Corporate Watch

OF
ends
to
the
the
earth
Underground
a
CoalGaseification Coalbed shale gas
guide Methane
To Oil shale
uncon tar sands what are they?
Coalandgas
to Liquids ventional Where are they found?
how are they Extracted?
fossil social and
shaleOil Methane environmental issues

fuels
Hidrates
Climate change
companies involved
Resistance! 1
 OF
endsthe
to

the
earth
a guide To unconventional fossil fuels

London, June 2014

ISBN: 978-1-907738-14-2 Corporate Watch
c/o Freedom Press
Angel Alley
84b Whitechapel High Street
London, E1 7QX

www.corporatewatch.org

© 2014 Corporate Watch, under Creative

Author: Chris Kitchen
Commons Attribution- 4.0 International
license: http://creativecommons.org/ Design: Ricardo Santos
licenses/by/4.0/

With thanks to:

Charlotte Wilson, Clare Fauset,
Printed on 100% recycled paper
Emily Coats, Lucy Michaels,
Mark Muller, Paul Mobbs,
Rebecca Spencer, Simon Pirani,
Corporate Watch
the Corporate Watch coop
Corporate Watch is an independent, not-for-profit and everyone else who
research and publishing group that investigates the helped out with the report.
social and environmental impacts of corporate power.
Since 1996 Corporate Watch has been publishing corporate
critical ‘information for action’ in the form of books,
reports, investigative articles, briefings and magazines.
 Contents

Introduction p5
Summary table p16

Factsheets:
shale gas ( Tight Gas)
p19

tar sands p27

Coalbed Methane p35

Underground CoalGasification p43

Oilshale p51
shaleOil p59
( Tight oil)

Coalandgasto Liquids ( Synthetic Liquid Fuels) p67

Methane Hidrates p71

Other UnconventionalFossilFuels p79

Carbon Capture andstorage p83

Glossary p87
 to
the endsOF earth
Introduction
We are at a crossroads: either we move away from
fossil fuels, reduce energy consumption and develop
renewable energy sources, or we face a future of envi-
ronmental devastation and catastrophic irreversible
climate change.
As oil, coal and gas run low, the fossil fuels industry,
following its unspoken mantra of profit at any cost,
is developing new unconventional forms of fossil
fuel that will have an even greater impact on local
environments, on water resources and the climate.
They must be stopped.
And people are resisting. The term ‘fracking’ has been
transformed from technical engineering slang to a
globally recognised rallying call (and perhaps the most
widely used pun in the history of environmental activ-
ism!). Tar sands, once a fantasy fossil fuel of the future,
but now exploited on a vast scale, have been become a
focal point for the transnational environmental move-
ment. But despite the growing awareness of fracking
and tar sands, relatively few people comprehend the
significance of the move towards unconventional fossil
fuels, and what it means for the environment. The
truth is, that if we exploit the world’s unconventional
fossil fuel resources we are likely to create a very
different planet, with disastrous consequences for
our species.
This report aims to go some way in addressing this
lack of understanding. It explains some of the reasons
for the move towards unconventional fossil fuels and
describes the consequences globally and locally, for
people and the planet.
the
a guide To
uncon
ventional
fossil
This report includes:
fuels
• An overview of our global energy problems
including the drivers of energy consumption.
• A short history of fossil fuels and their historical
role.
• The motivations behind the development of
unconventional fossil fuels.
• A brief explanation of the concept of Energy
Return on Energy Invested (EROI) and its value
in thinking about future energy needs.
• The role that unconventional fossil fuels will
play in our changing climate: perhaps their most
important consequence, as well as other impacts,
particularly on water resources.
• Conclusions on where we might go from here.
• A table summarising information on the various
types of unconventional fossil fuel
• Nine stand-alone factsheets on each of the types
of unconventional fossil fuel, describing where
they are found, how they are extracted, the sig-
nificant environmental and social issues, stage of
development, notable companies and resistance.
• A factsheet on carbon capture and storage
technologies.
5
 450 Other
Biomass
The Global Energy Context Hydro
Electricity
Around the world we are consuming more and more energy. Nuclear
As the more easily accessible forms of energy, such as conventional 350 Electricity
oil and gas, run low we are moving towards increasingly exotic and Natural Gas
difficult to extract sources such as shale gas and tar sands.

Crude Oil

200
Primary Energy
Production
Exajoules per Year
100 Coal

50

1800 1850 1900 1950 2000

Graph showing increase in global energy consumption since 1820. 1 exajoule = 1 x10^18 (which means one followed by 18 zeros) joules.
Adapted from: ‘World Energy Consumption Since 1820 in Charts’. The Oil Drum. Accessed March 2014. <http://www.theoildrum.com/node/9023>

But what is behind this? Why do we consume
ever more energy?
For economies to survive in our economic sys-
tem, they must continually expand, and as they
expand they consume more resources. It is this
constant need for economic growth that is behind
our increasing consumption of energy and other
resources.
Economic growth is also exponential, this means that
the economy doesn’t just steadily increase in size, rath-
er the rate of growth increases all the time. For exam-
ple, if an economy is growing at two percent per year
it will double in size (and consume twice the amount
of resources) roughly every 35 years. As the earth has
a finite amount of resources, exponential economic
growth clearly cannot go on for ever, as
eventually resources will run out.

Per Capita Energy Consumption (Gigajoules per Capita) 70

60

50

1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

Graph showing global increase in per capita (per person) energy consumption since 1965. 1 gigajoule = 1 billion (one followed by nine zeros) joules.
Adapted from: ‘World Energy Consumption Since 1820 in Charts’. The Oil Drum. Accessed March 2014. <http://www.theoildrum.com/node/9023>

It is perhaps tempting to conclude that population growth drives energy consumption: that the reason we are
using more and more energy is because there are more and more people on the planet using energy. However,
both population growth and global energy consumption are symptoms of a wider problem, consequences of
economic systems based on inequality, competition and growth. The highest rates of population growth are in
economically poorer countries and regions, and are mainly the result of people trying to protect their families
from the impacts of poverty and child mortality. This is borne out by the fact that population levels tend to level
off once certain standards in quality of life and education, especially for women, are achieved. Some economi-
cally richer countries such as Japan actually have falling population levels.

6
Considering the problem of increasing global energy
consumption from the narrow perspective of pop-
ulation growth also ignores the fact that there are
huge disparities in the amount of energy that people
consume. Most of the global population relies on a
tiny amount of energy, while those in richer, mostly
Western, countries consume comparatively enormous
amounts. For example, the average energy consump-
tion per person in the US is over 34 times that of
Bangladesh.1 Further to this, competitive markets re-
quire inequality, winners and losers (on an individual
and national basis), and it is primarily this inequality
that drives population growth.
The ‘population problem’ is however particularly
appealing to those who seek to maintain the status
quo as it conveniently deflects attention from wider
systemic failures. Instead of focusing on the excessive
consumption in the West, and the ideologies that
sustain this, they talk about our growth in energy
Total Energy
Million Tonnes
of Oil Equiv.
8000
1980 1990
30
If we really want to deal with ever-increasing energy
consumption we need to address its root causes: the
economic and political systems that determine energy
demand and supply and the individualist, anthropo-
centric philosophies that underpin them. An anthro-
pocentric philosophy places humans at the centre of
the universe, where nature is viewed as something
separate to the human world to be conquered and
controlled. Many environmentalists believe instead
that we need to adopt ecological thinking, to consider
Fossil Fuels
Fossil fuels are formed when organic matter is
transformed by geological processes over millions of
years. As marine organisms die and float to the sea-
bed, they are slowly covered by layers of sediment,
then gradually fossilised by heat and pressure to
form oil. Coal is made by a similar process: organic
matter from swamps and forests decays and over
and resource consumption as if it were simply caused
by the expanding numbers of our species. This is not
just disingenuous, it is extremely dangerous, as the
problem can rapidly descend into a disturbing framing
of ‘too many brown people’.
It is often argued that our current economic systems
do not need to change and that economic growth can
be de-coupled from energy and resource consump-
tion; that economies can go on expanding and that
technological advances will allow us to also reduce our
resource consumption at the same time. However, this
dream has never been realised. Much like proposed
climate techno-fixes such as geo-engineering and
carbon capture and storage (see below), clinging to the
dream of ‘de-coupling’ allows existing economic and
energy systems to continue with ‘business as usual’,
while promising that problems will somehow be dealt
with in the future.
12000 50
10000
40
Real GDP
2000 Trillion US 2005 $
2010
Graph showing increase in global energy use with increase in global GDP
(recently energy use per GDP has started to increase again). Adapted
from: ‘World Energy Consumption Since 1820 in Charts’. The Oil Drum.
Accessed March 2014. <http://www.theoildrum.com/node/9023>
the human world as part of the natural world, and
to exist in harmony with nature instead of simply
exploiting it.
Fossil fuels have provided the energy that has pow-
ered industrialisation and economic expansion, they
still provide most of the world’s energy needs, and if
the fossil fuels industry and its supporters have their
way, we will remain hooked for decades to come.
thousands of years forms peat. It is then covered
by layers of mud and sand, and eventually trans-
formed by heat and pressure over millions of years
to form coal. Natural gas is also usually formed in
a similar way, from both ancient sea life and land
based plants, and is often found near reserves of
coal or oil.
7
 Fossil fuels contain hydrocarbons (molecules
made up of carbon and hydrogen atoms) that can
be burnt to release their stored chemical energy.
Fossil hydrocarbons are extremely energy-dense.
For example, burning coal releases more than
three times the energy of wood (by weight). This
combined with the relative ease of transporting and
storing solid and liquid fossil fuels contributes to
their usefulness as energy sources.
Although fossil fuels have been used for heating
and light for thousands of years, it was not until the
early 1800s, during the Industrial Revolution, that
fossil fuels replaced wind, water power and human
and animal labour as the primary source of me-
chanical energy (energy for moving things). Along
with technological advances such as the steam
engine, fossil fuels hugely increased the amount of
energy available for carrying out tasks, leading to
perhaps the biggest change in society since humans
began using agriculture around 10,000 years ago.
Over a matter of decades, the dominant economies
expanded massively, and the fossil-fuelled Industrial
Revolution induced a period of rapid industrial
expansion across the globe.
The energy in fossil fuels represents hundreds of
millions of years of stored up solar energy. However,
it has only taken a couple of hundred years for us to
use a large proportion of it and this glut of energy
has come at a cost. Our current economic system was
Unconventional Fossil Fuels
While there is no strict definition of an ‘unconven-
tional fossil fuel’, the term is often used to describe
fuels that cannot be extracted using conventional
drilling or mining. It can also refer to fuels from
conventional sources which have been processed
using unconventional methods, such as liquid fuels
produced from coal. Conventional oil, coal and gas
can all be extracted relatively easily, but as these run
low, energy prices rise, and new technologies are
developed it becomes economically viable to produce
fossil fuels from other, harder to extract sources such
as tar sands and shale gas.
The move towards unconventional fossil fuels is
also being driven by countries’ desires to develop
their own energy sources, rather than being de-
pendent on foreign oil and gas. This aim for ‘energy
security’ is partly due to the failure of ‘neo-liberal’
8
built on the availability of ‘cheap’ energy. Economies
are now dependent on using ever greater amounts
of energy and the infrastructure supporting them,
particularly transport systems, rely upon getting this
energy from fossil fuels, particularly oil. We are now
hooked on oil and kicking the habit is going to require
radical social, economic and political change.
Our extreme dependence on oil has led some to con-
clude that ‘peak oil’ would spell the imminent collapse
of modern civilisation. ‘Peak oil’ is a term used to de-
scribe the time when oil production around the world
reaches its maximum before a slow decline in produc-
tion rates begins. Partly due to the highly politicised
and therefore unreliable nature of oil reserve statis-
tics, there are ongoing debates about whether this has
already happened or, if it hasn’t, when it will. There
is, however, a general agreement that we are at least
close to a peak in conventional oil production.
Many predicted that when peak oil occurred and
production rates slowed, the ever-increasing demand
for oil would begin to outstrip supply and as the
lifeblood of industrial civilisation began to run dry
global economic and social collapse would result.
However, this no longer seems so likely. As oil (and
gas) reserves begin to run low, energy prices rise, and
this, along with enormous power held by fossil fuel
companies, means that new, more extreme methods
of production are being found to sustain our society’s
addiction to fossil fuels.
markets to rationally distribute energy resources.
With states such as Venezuela, Russia and China not
obeying the neo-liberal doctrine, and with con-
tinuing instability in the Middle East, developing
domestic, often unconventional, energy sources is
now a priority for many countries.
Deposits of unconventional fossil fuels are usually
larger and more dispersed than conventional ones.
Conventional deposits of oil and gas are accumu-
lations that have seeped out from the source rock
where they were formed and become trapped by
geological boundaries, such as layers of impermeable
rock. As a result they are generally smaller and more
concentrated. Unconventional oil and gas (such as
tight oil and shale gas) is usually extracted from the
rock where it formed and is found in larger, more
spread-out deposits. This means that they are harder

