In the August 2011 edition of Hut News¹ we reported on new research² from Cornell University indicating that natural gas (both unconventional and conventional) is not the "clean green" fuel as portrayed by many in the fossil fuel industry.

It turns out that because of significant fugitive methane emissions (aka gas leaks!) natural gas, when assessed over its total life cycle, has a Green House Gas (GHG) footprint at least as big as, and probably greater than, that of coal.

It is all too easy to get mired (for hundreds of pages) in a swamp of technical details, because one paragraph saying the research is wrong or falsely applied may require fifty paragraphs to show otherwise.

So let's not succumb to one of the CSG industry's destructive strategies and just focus on the following:

(1) The Cornell research is independent, well balanced (just read it), published in a respectable peer-reviewed journal, and the solid track record of the researchers is open for all to examine.

The researchers adopted a highly conservative approach by using publicly available data, using figures consistent with best industrial practice and technology in most instances, and building their work on an existing body of published research about fugitive gas emissions.

In contrast, the Australian CSG industry's arguments are based on a report commissioned and paid for by the Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration Association (APPEA), and to date³ not fully published on the grounds that it is commercial in confidence.

In the Brisbane Times on August 19, 2011 reporter Graham Readfearn noted that "The APPEA research was carried out by consultants WorleyParsons, which in late 2010 won a $580 million contract to work on Queensland Gas Company's current $15 billion coal seam gas project."⁴

Which to you has the greater credibility, Cornell University or the APPEA?

(2) Australian CSG industry proponents claim the Cornell University research is not relevant to Australia as shale formations in the US are different from coal seams in Australia.

They also say that Australian practice is very different, even to the extent that we don't have leaks in Australia!

Yes, there are differences between shale formations and coal seams. But the Cornell research covers the full gas life cycle and, of those five stages (See Table 2 of the Cornell report²), all but the first (i.e. well completion) are identical, irrespective of whether the gas comes from shale formations, coal seams, conventional wells, or spin-doctors' mouths.

As to Australian practices being different, where do you think much of the gas equipment and practices come from? If you guessed North America and Halliburton Corporation, you're probably right on the money.

As for saying we don't have significant leaks in Australia, would you believe Sydney Water if it said it didn't have leaks?

Whenever one has large infrastructure with a maze of pipes, valves, storage tanks, distribution hubs, processing facilities, and the rest, leaks are inevitable!

(3) The Cornell study and its predecessors were in fact far too kind to the gas industry.

They largely assumed best practice, whereas risk assessment normally is less optimistic.

The possibility of major accidents or the need for emergency venting was excluded from the GHG footprint, despite being part of the real world - for example, AGL's Camden CSG field, a few kilometers east of the Blue Mountains, experienced a well blow out in May 2011⁵.

Also, much of Australia's CSG is intended for export in the form of Liquified Natural Gas (LNG), and production of LNG was not covered in the Cornell study.

As such, it is appropriate to note that Cornell University Professor Robert Howarth recently told the Sydney Morning Herald⁶, that in relation to LNG production: "Then you have real issues" and "The leakage [of gas] from the compression and transport of LNG is incredible. That is probably the worst thing you can do with gas".

The bottom line is don't believe industry spin! If anything, the Cornell research significantly understates the threat posed to the environment by gas in all its forms.

So the solution is not to limp along to global warming oblivion with coal but to immediately embrace 100% renewable technologies as fast as is humanly possible.