Scientific Consensus On Shale Gas Could Take 10 Years

Uncertainties related to shale gas reserves in Europe add to the lack of scientific consensus, which could take ten years in the making. This is the main message of the conference “Shale gas in a low-carbon Europe: the role of research” that took place in Brussels on Monday.

According to panelists gathered at the Charlemagne building of the European Commission, these uncertainties require a global approach to research that could see, for example, cooperation between the US, Canada, and the European Union. 

Several experts, both from North America and Europe, said that there is room for multiple demonstration sites that could be used to understand the environmental consequences, and financial costs of shale gas production (also factoring in environmental costs). 

In other words, there are some experts that would like Washington, Ottawa, and Brussels to join forces to come up with reliable hard figures. Despite this openness, this transatlantic dialogue and cooperation has first to pass some difficult tests.

FIRST PROBLEM: UNCERTAINTIES ABOUT THE RESERVES

“Currently, the few available estimates of recoverable shale gas reserves vary enormously, from 2.3 to 17.6 trillion cubic metres” said Robert-Jan Smits, Director-General for Research and Innovation (DG - RTD), European Commission.

This hurdle, which could be overcome in case of further exploration, is not the worst stumbling block. Indeed, before facing production uncertainties, companies should first get the green light from politicians, and local communities. And this is nothing but difficult. 

SECOND PROBLEM: LACK OF DATA, SCIENTIFIC UNCERTAINTIES

According to several pundits from different fields, the main point is that communities don’t trust politicians. That is why, the only way to garner consensus would be to have scientific evidences.  

However, the process leading to reliable estimates on the environmental impacts is difficult and long. The experience in North America is of little help. A complete assessment would indeed require monitoring, which has never been carried out on a scientific way before. Not in the United States, not in Canada. 

“There is not a single fracking pad in North America which has actual science-based monitoring at the pad” stated John Cherry, Director of a Consortium on Ground Water Research at the University of Guelph, Canada. 

Cherry said that monitoring should be carried out before, during and after shale gas operations. He also argued that lack of data is a major problem.  

“Everybody is looking at the same old, lousy data” the Canadian academic said. 

THIRD PROBLEM: LONG TERM COMMITMENTS FOR SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCES (UP TO TEN YEARS)…

As said, Europeans agree on the need of additional information in order to take well-informed decisions.

“We really need a demonstration site, which is fully monitored to help us prove our concepts, and our understanding of what’s going on” said Christopher McDermott, Senior Lecturer in Hydrogeology and Coupled Process Modelling at the University of Edinburgh.

Since every shale play is unique, one single demonstration site might be not enough. Coherently, demonstration sites in different contexts would be required. In this way, more information would be available to promote a more meaningful debate, which at the moment seems quite hazy.  

Against this backdrop, timeframe for a scientific consensus is another tricky point. 

“If societies decide to truly fund at the level it needs… I think it is going to take 10 years to get to the point where we can have large groups of scientists discussing these issues with some sort of consensus” Cherry concluded.

… WHAT ELSE NEEDS TO BE DONE? 

At the end, these difficulties require an holistic approach, which would not only require a precise monitoring. After the monitoring phase, more all-inclusive studies should be done in order to discuss whether shale gas makes sense both on a commercial and environmental level. 

“We want to try to understand what would be the environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing..  What we need to know is how much energy has been used to drill the well, how much energy has been used to frack the well, how much energy has been used to complete the well, to produce, and   to seal the well once the productivity is complete. We need to know how many chemicals have been used in the various stages, and how much water has been used in the various stages. Then, on the other hand, we also need to know what comes out - how much energy has been produced, how much gas has been produced, how much pollutants and water” said Alberto Striolo, Professor of Molecular Thermodynamics at University College London, who also mentioned an attempt currently underway in Florence to develop chemicals specifically targeted to formations in Europe.  

FINAL PROBLEM

Apart from these scientific and political statements, it is also important to understand geopolitics. In this context, it is worth questioning whether Washington would really allow a scientific approach to this issue, knowing that it could run the risk of triggering social opposition. Local communities' anger could force the White House to revise its energy policies. And that could potentially backlash on the United States, which could then lose several competitive advantages. This gives to the last important question: Is a global approach to shale gas realistic? 

Sergio Matalucci 

Sergio Matalucci is an Associate Partner at Natural Gas Europe. Follow him on Twitter: @SergioMatalucci