to extract and result in more widespread social
and environmental impacts.
The definition of ‘unconventional’ also
changes over time, with sources becoming
‘conventional’ as they become more widely
used. For example offshore oil deposits that
were once considered unconventional due to
Price and/or technology limit
their depth (and thus difficulty to access) are
now routinely drilled and treated as a conven-
tional fuel source.
The move towards unconventional fossil fuels
has already resulted in extreme environmental
and social costs, as well as huge shifts in geopo-
litical relations.
Unconventional fossil fuels generally require
more energy to produce than conventional fossil
fuels, i.e. you have to put more energy in to get
energy out. This ratio of energy in to energy out
can be described by a fuel’s Energy Return on
Energy Invested or EROI.
Energy Return On Investment (EROI)
Energy Return On Investment (sometimes called
‘energy returned on energy invested’ or EROEI) is used
as a measure of how much energy you need to expend
in order to extract energy from a particular energy
resource.
More exactly, it is the ratio of the amount of usable
energy returned from extraction and production
activities compared to the amount of energy invested
in those energy-gathering processes. For example, a
certain fuel may have an EROI of 20:1 meaning that
for every unit of energy put into producing the fuel,
it provides 20 units of usable energy.
Resources with a high EROI, such as conventional oil
or coal, give a lot of usable energy for a relatively small
amount energy required to extract them. Low EROI
resources on the other hand give only slightly more
usable energy than you need to expend on extraction.
If an energy resource has an EROI of less than 1:1, it
is no longer a useful source of primary energy, as you
need to put more energy in than you will get out.
Measuring EROI can be difficult as it depends on where
you draw the boundaries for what is included in the
process of extraction, production, transportation etc.
For example, if you are measuring the EROI of mined
coal, should you include the energy used to make the
More than 90% of World production
Higher
Conventional resources
Improved technology
Increased pricing
Net Energy
TIGHT GAS
SANDS
GAS COALBED
SHALES METHANE
HEAVY OIL
Unconventional resources
Lower
GAS HYDRATES OIL SHALE
Volume of resource
Resource triangle
At the top are conventional resources, in small volumes that are
easy to extract. At the bottom are unconventional resources, in
large volumes that are difficult to extract. Increasing price and
improved technology allow resources further down the triangle
to be extracted.
miners’ breakfasts? Or some of the energy used to
make the cutlery they are eating their breakfast with?
Where do you draw the line?
Despite the difficulties in measuring EROIs, standard
approaches can be used so that different resources
can be compared on a reasonably equal footing. Some
approximation is involved but this does not mean
measures of EROI are of no value.
EROI does not give a complete picture of the utility of
an energy source as it does not measure the type or
quality of energy produced. For example, oil is particu-
larly valuable because it can be converted to a number
of different fuels, is relatively easy to transport, and
has a very high energy density (the energy contained
in a unit volume of the fuel), none of which are used in
calculating oil’s EROI. Also, measuring EROI does not
include various ‘externalities’ of using a certain type of
fuel, such as the health impacts, the greenhouse gases
produced etc.
The value of EROI analyses is that they can show which
energy sources are viable as fuels, how much energy
has to be expended to continue providing energy for
society, and what proportion of the economy will need
to be devoted to energy production.
9
 EROI needed to
% Energy Out support modern
industrial societies?
100

90 WIND
HISTORIC OIL NEW OIL AND GAS
COAL
AND GAS FIELDS DISCOVERIES
80 NUCLEAR

70 SOLAR PV

60
SHALE OIL
50
The Net Energy Cliff
40 TAR SANDS
Fuels to the right require more energy Energy Available for Consumiton
for production. Beyond a certain point Energy Used in Production
30 fuels no longer provide enough energy
to support society
20
OIL SHALE
10
EROI Energy Return On Investment
50:1 40:1 30:1 20:1 10:1 1:1

Unconventional fossil fuels generally have lower EROI
values than conventional ones. However, EROI values
for conventional fossil fuels are also going down, as the
deposits that are easiest to exploit are being used up
and production moves to greater depths and more ex-
treme environments. Moving towards lower EROI ener-
gy sources means committing a larger proportion of the
economy to producing energy. A worrying consequence
is that this will likely further increase the already enor-
mous power held by the fossil fuel companies.
EROI values must remain above a certain level in
order to support a modern industrialised society.
Rather than being triggered by peak oil, some
predict that exceeding an EROI threshold and fall-
ing off the ‘net energy cliff’ (see graph) will cause
economies and societies to start to collapse (some
have estimated this to be EROI values of 3:1 others
as high as 11:1). 2 3
Net energy aside, what are the other consequences of
moving towards unconventional fossil fuels and lower
EROI energy sources? The specific social and ecologi-
cal impacts of developing unconventional fossil fuels
are detailed in the factsheets. However, it is worth
now discussing perhaps the most significant effect
of unconventional fossil fuel use: the contribution
to global climate change.

Climate change
international body tasked with presenting scientific
It is difficult to describe the scale and seriousness
information on the issue, the Inter-governmental
of global climate change (sometimes called ‘global
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which is highly con-
warming’) but a fair description would be to say that
servative in its estimations, has stated in 2013 that it is
it is one of the greatest challenges to ever face hu-
extremely likely (more than 95% certain) that human
manity. How we respond to this challenge could well
influence has been the dominant cause of the observed
determine our future existence as a species.
warming since the mid-20th century.4
Desperate attempts at disinformation by the fossil
The scientific consensus is clear: our planet is warm-
fuel industry and free market ideologues have influ-
ing; the burning of fossil fuels is primarily causing this
enced public opinion on climate change. But even the

10
warming; it is dramatically changing Earth’s climate
system at unprecedented rates, and if we don’t
massively reduce greenhouse gas emissions soon
we risk creating a future where our environment
can no longer support us. The scale of the changes
we are creating are so large, that some geologists
are now referring to a new geological epoch, the
Anthropocene (deriving from the Ancient Greek
terms ‘anthrōpos’ for human and ‘cene’ for recent).
Since the end of the industrial revolution (around
1900) the Earth’s surface has warmed by around
0.9 oC and billions of tonnes of carbon dioxide (CO2)
and other greenhouse gasses have been emitted into
the atmosphere.5 Estimations have been made of the
amount of CO2 we can still emit while staying below
so-called ‘dangerous’ levels of warming. The UN cli-
mate talks have established a limit of 2 degrees Celsius
(oC) of warming, and this translates to a limit of about
1000Gt of carbon (1Gt = 1 gigatonne = 1 billion tonnes)
emitted to the atmosphere from the start of the
Industrial Revolution (generally agreed to be around
the year 1750). We have already emitted about 370Gt,
and there is easily enough remaining conventional
fossil fuels to take us well beyond the remaining 630Gt.
Feedback, tipping points: is it too late?
As the planet warms the climate system responds in
variety of ways. Some responses will act to reduce
the warming (negative feedback) others will act to
exacerbate it (positive feedback). For example, as the
planet warms, ice and snow melt, causing the surface
to darken, absorb more sunlight and warm further,
which then melts more ice and snow. This creates a
‘positive feedback loop’.
As well as positive and negative feedbacks, clima-
tologists predict that there may be various ‘tipping
points’ in the climate system, and that if we go
beyond a certain amount of warming there will
be irreversible changes to the global climate. The
analogy often used is that of a glass of wine, you can
push it a certain amount and it will stay up right, but
if you push it beyond the ‘tipping point’ the situation
suddenly changes, the glass falls and the wine spills.
Despite the enormity of the problem, and the alarm-
ing implications of positive feedbacks and tipping
However, the relatively small amount of warming
already experienced to date is certainly dangerous,
and it is already having huge impacts around the
world. Further, recent research suggests that the
impacts of 2oC of warming will be greater than pre-
viously anticipated and could trigger feedbacks (see
below) that eventually result in 3 to 4oC temperature
rise, with catastrophic consequences.6
The same research concludes that in order to avoid
the most serious impacts and the risk of irrevers-
ible and uncontrollable changes to the climate, a
total limit of 500Gt of carbon is required.7 As we
have already emitted 370Gt this leaves a limit of
130Gt that could be further added. In order to stay
within this limit we would have to leave the vast
majority of the remaining conventional oil, coal
and gas in the ground. Estimates vary significantly,
but remaining conventional coal reserves alone
are well over 500Gt of carbon8. Developing uncon-
ventional fossil fuels, and releasing the enormous
amounts of carbon they contain, is thus absolutely
incompatible with staying below this limit or
maintaining anything like a reasonably habitable
climate.
points, it is not too late. Going beyond one tip-
ping point may cause dramatic and irreversible
changes, but it does not necessarily result in a
domino effect of one tipping point triggering an-
other leading to ‘runaway’ climate change. What
we do now has a real impact, and could be the
difference between a reasonably liveable climate
and catastrophic climate change. It may be for
example that we go beyond one tipping point
but just manage to reduce emissions enough
to prevent another being triggered. This could
make all the difference.
So it is not too late, and although the issue of
climate change can be fraught with difficulties
and complications, one thing is clear: we need
to reduce emissions as soon as we can, and this
means moving away from fossil fuels, conven-
tional and unconventional, as fast as we can.
11
 Carbon Capture and Storage
The idea of Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) is often raised when discussing the issue of uncon-
ventional fossil fuels and greenhouse gas emissions. Fossil fuel industry spokespeople argue that the
increased emissions associated with unconventional fossil fuels can be dealt with using CCS technol-
ogies. CCS is discussed in a separate factsheet in this report, but the simple message is that even if
the huge problems with the CCS are overcome (and this seems extremely unlikely), it still would not
change the fact that we need to move away from all forms of fossil fuel, as soon as possible.
The promise of CCS being implemented in the future is being used as a smokescreen to allow the
expansion of fossil fuel production. This has stalled the development of alternatives, and deflected
attention away from approaches which tackle the underlying systemic causes of climate change and
other ecological crises.

Water and other impacts

As well as the effect on the global climate, the deple-
tion of the ‘easiest to access’ resources also increases
the other ecological impacts of fossil fuel extraction.9
Harder to access resources not only require more ener-
gy to extract, they also require more water and land
and produce more waste.10
For example in Alberta, Canada, the area of land
required per barrel of oil produced increased by a
factor of 12 between 1955 and 2006.11 If the expansion
of unconventional fossil fuels continues, this trend will
be replicated around the world, since unconventional
fossil fuel resources are spread over much greater
areas. This means a much greater impact on wildlife
and far more local communities being exposed to the
impacts of extraction, such as water and air pollution.
The effects on water resources are particularly
profound. Globally, freshwater is becoming more
and more scarce. The UN predicts that by 2025 two
thirds of the world’s population could be living
under water-stressed conditions. The development
of unconventional fossil fuels will dramatically
increase global water consumption and leave enor-
mous volumes of contaminated water. For example
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency estimates
that fracking in the US uses 70 to 140 billion gallons
(265 – 531 billion litres) of water per year, equivalent
to the total amount of water used each year in a city
of 2.5 - 5 million people.12 The huge poisonous lakes
created by the tar sands industry now cover an area
of 176km2.13 In 2002, the oil shale-fired power indus-
try used a staggering 91% of all the water consumed
in Estonia.14
At a time when we should be doing all we can to con-
serve our water resources and share them equitably,
developing unconventional fossil fuels will consume
huge additional amounts of water. Since many regions
where unconventional fossil fuels occur are already
facing water scarcity, it will also often be taken from
those who need it most.

