and exploitation projects fully comply with REACH requirements and subject operators to penalties in case of non-compliance. The Commission has not been informed so far of cases of non-compliance by shale gas operators.'

Again though, it is a question of whether individual member states regulations can provide the necessary framework that will cover fracking processes. Certainly the EC has it's own reservations on how the EU as a whole can respond to this rapidly emerging industry.

As the Tydall Report concludes: '...in the EU, control of risks and impacts may be delegated to Member State domestic regulation, interpretation and enforcement – a situation that is not dissimilar to that which is blamed for many of the problems in the US.'

Back to the future
So far in this article I've focused mainly on the information contained within the Tyndall Report, which is perhaps the most comprehensive scientific study of the shale gas industry available and is certainly essential reading for anyone wishing to avail themselves of the subject matter.

But the issues surrounding this controversial industry are widespread  and there is a lot of information and mis-information out there.

I asked the question at the beginning of this article whether the film Gasland is a fair reflection of what is happening in the US.    

My overall conclusion would be that the film is telling a story of real issues. Issues and problems that have happened and have been reported and recorded and which have finally persuaded the EPA to conduct an investigation into fracking.

In the next section: a report by DeSmogBlog Fracking the Future: How Unconventional Gas Threatens Our Water, Health and Climate tells the wider story of how political and economic manipulation by corrupt politicians and corporate lobbyists succeeded in holding America to ransom.

Next>