Conclusion
Fundamentally the development of unconventional
fossil fuels represents a continuation of ‘business as
usual’. It allows the same systems to exploit natural
and human resources, and the same companies to
extract their profits, while avoiding the social change
that would be required to to seriously address our
addiction to increasing consumption. However,
some changes are taking place.
The move towards unconventional fossil fuels is
already having global political consequences. It is
resulting in huge geopolitical impacts, as fossil fuels

12
are developed in new locations and relations shift be-
tween the countries supplying and consuming them.
Old alliances based on the flow of oil are starting to
crumble with the potential for regional destabilisation
and increases in conflict.
But the shift to unconventional fossil fuels is also
resulting in some unexpected, even positive, political
consequences. Around the world people are resisting,
from the first nations communities in North America
to Romanian villagers, people are rising up against the
exploitation of their land and people. Unconventional
fossil fuels are connecting local struggles to those
fighting for broader environmental and social justice.
They have given the climate justice movement a new
focus, bringing the here and now to what can some-
times be a diffuse and hard to place struggle. However,
in order build the resistance far more people need to
be aware of the nature and scale of the problem. It is
with this mind that we have produced this report, in
the hope of providing ‘information for action’.
The perennial question posed to anyone opposing the
exploitation of the world’s environment and people is:
what’s the alternative? Without exploring the com-
plexities of an apparently simple question, and with
apologies for presenting an almost equally familiar
response, it is not the purpose of this report to spell
out a future technological path to sustainable energy
consumption and production, or a political manifesto
for the social change needed to bring it about (see end
notes for further reading in this area).15 Having said
that, its worth sketching out some broad principles
that should help guide where we go from here.
Climate change, and the other interrelated global
ecological crises we are facing (including for example
biodiversity loss and ocean acidification), are not
primarily technical or scientific problems. Science
and technology will play an incredibly important role
in our search for solutions, but fundamentally the
answers lie in how we relate to one another, how we
organise our societies and even how we place our-
selves philosophically in the universe.
To put things in slightly less existential terms, one
thing is certain: we are going to have to use much less
energy. Energy efficiency measures can go some way
to reducing consumption, and renewable energies
have enormous potential, but ultimately we have to
radically change our whole attitude to energy. We need
to understand the wider social, political and ecolog-
ical contexts of energy production and consumption
rather than approaching them as isolated issues.
Recognising that we need to change our attitudes to
energy and other resources and that we need to con-
sume much less, often leads to the accusation that en-
vironmentalists either want or are risking humanity’s
return ‘back to the Stone Age’. The argument goes that
it is only through the marvels of capitalism, technolog-
ical advance and economic growth that we have lifted
people out of grinding perpetual poverty and that if we
change course all this ‘progress’ will be lost.
But regardless of your view on the path to, and nature
of, modern ‘civilisation’ we simply cannot continue
as we have been. However politically unpalatable
some may find it, we have to change. To use a much
abused and almost completely co-opted term, we need
sustainability, and what we have now is indisputably
unsustainable. However addressing our resource
consumption, our attitudes to the environment and
our understanding of ecology can go hand in hand
with the move towards more equitable, socially just
societies. In fact, in our view, it is a necessity.
So, this is all pretty big stuff, pretty daunting. Things
are pretty bad, and bringing about global revolution is
kind of a big job, right? Well one source of hope is the
fact that it is not just the climate system that contains
positive feedbacks and tipping points, they also exist
within social systems. If we can resist unconventional
fossil fuels wherever their development is attempted
we can add new powerful front-lines, broadening and
strengthening the many existing social and environ-
mental struggles around the world. This could help
trigger the tipping point we need to bring about a
global movement for systemic change.
We live in interesting times, the actions of those alive
today will define the existence of many generations to
come and the future health of life on our planet. It is
up to us and it is not going to be easy, but in the words
of ecologist Murray Bookchin:
“If we do not do the impossible, we shall be faced
with the unthinkable.”
13
 A note on numbers
The report contains various figures such as
the amounts of a type of fossil fuel that can
be found around the world, or how much
carbon dioxide is emitted to the atmosphere
as a result of its use. We have tried to be
consistent throughout the report with quoting
the units used in the source (be it barrels,
cubic feet etc.) along with a metric conver-
sion where appropriate.
However, there is disagreement over many of
the resource size figures, and some of them
are not entirely reliable due to political fac-
tors. For example, Saudi Arabia’s oil reserves
have, somewhat suspiciously, stayed almost
exactly the same for more than 30 years
despite producing millions of barrels of oil per
day throughout this period.
As a result all figures quoted should be used
as a guide rather than exact amounts. The
interested reader will be able to find more de-
tail and discussion around the various figures
in the references used in the report.
Endnotes
1 ‘Energy use (kg of oil equivalent per capita), based
on 2011 figures ‘. World Bank data <http://data.
worldbank.org/indicator/EG.USE.PCAP.KG.OE>
2 Hall, Charles A. S., Stephen Balogh, and David
J.R. Murphy. ‘What Is the Minimum EROI That a
Sustainable Society Must Have?’ Energies 2, no. 1
(23 January 2009): 25–47. doi:10.3390/en20100025.
<http://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/2/1/25>
3 Murphy, David J., and Charles A. S. Hall. ‘Year
in Review-EROI or Energy Return on (energy)
Invested: Review: Energy Return on Investment’.
Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1185,
no. 1 (January 2010): 102–118. doi:10.1111/j.1749-
6632.2009.05282.x. <http://onlinelibrary.wiley.
com/doi/10.1111/j.1749-6632.2009.05282.x/
abstract>
4 ‘Human influence on climate clear, IPCC report
says’. IPCC press release, 27 September 2013.
<http://www.ipcc.ch/news_and_events/docs/
ar5/press_release_ar5_wgi_en.pdf>
5 ‘What is climate change?’. Met office website.
Accessed March 2014. <http://www.metoffice.
gov.uk/climate-guide/climate-change>
6 Hansen, James, Pushker Kharecha, Makiko
Sato, Valerie Masson-Delmotte, Frank
Ackerman, David J. Beerling, Paul J. Hearty,
14
Numbers and units used
in the report:
1 trillion = 1,000,000,000,000 = 1,000 billion
= 1,000,000 million (or 1 million million)
Volume
1 US barrel of oil (‘barrel’ in the report)
= 0.16 cubic metres
= 159 litres
= 5.61 cubic feet
= 42 US Gallons
1 Gigabarrel (1Gb) = 1 billion barrels
Emissions
1 Gigatonne carbon (GtC) = 1 billion tonnes
carbon = 3.7 billion tonnes CO2
(Used for the weight of carbon in a fuel or
the weight of carbon in the atmosphere)
Weight
1 tonne = 1000 kg =1.1 tons
Power
1 Mega Watt (MW) = 1 million watt
(power is energy per unit time)
et al. ‘Assessing “Dangerous Climate Change”:
Required Reduction of Carbon Emissions to
Protect Young People, Future Generations and
Nature’. Edited by Juan A. Añel. PLoS ONE 8,
no. 12 (3 December 2013): e81648. doi:10.1371/
journal.pone.0081648. <http://www.plosone.
org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.
pone.0081648>
7 Ibid
8 Ibid
9 Davidson, D. J., and J. Andrews. ‘Not All
About Consumption’. Science 339, no. 6125
(14 March 2013): 1286–1287. doi:10.1126/
science.1234205.<http://www.sciencemag.org/
content/339/6125/1286.short>
10 Murphy, David J., and Charles A. S. Hall. ‘Energy
Return on Investment, Peak Oil, and the End of
Economic Growth: EROI, Peak Oil, and the End
of Economic Growth’. Annals of the New York
Academy of Sciences 1219, no. 1 (February 2011):
52–72. doi:10.1111/j.1749-6632.2010.05940.x.<http://
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21332492>
11 ‘Alberta’s energy reserves 2011 and supply/demand
outlook – Appendix D’. Energy Resources and
Conservation Board (2012). <http://www.ercb.ca/
sts/ST98/ST98-2012.pdf >
Reserves and resources.
The world of fossil fuels is full of
statistics on various resources and
reserves so it is important to explain
the difference between these terms.
‘Resource estimates’ are measures of
the amounts that exist that either are or
may be valuable in the future (some-
times called the ‘in place’ resources).
‘Technically recoverable resources’
refers to how much of this can recovered
using existing technology, regardless of
price. Reserves on the other hand are the
amounts that are currently economically
extractable. So if the cost of exploiting a
particular deposit is more than the price
the resulting product can be sold for, it is
not included in reserve estimates.
In short:
Resource = how much there is
Reserve = how much can currently
be extracted
12 ‘Draft Plan to Study the Potential Impacts
of Hydraulic Fracturing on Drinking Water
Resources’. US EPA (Feb 2011). <http://
yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/0/
D3483AB445AE61418525775900603E79/$File/
Draft+Plan+to+Study+the+Potential+Impacts+
of+Hydraulic+Fracturing+on+Drinking+Water+R
esources-February+2011.pdf>
13 Erin Flanagan and Jennifer Grant. ‘Losing Ground,
why the problem of oilsands tailings waste keeps
growing’. Pembina Institute (Aug 2013). <http://
www.pembina.org/pub/2470>
14 Raukas, Anto (2004). “Opening a new decade”.
Oil Shale, A Scientific-Technical Journal (Estonian
Academy Publishers) 21 (1): 1–2. ISSN 0208-189X.
Retrieved May 2008. <http://www.kirj.ee/public/
oilshale/1_ed_page_2004_1.pdf>
15 For some research exploring the subject of
sustainable economies try: Zero Carbon Britain
<http://zerocarbonbritain.com/>, Research &
Degrowth <http://www.degrowth.org/>, New
Economics Foundation, the Great Transition
<http://www.neweconomics.org/publications/
entry/the-great-transition> and Tim Jackson’s
Prosperity without Growth <http://www.sd-
commission.org.uk/publications.php?id=914>.
 Our carbon budget The graphic shows estimates for the global carbon content in each of the types of conventional and uncon-
ventional fossil fuel*, along with the limit that we can still add to the atmosphere while avoid the most serious impacts and the risk of irreversible and
uncontrollable changes to the climate. It also shows the maximum amount that could be stored by 2050 using Carbon Capture Storage technologies.

EMISSIONS TO DATE (GtC) RESERVES (GtC)

CONVENTIONAL FOSSIL FUELS CONVENTIONAL FOSSIL FUELS
TOTAL 369 GtC TOTAL 805 GtC
OIL GAS COAL OIL GAS COAL

136 GtC 51 GtC 183 GtC 162 GtC 102 GtC 541 GtC

TECHNICALLY RECOVERABLE
RESOURCES (GtC)

CONVENTIONAL CONVENTIONAL COAL

CONVENTIONAL FOSSIL FUELS
OIL GAS
TOTAL 12,832 GtC 12,230 GtC

325 GtC 277 GtC

UNCONVENTIONAL GAS TIGHT GAS METHANE SHALE GAS COAL BED ARTIC GAS DEEP WATER
HYDRATES METHANE GAS

TOTAL 692 GtC ** 211 GtC 163 GtC 138 GtC 130 GtC 28 GtC 22 GtC

UNCONVENTIONAL OIL OIL SHALE TAR SANDS SHALE OIL HEAVY OIL EXTRA-HEAVY DEEP WATER ARTIC OIL
(TIGHT OIL) CRUDE OIL

TOTAL 711 GtC 295 GtC 264 GtC 42 GtC 44 GtC 37 GtC 18 GtC 11 GtC

CARBON CAPTURE
‘SAFE’ EMISSIONS LIMIT
AND STORAGE

TOTAL

14,236 GtC 130 GtC 34 GtC

Total remaining GtC allowance to Maximum possible carbon
avoid the most serious impacts and stored by 2050 using
the risk of irreversible and uncontrol- carbon capture and storage
lable changes to the climate*** technologies****

* Carbon content estimates were calculated by taking averages from a variety sources and using conversion factors where appropriate (for example from a resource’s volume
in barrels to the weight in carbon). As there is significant disagreement over the various resource estimates, some judgement had to be used in which figures to include in the
calculations. For details of how the estimates were made go to <http://www.corporatewatch.org/uff/carbonbudget>.
** This is a minimum estimate. Other sources estimate that the technically recoverable resource for unconventional gas could be greater than 2,000 GtC.
*** Limit taken from: ‘Assessing “Dangerous Climate Change”: Required Reduction of Carbon Emissions to Protect Young People, Future Generations and Nature’. Hansen et al
(2013). <http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0081648>
**** Figure from: ‘Unburnable Carbon 2013: Wasted capital and stranded assets’. Carbon Tracker & The Grantham Research Institute, LSE (2013). <http://www.carbontracker.org>.
15
 Summary table

p19 p27 p35 p43

shale gas tar sands Coalbed Underground

Gas
( Tight )
Methane CoalGasification
Fuel Description
Natural gas trapped Tar sands or oil Extracting methane from Burning coal seams
underground in sands consist of a coal seams by drilling underground and ex-
shale rock which thick, dense type of large numbers of wells. tracting the resulting
must be fractured to oil called bitumen Usually involves pumping gas to use as fuel
extract the gas mixed with sand, out very large volumes of
water and clay groundwater to get the gas
to flow and often involves
hydraulic fracturing
(fracking)

Climate change (GtC = Gigatonnes of Carbon)

Global resources: Global resources: Global resources: ‘safe’ emission limit:

Shale gas: 138 GtC 264 GtC 130 GtC 130GtC
Tight gas: 211 GtC Coal reserves = 500+ GtC
‘safe’ emission limit: ‘safe’ emission limit:
‘safe’ emission limit: 130GtC 130GtC UCG Would give access
130GtC to even greater coal
resources

Problems
Extraction results in Extracting tar sands
water pollution and requires enormous
methane leakage amounts of energy and
with serious conse- water, releases vast
quences for climate amounts of greenhouse
change gases and other pollut-
ants and is devastating
huge tracts of boreal
forest and wetlands in
Canada
Where it is found?
Main countries (amounts 70% in Canada, with the
in trillion cubic feet): next largest deposits in
1 China 1,115 Kazakhstan (42 billion
barrels of bitumen
2 Argentina 802
reserves), and Russia
3 Algeria 707
(28 billion barrels).
4 US 665 Exploration and test
5 Canada 573 projects have been
6 Mexico 545 carried out in Russia,
7 Australia 437 Madagascar, Congo
8 South Africa 390 (Brazzaville), Utah in
9 Russia 285 USA and Trinidad and
10 Brazil 245 Tobago
Poses a serious risk of
groundwater pollution,
and causes significant
greenhouse gas emis-
sions, primarily through
methane leakage
Extraction is widespread in
the US (over 55,000 wells),
Canada (over 17,000 wells),
Australia (over 5000 wells)
and China (thousands of
wells). India also began
commercial production in
2007 and now has hundreds
of wells, and there are a
handful of wells in the UK.
Around 40 other countries
are looking into exploiting
their CBM resources
Very high water consump-
tion, catastrophic ground-
water contamination,
dramatically increases
accessible coal resources
with severe implications
for climate change
South Africa, Australia,
China. Demonstration
projects and studies are
also currently under way
in the USA, Western and
Eastern Europe, Japan,
Indonesia, Vietnam,
India and Russia

16
 p51 p59 p67 p71

Oilshale shaleOil Coaland gas Methane

( Tight oil) to Liquids Hidrates
( Synthetic Liquid Fuels)
Fuel Description
oily rock that can Crude oil found in Turning coal or Methane (natural
be burned, or pro- shale or other rock natural gas into gas) and water
cessed to produce a where it is tightly liquid fuels trapped as an icy
liquid fuel held in place and substance under
does not flow easily the sea floor
and in the Arctic
permafrost

Climate change (GtC = Gigatonnes of Carbon)

Global resources: Global resources: ‘safe’ emission limit: Global resources:

295GtC 42GtC 130GtC 163GtC
‘safe’ emission limit: ‘safe’ emission limit: Coal reserves = 500+ GtC
gas resources = 277GtC ‘safe’ emission limit:
130GtC 130GtC
converting to liquid would 130GtC
add even more carbon to
the atmosphere
Problems
Extremely inefficient Requires use of frack- Process wastes a lot of Vast store of carbon,
as a fuel, results in ing with risk of water energy and has serious which if released
very high green- consequences for water would have devastat-
pollution and worsens
house gas emissions resources and climate ing consequences for
and serious water climate change climate change
change
pollution

Where it is found?
Estonia has a well devel- Economically recover- South Africa, US, Several countries are
oped oil shale industry, able shale oil reserves Qatar, Uzbekistan investigating the pos-
Oil shale is also exploited (International Energy and China sibilities of extraction,
on an industrial scale in Agency estimates in including the US,
China (which is rapidly billions of barrels) Japan, China, Germany,
expanding its capacity), Russia: 75 Norway, India, South
Brazil and less so in United States: 48 to 58 Korea, UK,Taiwan,
Russia, Germany and China: 32 New Zealand, Brazil
Israel. By far the largest Argentina: 27 and Chile
deposits are found in Libya: 26
Venezuela: 13
the US
Mexico: 13
Pakistan: 9
Canada: 9
Indonesia: 8
17
 ends
to
the
OFthe
earth

Factsheets:
 to
the endsOFtheearth
shale gas
( Tight Gas)
SHALE GAS IS
NATURAL GAS THAT IS TRAPPED
UNDERGROUND IN SHALE ROCK WHICH
MUST BE FRACTURED TO EXTRACT THE GAS.
EXTRACTION CAUSES WATER POLLUTION
AND METHANE LEAKAGE WITH SERIOUS
CONSEQUENCES FOR CLIMATE CHANGE.
what is it?
Natural gas is mainly methane and is usually extracted
from oil or gas fields and coal beds (see coal bed meth-
ane), but it can also be found in shale formations.
Shale is a form of sedimentary rock formed from
deposits of mud, silt and clay. Normally natural gas is
extracted from sandstone or carbonate reserves, where
the gas flows fairly easily once the rock is drilled into.
However shale is relatively impermeable, meaning that
it is harder for the gas to escape. It is only with the de-
velopment of horizontal drilling and advanced hydrau-
lic fracturing (see below) that shale gas extraction has
become possible.
Tight Gas
Tight gas refers to natural gas
reservoirs trapped in highly
impermeable rock, usually non- porous sandstone and
sometimes limestone. It is found in different geological for-
mations from shale gas (although according to some defini-
tions shale gas is a form of tight gas). Over time, rocks are
compacted and undergo cementation and recrystallisation,
reducing the permeability of the rock. As with shale gas,
directional drilling is used and fracking is necessary to
break up the rock and allow the gas to flow. In addition to
fracking, acidisation is also sometimes used. This is where
the well is pumped with acid to dissolve the rock that is
obstructing the flow of gas.
While many of the problems posed by tight gas, such as
water pollution and contributing to climate change, are
similar to those of shale gas, there are some differences.
For example the differing natural carbon content in tight
gas means that it stores different kinds of contaminants
and therefore produces different pollutants. Shale gas is
also generally harder to extract, being even less permeable
and requiring more fracking.
how is it extracted?
Shale gas has been known about for a long time. The first
commercial gas well in the USA, drilled in New York State
in 1821, was in fact a shale gas well. However, it is only since
around 2005 that it has been exploited on a large-scale. This
has been driven by the huge rise in energy prices resulting
from declining fossil fuel reserves and the development of
two new technologies, horizontal drilling and advanced
hydraulic fracturing, which have opened up reserves previ-
ously inaccessible by conventional drilling.
Hydraulic fracturing, often just referred to as fracking, is
used to free gas trapped in rock by drilling into it and in-
jecting pressurised fluid which creates cracks which release
the gas. The fracking fluid consists of water, sand and a
variety of chemicals which are added to aid the extraction
process such as by dissolving minerals, killing bacteria that
might plug up the well, or reducing friction.
Production from shale gas wells declines very quickly and
so new wells must be drilled constantly. This process of con-
tinual drilling and fracking means that huge areas of land
are covered with well pads where thousands of wells are
drilled, with each well requiring millions of litres of water.
The fracking process also produces a large volume of waste
water, containing a variety of contaminants both from the
fracking fluid, and toxic/radioactive substances which are
leached out of the rocks (see below).
19
 "to replace the UK's
current gas imports
with local shale gas would
require up to 20,000
wells to be drilled in
the next 15 years"
Climate change
Natural gas, whether it comes from shale or conven-
tional sources, is a fossil fuel and when it is burned it
releases significant greenhouse gas emissions (GHG).
It is sometimes argued that as burning natural gas
produces less GHG emissions than coal it can be used
as a ‘bridging’ or ‘transition’ fuel, replacing coal while
renewable energy technologies are developed and
implemented. This argument is widely used by gov-
ernments and industry to promote gas as a low carbon
energy option. However as long as energy demand
increases, additional sources of fossil fuels such as
shale gas are likely to supplement rather than replace
other existing ones such as coal.
This has happened in the US where the shale gas
boom, instead of reducing coal extraction, has sim-
ply resulted in more of it being exported and used
elsewhere.1
When comparing fuel types it is important to look at
‘lifecycle’ GHG emissions, the total emissions gener-
ated by developing and using the fuel. In the case of
shale gas these include direct emissions from end-use
consumption (e.g. from burning gas in power plants),
indirect emissions from fossil fuels used to extract,
develop and transport the gas, and methane from
‘fugitive’ emissions (leaks) and venting during well
development and production.
There is a lot of debate about how much gas escapes as
fugitive methane emissions in the process of extract-
ing and transporting natural gas. The gas industry
is particularly reluctant to investigate this, which is
partly why it is hard to find reliable figures. However
various studies have found significant leakage, and
since methane is a more potent GHG that CO2, even if
just a small percentage of the gas extracted escapes
to the atmosphere it can have a serious impact on the
climate.
20
Some studies have concluded that fugitive emissions
from shale gas could be between 3.6% and 7.9% particu-
larly when the gas vented during flow-back is included.2
34
. This would make the GHG contribution from shale
gas similar to or even worse than coal in terms of con-
tributing to climate change.
The shale gas industry attacked the findings and
although there is ongoing dispute over the figures,5 6 re-
cent hard data estimated methane leakage rates in some
areas to be 6 to 12%, 7 up to 9%,8 or even as high as 17%.9
Methane is a powerful greenhouse gas, particularly in
terms of its short term influence on the atmosphere. If
more than 3.2% of methane is lost to the atmosphere
then switching from coal to gas will result in no immedi-
ate benefits in terms of contribution to climate change.10
If we are to reduce carbon emissions to anything like
the levels required to maintain a reasonably habitable
planet we must move away from all forms of fossil fuel
as fast as possible. Measuring from the start of the
industrial revolution (around 1750), a maximum of 500
Gigatonnes of carbon (GtC) can be emitted to the atmo-
sphere while still avoiding most serious impacts and the
risk of irreversible and uncontrollable changes to the
climate.11 Between 1750 and now (2014), we have already
emitted about 370 GtC leaving a limit of 130 GtC
that could be further
added.12
CONVENTIONAL OIL
325 GtC
‘SAFE’
EMISSIONS LIMIT
130 GtC TIGHT GAS CONVENTIONAL GAS
211 GtC 277 GtC
SHALE GAS
In order to 138 GtC
stay within this limit we
have to leave the vast majority
of the remaining conventional oil, coal and gas in the
ground. Estimates vary significantly, but remaining
conventional coal reserves alone are well over 500GtC.13
Exploiting the world’s shale gas resources would
add around 138 GtC to the atmosphere (with tight
gas adding a further 211GtC).14 This is a huge
amount and is clearly incompatible with staying
within the limit outlined above. All of this means
that, far from making things better, the develop-
ment of shale and tight gas is dramatically worsen-
ing the problem of climate change.
 Shale gas and Carbon
Capture and Storage (CCS)
There has been some discussion about the possibility
of using exhausted shale gas formations as a storage
location for CO2. Injecting CO2 into fracked shale
deposits is also being considered as a way of both
storing CO2 and extracting more gas at the same
time (so called Enhanced Gas Recovery -see ‘Other
Unconventional Fossil fuels’ factsheet). However,
their viability as CO2 storage sites is questionable,
and there are currently no shale gas sites being used
to store CO2. In addition there are concerns that
fracking may be compromising other potential CO2
storage sites, as the fracked shale formations are no
longer impermeable and would therefore not keep
CO2 trapped in the deep saline aquifers below them.15
In addition fracking, the underground injection
of fracking waste water (see below), and even the
injection of CO2 itself have been shown to cause
earthquakes, which reveal a major flaw in CCS
technology.16 17
Other social and environmental issues
Water use
Fracking requires huge volumes of water, which once
used is contaminated and cannot be returned to the
water table. The amount of water needed varies from
well to well, but will be somewhere between about 3
million and 40 million litres. 18
In 2011, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency es-
timated that 70 to 140 billion gallons (265 – 531 billion
litres) of water was being used to fracture 35,000 wells
in the United States each year.19 Sourcing water for
fracking is a major problem. Because of the transpor-
tation costs of bringing water from great distances,
drillers in the US usually extract on-site water from
nearby streams or underground water supplies. This
puts pressure on local water resources which can lead
to the worsening of droughts and competition with
farmers for irrigation water.20
Water and air pollution
There has been a great deal of controversy over the
chemicals contained in fracking fluids. In the US many
companies have resisted revealing the recipes for their
fracking mixes, claiming commercial confidentiality,
or have adopted voluntary reporting measures in order
Proponents of unconventional fossil fuels often argue
that with CCS technologies, these new energy sources
could be exploited at the same time as reducing GHG
emissions. However, even if the huge problems with
CCS technology are overcome (and this currently
looking extremely unlikely), it would not change the
fact that we need to move away from all forms of fossil
fuel, conventional and unconventional, as soon as
possible.
In the most optimistic (and highly implausible) sce-
nario, CCS could be used to reduce a small proportion
of emissions from fossil fuels. In reality, the promise of
CCS being implemented in the future is being used to
allow the continued expansion of fossil fuel produc-
tion, to prevent alternatives from being developed,
and to deflect attention away from approaches which
tackle the underlying systemic causes of climate
change and other ecological crises. Ultimately CCS
is a smokescreen, allowing the fossil fuel industry
to continue profiting from the destruction of the
environment. (see ‘Carbon Capture Storage’ factsheet
for more information).
to avoid stricter mandatory reporting requirements.
Although the specific mix of chemicals used varies sig-
nificantly, a US House of Representatives Committee on
Energy and Commerce report found 750 different chemi-
cals had been used in fracking fluids, including many
known human carcinogens and other toxic compounds
such as benzene and lead.21 Chemicals found to be most
commonly used in fracking fluids such as methanol and
isopropyl alcohol are also known air pollutants.
A variety of chemicals are also added to the ‘muds’
used to drill well boreholes in order to reduce friction
and increase the density of the fluid. Analysis of drill-
ing mud has also found that they contain a number of
toxic chemicals. 22 23
Increasing numbers of studies analysing water quality
in drinking wells near natural gas extraction sites
have also found increased levels of contamination, 24 25
26
and several studies have suggested possible pathways
through which contaminants could reach drinking
water aquifers from fractured shale. 27
Another area of controversy is that of methane pollu-
tion of local water supplies. Footage of people living
close to fracking sites setting light to the water coming
out of their tap has rapidly spread across the internet.
21
 The industry was quick to respond, saying that these
were just cases of supplies that were already prone
to natural gas contamination. However, a leaked 2012
US Environmental Protection Agency presentation
suggests that methane could be migrating more
widely to water supplies as a result of fracking, a
conclusion that was censored by the Obama admin-
istration.28 Other research has also found evidence of
methane and other contamination of water supplies
due to fracking,29 including a 2011 peer-reviewed
study which found “systematic evidence for methane
contamination” of drinking water associated with
shale gas extraction.30 There is, however, currently a
lack of research on the health impacts of long-term
exposure to methane in drinking water.31
Leakage of both methane and other chemicals
involved in fracking is a huge problem. Despite
industry claims that leakage is due to bad well
design, research has shown that some leakage is
an inevitability and that fracking only exacerbates
the problem.32 Wells routinely lose their structural
integrity and leak methane and other contaminants
outside their casings and into the atmosphere and
water wells. Even research by oil services company
Schlumberger suggests that half of all gas wells
will be leaking within 15 years (see climate change
section for more on leakage of methane to the
atmosphere). 33
Local air pollution at shale gas sites is also a serious
concern. This includes emissions from vehicle traffic,
flaring and venting during drilling and completion,
on-site machinery such as compressors, and pro-
cessing and distribution, where gas can leak from
pipes and at compressor stations. Local air pollution
from these sources includes BTEX (benzene, toluene,
ethylene and xylene), NOx (mono oxides of nitrogen),
VOCs (volatile organic compounds), methane, ethane,
sulphur dioxide, ozone and particulate matter.34
Diagram
of fracking
operations
22
Research has shown that air pollution caused by
extraction may contribute to acute and chronic health
problems for those living near natural gas drilling
sites,35 and there is a growing body of research iden-
tifying the health impacts of fracking and unconven-
tional gas extraction. 36 37 38
Waste water
The fracking process produces large volumes of waste
water, contaminated by fracking fluids, and naturally
occurring chemicals leached out of the rock. These can
include dissolved solids (e.g., salts, barium, strontium),
organic pollutants (e.g., benzene, toluene) and normal-
ly occurring radioactive material (NORM) such as the
highly toxic Radium 226. 39
This leaves the problem of how to dispose of this waste
water. In many cases, the waste water is re-injected
back into the well, a process that has been shown to
trigger earthquakes (see earthquake section). In the
US, there have been numerous cases in which drilling
cuttings have been dumped and waste water stored in
open evaporation pits. In some cases waste water has
even been disposed of by spreading it on roads under
the guise of dust control or de-icing. Treatment of
fracking waste water is expensive and energy inten-
sive, and still leaves substantial amounts of residual
waste that then also has to be disposed of. In addition,
the waste water from most sites would have to trans-
ported large distances to specialised treatment plants.
The sheer volumes of waste water generated and the
kinds of contaminants it contains makes treating and
disposing of it safely extremely challenging. All stages
of the waste water disposal process are of course prone
to accidents, which could have serious environmental
and human health consequences.
Human and animal health
It is difficult to assess the health effects of fracking sites,
as many impacts will take time to become apparent and
there is a lack of background data and official studies.
Despite this there is mounting evidence linking frack-
ing activities to local health impacts on humans and
animals. 40 41 42
Industrialisation of countryside
Unlike conventional gas, exploiting shale gas re-
quires large numbers of wells to be drilled. As shale is
impermeable the gas cannot easily flow through it and
wells are needed wherever there is gas. In some cases
up to sixteen wells per square mile have been drilled.43
In addition to the wells, extensive pipeline networks
and compressor stations are required. In the US tens
of thousands of shale wells have been drilled leading
to widespread industrialisation of the landscape in
some states. Similarly, to replace the UK’s current gas
imports with local shale gas would require up to 20,000
wells to be drilled in the next 15 years.44
Apart from the noise, light pollution and direct impact
on local wildlife and ecosystems due to the well pads,
shale gas extraction also results in large increases in
traffic for transportation of equipment, waste water
and other materials. It has been estimated that frack-
ing requires 3,950 truck trips per well during early
development of the well field.45 A single well pad could
generate tens of thousands of truck journeys over its
lifetime. 46
Earthquakes
Underground fluid injection has been proven to cause
earthquakes, and there are instances in the UK where
fracking has been directly linked to small earthquakes.47
The injection of waste water from fracking back in
to wells has also been shown to cause earthquakes.48
Although these earthquakes are usually relatively small,
they can still cause minor structural damage and of par-
ticular concern is the possibility of damaging the well
casings thus risking leakage. This did in fact happen
after the earthquake at Cuadrilla’s site in Lancashire,
UK. The company failed to report the damage and were
later rebuked by the then UK energy minister, Charles
Hendry, for not doing so.
Occasionally larger earthquakes are triggered. A 2013
study in prestigious journal Science linked a dramatic
increase in seismic activity in the midwestern United
States to the injection of waste water. It also catalogues
the largest quake associated with waste water injection,
which occurred in Prague on November 6, 2011. This
measured 5.7 on the Richter scale, and destroyed four-
teen homes, buckled a highway and injured two people.49
It should be noted that mining and conventional gas and
oil extraction can also cause earthquakes.
Jobs
Those trying to promote shale gas often cite the
employment that it will generate as an argument in its
favour. In practice much of the employment related
to fracking will come from outside the area where the
gas is extracted, and any boost to the local economy is
relatively short-lived as the industry moves on once
wells are depleted. Industry backed studies have been
found to routinely exaggerate estimates of the number
of jobs fracking will create. 50
Economic issues
The rate at which a resource can be extracted strongly
influences its value as a fuel source. Estimates of re-
serves containing ‘so many years worth’ of a country’s
gas supply ignore the fact that it will take many years
and thousands of wells drilled before production rates
rise sufficiently to provide significant amounts of fuel.
This counteracts the argument that shale gas can be
used as a ‘bridging fuel’ in the short term while renew-
ables are developed. 51
In the US, which is largely isolated from the world gas
market due to transport issues, the shale gas boom
has coincided with a recession, which has led to a
reduction in energy demand and gas prices. This has
actually made it uneconomical to produce shale gas,
and has stalled drilling. Well production rates have
also declined faster than expected, and spending on
new sites has reduced as shale gas assets have lost
value.52 For these and other reasons to do with more
integrated gas markets, shale gas is unlikely to make
a significant impact on the price of gas in Europe and
Asia, and promises of cheaper fuel prices for consum-
ers are unlikely to be realised.
Natural gas can be converted to Liquefied Natural
Gas (LNG), which can then be transported in
specialised ships rather than pipelines. This is one
way for the US to export shale gas to other markets.
However, the processes of liquification, tanker
transportation and gassification mean that using
LNG requires significantly more energy and results
in greater GHG emissions.53
As the most productive shale plays and their ‘sweet
spots’ are exploited first, it becomes increasingly
more expensive, both in terms of money and energy,
to maintain production levels.54 There are predictions
that the shale gas boom in the US may have already
peaked.55 There have also been suggestions that
much of the investment into shale gas in the US
was based on over estimation of reserve sizes and
underestimation of the costs involved.56 Concerns that
the same kind of financial practices that led to the
US housing bubble were used to provide investment
(with the prospect of profitable merger and
acquisition deals attracting the financial sector) have
led some to predict that the financial bubble behind
the US shale boom will burst, possibly instigating
another global economic crisis.57
23
 Where and how Much?
Shale gas deposits occur across the globe, but there are significant variations in the estimates of how much
shale gas exists and how much of it can be extracted, partly due to the variations in geology from region to
region. In 2013 the US Energy Information Administration put the global amount of technically recoverable
shale gas as 7299 trillion cubic feet (tcf),58 or 207 trillion cubic metres (tcm), with the top 10 countries in
terms of resources (in tcf) as:
1 China 1,115
2 Argentina 802
3 Algeria 707
4 US 665
5 Canada 573
6 Mexico 545
7 Australia 437
In 2013 the World 8 South Africa 390
Energy Council made 9 Russia 285
slightly lower estimates, 10 Brazil 245
with global resources of
16,110 tcf (456 tcm), of
which 6444 tcf (182 tcm) is
expected to be technically
recoverable. 59

The industry is by far most advanced in the US,
where there has been a boom in shale gas with tens
of thousands of wells drilled. Other countries with
large reserves are at various stages of exploration and
production. China has the largest shale gas resources in
the world, but the geology of its shale formations, par-
ticularly their depth, may make extraction much more
difficult than in the US. Activity in China is mainly at
the exploration and test well stage, but production
capacity is rapidly increasing.60 In Argentina, which
has the second largest resources, several contracts
have been awarded and exploration and test wells have
been drilled by a number of companies. A host of other
countries are exploring shale gas production including,
Australia, Austria, Canada, Germany, Hungary, India,
New Zealand, Poland, South Africa, Sweden and the UK.

companies involved
In the US, the shale gas industry
is not dominated by the multina-
tional super-majors such as Exxon,
Shell and Total. Instead variously
sized American companies operate,
anywhere from tiny start-ups to
mid sized companies worth tens
of billions. Notable US shale com-
panies include Chesapeake Energy,
Continental Resources, Marathon
Oil, Occidental Petroleum, Pioneer
Natural Resources, Apache, Whiting
Petroleum, Hess, EOG Resources,
ConocoPhillips. That said, some large
multinational oil companies have
now also acquired significant stakes
in North American shale gas including
Exxon, Total, Shell, CNP and Reliance
Industries.
In places where the shale gas industry
is yet to gain a foothold, sometimes
small exploratory companies carry
out the initial drilling and testing.
These are then acquired by larger gas
companies if economically recover-
able deposits are found. This serves to
protect the risk to bigger companies if
testing is unsuccessful. However large
oil multinationals are also involved
in exploratory drilling in a number of
regions, including China, Europe and
South America.

24
 Resistance
Shale gas extraction, and particularly fracking, has met wide-
spread resistance around the world. In the US, spurred on by
the 2010 documentary film Gasland, a national anti-fracking Adrian Kinloch

movement is now active across the country. Following protests,

various countries and regions have introduces moratoriums
or outright bans on fracking. These include France, Bulgaria,
Romania and the Czech Republic (see <http://keeptapwatersafe.
org/global-bans-on-fracking/> for an updated list of countries
and regions).
A number of countries have seen protesters using direct action
and civil disobedience to oppose fracking. Australia’s ‘Lock the
Gate’ movement has involved environmental activists joining
forces with local communities to prevent exploration, with Adam Welz for CREDO Action

widespread use of blockades.

Despite violent repression from the police, the villagers of Pungesti, Romania have put up strong resistance
to Chevron’s plans to frack the area, removing and sabotaging their testing equipment. The indigenous
Elsipogtog First Nation along with other local residents blockaded a road near Rexton, New Brunswick,
Canada, preventing South Western Energy from carrying out tests at a potential shale gas site. In the UK dozens
have been arrested in community blockades of exploration sites , such as in Balcombe and Barton Moss.

For more information on resistance see the Corporate Watch website (corporatewatch.org/uff/resistance)

Endnotes
1 Broderick, J., and K. Anderson. ‘Has US shale
gas reduced CO2 emissions? Examining recent
changes in emissions from the US power sector
and traded fossil fuels (Technical Report)’.
Manchester: Tyndall Centre (2012).<http://tyndall.
ac.uk/publications/technical-report/2012/
has-us-shale-gas-reduced-co2-emissions>
2 Howarth, R. W., R. Santoro, and A. Ingraffea. ‘Methane
and the greenhouse gas footprint of natural gas from
shale formations’. Climatic Change Letters (2011), DOI:
10.1007/s10584-011-0061-5. <http://link.springer.com/
article/10.1007%2Fs10584-011-0061-5>
3 (estimates also within the 3.6% to 7.9% range) Pétron,
G. et al. J. Geophys. Res. 117, D04304 (2012)
4 (estimates also within the 3.6% to 7.9% range)
‘Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and
Sinks: 1990–2010’ (Chapter 3: Energy). US EPA
(2012). <http://epa.gov/climatechange/Downloads/
ghgemissions/US-GHG-Inventory-2012-Chapter-3-
Energy.pdf>
5 Howarth, Robert W., Renee Santoro, and Anthony
Ingraffea. ‘Venting and Leaking of Methane from
Shale Gas Development: Response to Cathles et Al.’
Climatic Change 113, no. 2 (1 February 2012): 537–549.
doi:10.1007/s10584-012-0401-0. <http://www.eeb.
cornell.edu/howarth/publications/Howarthetal2012_
Final.pdf>
6 ‘New Study Shows Total North American Methane
Leaks Far Worse than EPA Estimates’. DeSmogBlog.
Accessed 28 February 2014. <http://www.desmogblog.
com/2014/02/14/new-study-shows-total-north-
american-methane-leaks-far-worse-epa-estimates>
7 Karion, Anna, Colm Sweeney, Gabrielle Pétron,
Gregory Frost, R. Michael Hardesty, Jonathan Kofler,
Ben R. Miller, et al. ‘Methane Emissions Estimate
from Airborne Measurements over a Western United
States Natural Gas Field: CH4 EMISSIONS OVER A
NATURAL GAS FIELD’. Geophysical Research Letters
40, no. 16 (28 August 2013): 4393–4397. doi:10.1002/
grl.50811. <http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/
grl.50811/abstract>
8 Tollefson, Jeff. ‘Methane Leaks Erode Green
Credentials of Natural Gas’. Nature 493, no. 7430
(2 January 2013): 12–12. doi:10.1038/493012a.
<http://www.nature.com/news/methane-leaks-
erode-green-credentials-of-natural-gas-1.12123#/
b1>
9 Peischl, J., T. B. Ryerson, J. Brioude, K. C. Aikin, A.
E. Andrews, E. Atlas, D. Blake, B. C. Daube, J. A. de
Gouw, E. Dlugokencky, G. J. Frost, D. R. Gentner, J. B.
Gilman, A. H. Goldstein, R. A. Harley, J. S. Holloway,
J. Kofler, W. C. Kuster, P. M. Lang, P. C. Novelli, G.
W. Santoni, M. Trainer, S. C. Wofsy, D. D. Parrish.
‘Quantifying sources of methane using light alkanes
in the Los Angeles basin, California’. J. Geophys. Res.
Atmos., doi:10.1002/jgrd.50413, 2013. <http://www.esrl.
noaa.gov/csd/news/2013/140_0514.html>
10 Alvarez, R. A., Pacala, S. W. Winebrake, J. J.,
Chameides, W. L. & Hamburg, S. P. Proc. Natl Acad.
Sci. USA 109, 6435–6440 (2012). <http://www.pnas.
org/content/109/17/6435>
11 Hansen, James, Pushker Kharecha, Makiko Sato,
Valerie Masson-Delmotte, Frank Ackerman,
David J. Beerling, Paul J. Hearty, et al. ‘Assessing
“Dangerous Climate Change”: Required Reduction of
Carbon Emissions to Protect Young People, Future
Generations and Nature’. Edited by Juan A. Añel.
PLoS ONE 8, no. 12 (3 December 2013): e81648.
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0081648. <http://www.
plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.
pone.0081648>
12 Ibid
13 Ibid
14 <http://www.corporatewatch.org/uff/carbonbudget>
15 Elliot, T. R., and M. A. Celia. ‘Potential Restrictions
for CO2 Sequestration Sites Due to Shale and Tight
Gas Production’. Environmental Science & Technology
46, no. 7 (3 April 2012): 4223–4227. doi:10.1021/
es2040015.<http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/
es2040015>
16 Verdon, J. P., J.- M. Kendall, A. L. Stork, R. A.
Chadwick, D. J. White, and R. C. Bissell. ‘Comparison
of Geomechanical Deformation Induced by
Megatonne-Scale CO2 Storage at Sleipner, Weyburn,
and In Salah’. Proceedings of the National Academy
of Sciences 110, no. 30 (8 July 2013): E2762–E2771.
doi:10.1073/pnas.1302156110. <http://www.pnas.org/
content/early/2013/07/03/1302156110.abstract>
17 Gan, W., and C. Frohlich. ‘Gas Injection May Have
Triggered Earthquakes in the Cogdell Oil Field, Texas’.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 110,
no. 47 (4 November 2013): 18786–18791. doi:10.1073/
pnas.1311316110. <http://www.pnas.org/content/
early/2013/10/31/1311316110>
18 Cooley, H, Donnelly, K. ‘Hydraulic Fracturing and Water
Resources: Separating the Frack from the Fiction’.
Pacific Institute (June 2012). <http://www.pacinst.org/
wp-content/uploads/2013/02/full_report35.pdf>
19 ‘Draft Plan to Study the Potential Impacts of Hydraulic
Fracturing on Drinking Water Resources’. US EPA.
(Feb 2011).<http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.
nsf/0/D3483AB445AE61418525775900603E79/
$File/Draft+Plan+to+Study+the+Potential+
Impacts+of+Hydraulic+Fracturing+on+Drinking+Water
+Resources-February+2011.pdf>
20 ‘A Texan tragedy: ample oil, no water’. Guardian
website (Retrieved Feb 2014). <http://www.
theguardian.com/environment/
2013/aug/11/texas-tragedy-ample-oil-no-water>
21 ‘Chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing’. United
States House of Representatives, Committee on
Energy and Comerce Minority Staff (April 2011).
<http://democrats.energycommerce.house.gov/
sites/default/files/documents/Hydraulic-Fracturing-
Chemicals-2011-4-18.pdf>

25
22 Colborn, Theo et al. ‘Natural Gas Operations
from a Public Health Perspective’. International
Journal of Human and Ecological Risk Assessment.
September-October 2011, p. 11. <http://cce.cornell.edu/
EnergyClimateChange/NaturalGasDev/Documents/
PDFs/fracking%20chemicals%20from%20a%20
public%20health%20perspective.pdf>
23 ‘Toxic Chemicals in the Exploration and Production of
Gas from Unconventional Sources’. National Toxics
Network (April 2013). <http://www.ntn.org.au/wp/wp-
content/uploads/2013/04/UCgas_report-April-2013.
pdf>
24 Fontenot, Brian E., Laura R. Hunt, Zacariah L.
Hildenbrand, Doug D. Carlton Jr., Hyppolite Oka, Jayme
L. Walton, Dan Hopkins, et al. ‘An Evaluation of Water
Quality in Private Drinking Water Wells Near Natural
Gas Extraction Sites in the Barnett Shale Formation’.
Environmental Science & Technology 47, no. 17 (3
September 2013): 10032–10040. doi:10.1021/es4011724.
<http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es4011724>
25 ‘EPA Releases Draft Findings of Pavillion, Wyoming
Ground Water Investigation for Public Comment
and Independent Scientific Review’. US EPA press
release (12/08/2011). <yosemite.epa.gov/opa/
admpress.nsf/20ed1dfa1751192c8525735900400c30/
ef35bd26a80d6ce3852579600065c94e!OpenDocument>
26 ‘Canadian authorities: Fracking operation
contaminated groundwater’. National Resource
Defence Council website (Posted December 20,
2012). <http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/amall/
canadian_authorities_leaked_fr.html>
27 Myers, Tom. ‘Potential Contaminant Pathways from
Hydraulically Fractured Shale to Aquifers’. Ground
Water 50, no. 6 (November 2012): 872–882.doi:10.1111/
j.1745-6584.2012.00933.x.<http://onlinelibrary.wiley.
com/doi/10.1111/j.1745-6584.2012.00933.x/abstract>
28 ‘Inside the Censored EPA Fracking Water Study’.
Counterpunch.org (August 06, 2013). <http://www.
counterpunch.org/2013/08/06/inside-the-censored-
epa-pennsylvania-fracking-water-contamination-study
> October 2010. <http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/
29 Jackson, R. B., A. Vengosh, T. H. Darrah, N. R. Warner,
A. Down, R. J. Poreda, S. G. Osborn, K. Zhao, and J.
D. Karr. ‘Increased Stray Gas Abundance in a Subset
of Drinking Water Wells near Marcellus Shale Gas
Extraction’. Proceedings of the National Academy
of Sciences 110, no. 28 (24 June 2013): 11250–11255.
doi:10.1073/pnas.1221635110. <http://www.pnas.org/
content/110/28/11250.full >
30 Osborn, S. G., A. Vengosh, N. R. Warner, and R. B.
Jackson. ‘Methane Contamination of Drinking Water
Accompanying Gas-Well Drilling and Hydraulic
Fracturing’. Proceedings of the National Academy
of Sciences 108, no. 20 (9 May 2011): 8172–8176.
doi:10.1073/pnas.1100682108. <http://www.pnas.org/
content/108/20/8172.long>
31 Jackson RB, et al. ‘Research and policy
recommendations for hydraulic fracturing and shale-
gas extraction’. Durham, NC: Duke University, Center
on Global Change 2011. <http://www.nicholas.duke.edu/
cgc/HydraulicFracturingWhitepaper2011.pdf>
32 ‘Wellbore Leakage Potential in CO2 Storage or EOR’.
Fourth Wellbore Integrity Network Meeting, Paris,
France. March 19, 2008. <http://www.ieaghg.org/docs/
wellbore/Wellbore%20Presentations/4th%20Mtg/19.
pdf>
33 ‘From Mud to Cement—Building Gas Wells ‘. Oilfield
review (Autumn 2003) <http://www.slb.com/~/media/
Files/resources/oilfield_review/ors03/aut03/p62_76.
pdf>
to
the endsOFtheearth
a guide To unconventional fossil fuels
34 ‘Environmental water and air quality issues associated
with shale gas development in the Northeast’.
Environmental water and air quality working group,
NYS Water Resources Institute, Cornell University.
<http://wri.eas.cornell.edu/MSARC%20Env%20
H2O%20Air%20Group%20Revised%20071012.pdf>
35 McKenzie, Lisa M., Roxana Z. Witter, Lee S. Newman,
and John L. Adgate. ‘Human Health Risk Assessment
of Air Emissions from Development of Unconventional
Natural Gas Resources’. Science of The Total
Environment 424 (May 2012): 79–87. doi:10.1016/j.
scitotenv.2012.02.018. <http://cogcc.state.co.us/library/
setbackstakeholdergroup/Presentations/Health%20
Risk%20Assessment%20of%20Air%20Emissions%20
From%20Unconventional%20Natural%20Gas%20-%20
HMcKenzie2012.pdf>
36 McDermott-Levy, By Ruth, Nina Kaktins, and Barbara
Sattler. ‘Fracking, the Environment, and Health:’
AJN, American Journal of Nursing 113, no. 6 (June
2013): 45–51. doi:10.1097/01.NAJ.0000431272.83277.f4.
<http://lgdata.s3-website-us-east-1.amazonaws.com/
docs/350/860804/Article_4.pdf>
37 Witter RZ. ‘Use of health impact assessment to
help inform decision making regarding natural gas
drilling permits in Colorado’. Glenwood Springs, CO:
Garfield County (CO) Board of County Commissioners;
2010 Oct 4. <http://www.garfield-county.com/
public-health/documents/BOCC_Draft_HIA_
Presentation_10_4_10%5B1%5D.pdf>
38 R Witter, Colorado School of Public Health. ‘Use
of Health Impact Assessment to Help Inform
Decision Making Regarding Natural Gas Drilling
Permits In Colorado’. Presentation to, Board of
County Commissioners, Garfield County (October
4, 2010). <http://www.garfield-county.com/
public-health/documents/BOCC_Draft_HIA_
Presentation_10_4_10%5B1%5D.pdf>
39 Mielke E, Anadon LD, Narayanamurti V. ‘Water
Consumption of Energy Resource Extraction,
Processing, and Conversion’. Harvard Kennedy School,
Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs.
files/ETIP-DP-2010-15-final-4.pdf>
40 ‘Statement on Preliminary Findings from the
Southwest Pennsylvania Environmental Health Project
Study’. Press Release, Concerned Health Professionals
of New York (27 Aug 2013) <http://concernedhealthny.
org/statement-on-preliminary-findings-from-the-
southwest-pennsylvania-environmental-health-
project-study/ >
41 Steinzor N, Septoff A. ‘Gas Patch Roulette, How Shale
Gas Development Risks Public Health in Pennsylvania’.
EarthWorks (Oct 2012). <http://www.earthworksaction.
org/library/detail/gas_patch_roulette_full_report#.
UwzG187xHSe>
42 Slatin, Craig, and Charles Levenstein. ‘An Energy
Policy That Provides Clean and Green Power’.
NEW SOLUTIONS: A Journal of Environmental
and Occupational Health Policy 23, no. 1 (1 January
2013): 1–5. doi:10.2190/NS.23.1.a. <http://www.
prendergastlibrary.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/
New-Solutions-23-1-Binder.pdf>
43 Draft Scoping Document for Horizontal Drilling and
High Volume Hydraulic Fracturing to Develop Shale
and Other Low Permeability Gas Reservoirs. New
York Sate Department of Environmental Conservation,
Division of Mineral Resources (Sep 2009). <ftp://ftp.
dec.state.ny.us/dmn/download/OGdSGEISFull.pdf>
44 ‘UK shale gas no “get out of jail free card”’.
Bloomburg New Energy Finance (21 February
2013). <http://about.bnef.com/press-releases/
uk-shale-gas-no-get-out-of-jail-free-card/>
45 ‘Revised Draft SGEIS on the Oil, Gas and Solution
Mining Regulatory Program (September 2011)’ New
York State Department of Environmental Conservation
(2011). <http://www.dec.ny.gov/energy/75370.html>
46 ‘How many tanker trucks does it take to supply
water to and remove waste from a horizontally
drilled and hydrofracked wellsite’. un-naturalgas.
org. <http://www.un-naturalgas.org/Rev%201%20
Truckloads+to+service+a+well+pad+-+DJC.pdf>
47 ‘Fracking and Earthquake Hazard’, British Geological
Survey website (accessed Feb 2014). <http://
earthquakes.bgs.ac.uk/research/earthquake_hazard_
shale_gas.html>
48 ‘Man-Made Earthquakes Update’ US geological
survey website (Posted on 17 Jan, 2014). <http://
www.usgs.gov/blogs/features/usgs_top_story/
man-made-earthquakes/>
49 Van der Elst, N. J., H. M. Savage, K. M. Keranen, and G.
A. Abers. ‘Enhanced Remote Earthquake Triggering at
Fluid-Injection Sites in the Midwestern United States’.
Science 341, no. 6142 (11 July 2013): 164–167. doi:10.1126/
science.1238948. <http://www.sciencemag.org/
content/341/6142/164.abstract>
50 ‘Exaggerating the Employment Impacts of Shale
Drilling: How and Why’ Multi-State Shale Research
Collaborative (Nov 2013). <http://www.multistateshale.
org/shale-employment-report>
51 Hughes D J. ‘Drill, Baby, Drill: Can Unconventional
Fuels Usher in a New Era of Energy Abundance?’. Post
Carbon Institute (Mar 2013). <http://www.postcarbon.
org/drill-baby-drill/>
52 ‘Shale Grab in U.S. Stalls as Falling Values Repel
Buyers’. Bloomberg. Accessed 25 February 2014.
<http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-08-18/shale-
grab-in-u-s-stalls-as-falling-values-repel-buyers.
html>
53 Jaramillo, Paulina, W. Michael Griffin, and H. Scott
Matthews. ‘Comparative Life-Cycle Air Emissions
of Coal, Domestic Natural Gas, LNG, and SNG for
Electricity Generation’. Environmental Science &
Technology 41, no. 17 (September 2007): 6290–6296.
doi:10.1021/es063031o. <http://pubs.acs.org/doi/
abs/10.1021/es063031o>
54 Op.Cit. (Hughes et al. 2013)
55 Ibid
56 ‘Fracking and the Shale Gas “Revolution”‘.
Global Research website. Accessed 25
February 2014. <http://www.globalresearch.ca/
fracking-and-the-shale-gas-revolution/5345815>
57 D Rogers. ‘Shale and wall street: was the decline in
natural gas prices orchestrated?’. Energy Policy Forum
(Feb 2013). <http://shalebubble.org/wall-street/>
58 ‘Technically Recoverable Shale Oil and Shale Gas
Resources: An Assessment of 137 Shale Formations
in 41 Countries Outside the United States’. U.S. Energy
Information Administration (June 2013). <http://www.
eia.gov/analysis/studies/worldshalegas/pdf/overview.
pdf>
59 ‘World Energy Resources: 2013 Survey’. World Energy
Council (2013). <http://www.worldenergy.org/
publications/2013/world-energy-resources-2013-
survey >
60 ‘China’s 2013 Shale Gas Output Rises to 200 Million
Cubic metres’. Bloomberg. Accessed 25 February 2014.
<http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-01-08/china-
s-2013-shale-gas-output-rises-to-200-million-cubic-
metres.html>
Corporate Watch
 to
the endsOFtheearth how is it extracted?
Tar sands can be extracted and processed using a
variety of techniques which can be classified as ‘surface
mining’, where the tar sands are dug out and trans-
ported for crushing and processing, or in-situ (under-
ground) techniques, where the oil is made to flow by
injecting steam, solvents and/or hot air into the sands.
In shallower deposits, surface strip mining with huge
shovels and trucks can be used. The resulting mixture
of bitumen, sand and water is then taken to a crusher.
Once broken up the bitumen is separated from water
and other materials.
Deeper deposits, below around 225ft (69m), are extract-
ed using various in-situ techniques. The most com-
monly used, Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage (SAGD)
and Cyclic Steam Stimulation (CSS) involve injecting
the deposit with steam, which heats the bitumen to
make it flow. The bitumen is then pumped out and
transported for further processing. Of the two methods,
SAGD is cheaper and has been widely adopted by the

tar sands
tar sands industry. Other in-situ processes have been
experimented with, such as using solvents instead of
steam, and Toe to Heel Air Injection (THAI), where the
bitumen is ignited underground.

Once the bitumen has been extracted and separat-

TAR SANDS OR OIL SANDS CONSIST OF A THICK,
DENSE TYPE OF OIL CALLED BITUMEN MIXED
WITH SAND, WATER AND CLAY.
ed from the sand and water it is then either diluted
with light oil or natural gas liquids to make ‘dilbit’
(diluted bitumen) which can be piped to refiner-
ies, or ‘upgraded’, where it is partially refined to
produce ‘syncrude’ (synthetic crude).

EXTRACTION REQUIRES ENORMOUS AMOUNTS OF
ENERGY AND WATER, RELEASES VAST AMOUNTS OF
GREENHOUSE GASES AND OTHER POLLUTANTS AND IS
DEVASTATING HUGE TRACTS OF BOREAL FOREST AND
WETLANDS IN CANADA.
All forms of tar sands extraction require huge
amounts of energy and water, and are highly
carbon intensive. However, in-situ processes,
which will be increasingly required to access most
of the tar sands deposits, use even more resources
than surface mining, and have resulted in oil spills
as heated, pressurised bitumen escapes into the
environment (see ‘Oil Spills’ section below).

what is it? Tar sands, also known as oil sands or bituminous sands, are a mixture of sand, water and clay
with a dense, sticky, semi-solid form of crude oil called bitumen. Although very similar in appearance, technically
bitumen is not the same as tar, which is a man made product. Bitumen needs to be heated or diluted to make it flow,
which distinguishes it from 'extra-heavy crude', another form of high density unconventional oil, the largest deposits
of which occur in Venezuela's Orinoco Belt (see 'Extra heavy oil' in 'Other Unconventional Fossil Fuels' factsheet).
Most of the world's tar sands are found in Canada where extraction is taking place on an enormous scale, with
devastating effects on the local environment and critical implications for climate change. Most of the Canadian tar
sands are in three major deposits in Northern Alberta which together cover more than 140,000 km2, an area larger
than England. In 2011, Alberta's bitumen production reached over 1.7 million barrels (270,278 m3) per day.1
Tar sands also occur in other parts of the world, with the next largest deposits in Kazakhstan and Russia. Explor-
ation and test projects have been carried out in Russia, Madagascar, Congo (Brazzaville), and Utah in the USA.

27

Upgrading and Petcoke
Tar sands require much more processing than con-
ventional crude oil to convert them into useful prod-
ucts such as petroleum. In many cases an upgrading
process, which involves taking out impurities and
adding hydrogen, takes place near to where the tar
sands are extracted. This ‘hydro-processing’ converts
the bitumen into synthetic crude, which can then be
transported to refineries for further processing.
The upgrading of tar sands produces ‘petcoke’ (pe-
troleum coke)’, a coal-like substance which is also a
by-product of oil refining. At least 15 % of bitumen (by
volume) ends up as petcoke.2 Canadian petcoke produc-
tion at upgraders in Alberta and Saskatchewan alone
(excluding petcoke produced at Canadian refineries)
was nearly 9 million tonnes in 2011. This has led to
huge stockpiles forming. At the end of 2011, 72.3 million
tonnes of petcoke was stockpiled in Alberta, an amount
that is growing by about 4.4. million tonnes a year.3
Climate change
The extraction of tar sands produces three to four times
the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of conventional oil
extraction,7 making its total lifecycle emissions (including
all emissions generated in extraction, transportation and
end use) 8% to 37% higher than conventional oil.8 These may
well be underestimates, as a full ‘well to wheels’ analysis
should include emissions from all sources, some of which,
such as methane emissions from tailing ponds, land-use
change (particularly wetlands) and the emissions from re-
fining and upgrading (particularly downstream upgrading)
are difficult to quantify and not included in some studies.
The tar sands industry has been keen to point out that it
has reduced emissions intensity (emissions per barrel).
However, these reductions are mainly from switching to
natural gas to fuel operations (which happened in the early
2000s), and it remains a highly carbon-intensive process.
Overall emissions from tar sands have actually increased
as reductions from intensity improvements are negated by
increased production rates. In addition, as surface mining
to remove the more easily accessible deposits is replaced
by in-situ extraction, with higher CO2 emissions, the car-
bon-intensity of tar sands is starting to increase again.9 10 11
Regardless of how they compare to conventional crude,
the Canadian tar sands represent a huge source of carbon
which if fully exploited would result in billions of tonnes
of CO2 being added to the atmosphere, putting us firmly
on the path to irreversible catastrophic climate change.
This has made the Canadian tar sands a major focus for
climate campaigners across the world.
28
Petcoke can be burned for energy, and it is mostly used
alongside coal in power plants and to provide energy
for cement production. However, when used as fuel it
has been estimated to produce about 7% more CO2 per
unit of energy than coal, making it a highly carbon-in-
tensive energy source.4 In addition, some pollutants,
such as heavy metals, become more concentrated in
the petcoke.5 This means that when it is used with coal
for power generation it increases the already substan-
tial toxic emissions that result from burning coal.
The increased production of petcoke from the process-
ing of bitumen and heavy oils in the last decade has led
to a sharp rise in its use in coal power stations. This has
had the effect of both making the highly polluting coal
power stations more economical to run, and further
increasing their already massive CO2 emissions.
Aside from tar sands, petcoke produced from conven-
tional oil refining is a serious global issue, and huge
volumes of it are being burned in China for energy.6
CONVENTIONAL OIL
‘SAFE’ 325 GtC
EMISSIONS LIMIT
130 GtC TAR SANDS
CONVENTIONAL GAS
264 GtC 277 GtC
If we are to reduce carbon emissions
to anything like the levels required to maintain a
reasonably habitable planet we must move away from
all forms of fossil fuel as fast as possible. Measuring
from the start of the industrial revolution (around
1750), a maximum of 500 Gigatonnes of carbon (GtC)
can be emitted to the atmosphere while still avoiding
most serious impacts and the risk of irreversible and
uncontrollable changes to the climate.12 Between 1750
and now (2014), we have already emitted about 370 GtC
leaving a limit of 130 GtC that could be further added.13
In order to stay within this limit we have to leave the
vast majority of the remaining conventional oil, coal
and gas in the ground. Estimates vary significantly,
but remaining conventional coal reserves alone are
well over 500 GtC.14
Fully exploiting the tar sands would add around
264 GtC to the atmosphere.15 Therefore developing
tar sands and releasing the enormous amounts of
carbon they contain, is absolutely incompatible
with staying below the limit outlined above.
 "The Alberta Tar Sands cover more than
140,000 km2, an area larger than England"
The tar sands and
Carbon Capture
and Storage (CCS)
Proponents of unconventional fossil
fuels often argue that with CCS technol-
ogies, these new energy sources could
be exploited at the same time as reduc-
ing greehouse gas (GHG) emissions.
However, even if the huge problems
with CCS technology are overcome
(and this currently looking extremely
unlikely), it would not change the fact
that we need to move away from all
forms of fossil fuel, conventional and
unconventional, as soon as possible.
In the most optimistic (and highly
implausible) scenario, CCS could be
used to reduce a small proportion of
emissions from fossil fuels. In reality,
the promise of CCS being implemented
in the future is being used to allow
the continued expansion of fossil fuel
production, to prevent alternatives
from being developed, and to deflect
attention away from approaches
which tackle the underlying systemic
causes of climate change and other
ecological crises. Ultimately CCS is a
smokescreen, allowing the fossil fuel
industry to continue profiting from the
destruction of the environment. (see
‘Carbon Capture Storage’ factsheet for
more information).
In particular, CCS has been cited by
tar sands companies as a means of
avoiding criticism over GHG emis-
sions. For example, Shell’s Quest
project in Alberta, Canada aims to
do precisely this. The CCS project
at Shell’s Scotford Upgrader is used
to boast about the company’s com-
mitment to the environment yet
the company nevertheless exploits
the Albertan tar sands, perhaps the
most environmentally destructive
extractive project on the planet.
Despite supposed industry enthu-
siasm for the technology, research
shows there are fundamental limits
on the GHG emissions reductions
that can be offered by using CCS in
tar sands production. This is partly
because most of the emissions
Julia Kilpatrick, the Pembina Institute
from tar sands, such as from trucks
used in mining, or waste gas from
burning natural gas, are not well
suited to CCS.16 Even the most
optimistic industry estimates have
suggested that overall reductions
from upstream operations could
be in the 10 – 30% range at only
the best locations by 2020, and 30 –
50% by 2050, whereas reductions of
around 85% would be required to
make tar sands emissions compa-
rable with the average for conven-
tional oil production.17 Considering
there are 264 Gt of carbon locked
up in tar sands, even with the most
optimistic reductions from CCS
there would still be more than
enough carbon released to easily
blow the 130 Gt remaining budget
(see climate section above). On top
of this CCS would not be ready to
be fully implemented for decades
to come, far too late to effectively
reduce emissions. With or without
CCS, tar sands development is
disastrous for the global climate.
29
 Other social and environmental issues
Water
Tar sands extraction is extremely water intensive, re-
quiring about three barrels of water to produce a bar-
rel of tar sands using surface mining techniques18 and
more than a barrel for in-situ techniques.19 Canadian
tar sands production in 2011 used around 170 million
cubic metres, 20 almost none of which can be returned
to the water cycle.21 Production of the Athabascan Tar
Sands in Canada also draws large volumes of water
from the Athabasca river basin and there are concerns
that this may already be over taxing the river system
and that there will not be sufficient water to support
future expansion.22 23
Contaminated water from tar sands production is
either pumped back underground, or stored in enor-
mous tailings lakes (‘tailings’ refers to waste material
suspended in water). These lakes now cover an area
of 176km², with an estimated 11,000 cubic metres of
contaminated water seeping from tailings lakes into
adjacent surface and groundwater each day. Liquid
tailings are expanding at a rate of 200 million litres
every day.24 The tar sands industry currently has no
plans for how to deal with liquid tailings.
Waste from tar sands production contains a number of
toxic and carcinogenic substances including naph-
thenic acids, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs),
phenolic compounds, ammonia and mercury.25 There is
strong evidence demonstrating how these substances
are entering the environment. Independent research
has found that levels of PAHs have dramatically
increased in lake sediments since the production of tar
sands began,26 and that PAHs and heavy metals such as
mercury, arsenic and lead from tar sands production
have been polluting rivers.27 Federal research has
confirmed that toxic chemicals in water from tailings
lakes are leaching into groundwater and seeping into
the Athabasca River.28
Air pollution
As well as GHG emissions, tar sands operations
produce large volumes of air pollutants. These include
nitrogen oxides and sulphur dioxide, which cause acid
rain, volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and particu-
late matter which are known to affect human health.29 30
In 2014 a study published in the Proceedings of the
Julia Kilpatrick, the Pembina Institute
Athabasca region Healing Walk
National Academy of Sciences showed that production
in the Athabasca oil sands region is leading to the
airborne emissions of levels of polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons (PAHs) one hundred to one thousand
times greater than previously thought.31
Most air pollution from tar sands production comes
from refineries used to upgrade bitumen, but other
sources, such as emissions from vehicles, also cause
significant pollution. The vast tailing lakes, where liquid
waste from operations is stored, also pollute the air, as
volatile organic compounds evaporate from the surface.
Natural gas use
Tar sands production requires a huge amount of ener-
gy, most of which is currently provided by natural gas.
In particular producing steam for in-situ techniques
such as SAGD requires a lot of gas. According to the
National Energy Board (NEB), it takes about 34 cubic
metres (1200 cubic feet) of natural gas, enough to heat
the average Canadian home for over 4 days, to produce
one barrel of bitumen from in-situ projects.32
Natural gas consumption from tar sands production
in Canada is estimated to increase to 45 million cubic
metres per day in 2015 (1.6 billion cubic feet),33 enough
to heat over 6 million Canadian homes.34 This is taking
up a significant proportion of Canada’s natural gas
supplies, and if projected increases in tar sands pro-
duction take place, nuclear power or unconventional
gas may be needed, further increasing the environ-
mental impact of tar sands extraction.

30
Pipelines
The Albertan tar sands have already resulted in huge
pipelines networks being built across Canada, with
other major pipelines such as the Keystone XL and
Energy East pipelines planned. Pipeline construction
on such a scale has a significant direct impact on the
local communities and environment, but there is also
the risk of leakages and oil spills. In Alberta, the oil and
gas industry averaged 762 pipeline failures per year
between 1990 and 2005, for a total of 12,191 failures.35
Oil spills
Oil spills occur both at the sites of tar sands extraction,
such as the spills at Cold Lake, Alta36 and along the
routes of pipelines, with devastating effects on the
local environment. The Kalamazoo tar sands disaster
in 2010, where an Enbridge pipeline carrying diluted
bitumen from the Canadian tar sands burst, was one of
the largest and costliest onshore spills in US history. It
resulted in well over a million US gallons (4.5 million
litres) of oil flowing into Talmadge Creek,37 a tributary
of the Kalamazoo River in Michigan, and cost over a
billion dollars to clean up.38
Destruction of habitats and landscape
The areas of Canada where tar sands are found are
covered in primary boreal forest and wetlands, home
to sensitive ecosystems and a wide variety of wildlife.
The Canadian boreal forests represent huge globally
significant stores of carbon, and the greenhouse gasses
released through deforestation and destruction of
peatlands for tar sands production are unlikely to
ever be recovered.39
Impact on Indigenous
(First Nations) populations
Almost all the land on which tar sands extraction is
occurring in Canada is on or near indigenous territo-
ries. This, along with associated projects such as the
Northern Gateway pipeline and Keystone XL pipelines
which also threaten indigenous lands, has seriously
threatened the cultural heritage, land, ecosystems and
health of Canadian First Nations peoples. Despite sign-
ing up to the UN Declaration of Rights of Indigenous
People’s (UNDRIP), the Canadian government rou-
tinely ignores the right of ‘Free, Prior and Informed
Consent’ (FPIC) of Indigenous People enshrined in
the declaration. Many First Nation communities have
responded with legal action and widespread protest
and resistance (see ‘Resistance’ section below).
Impact on public health
The tar sands developments in Canada have raised
various public health concerns related to water and air
pollution (see ‘Water’ and ‘Air pollution’ sections) and
worries over higher rates of rare cancers in areas pol-
luted by tar sands production. In 2006, unexpectedly
high rate of rare cancers were reported in the commu-
nity of Fort Chipewyan. In 2009, an investigation by
the Alberta Cancer Board found higher than expected
rates of biliary cancers, but said that it was not enough
to be a cause for concern and called for further mon-
itoring.45 However, the report did not investigate any
possible relationship with environmental exposures
related to tar sands production.46 Serious concerns
remain around the impact of tar sands operations on
local public health.47

False industry promises

Tar sands extraction in Canada is leaving a toxic legacy
of vast tracts of devastated habitats and huge toxic tail-
ings lakes that will last long after the companies have
left. Only a tiny percentage (0.15%)40 of the land affected
by tar sands production has been certified as reclaimed41
and the certification of ‘reclaimed’ land itself has come
under strong criticism.42 Many areas, such as boreal
forests, will never recover to their previous state.43
In addition, the reclamation of peatlands (fens or bogs)
in the Athabasca Boreal region has never been demon-
strated to be possible44 and according to the Pembina
Institute there is no demonstrated long term way to
deal with liquid tailings. Tar Sands Blockade

31
 Julia Kilpatrick, the Pembina Institute
Syncrude oilsands facility

Where and how Much?

Global oil in place: 2,511 billion barrels, natural bitu-
men reserves estimated at 250 billion barrels. 48
About 70% of the world’s tar sands reserves are in
Canada (169 billion barrels), 49 most of which can be
found in three major deposits in Northern Alberta: the
Athabasca-Wabiskaw oil sands, the Cold Lake deposits,
and the Peace River deposits. Together these cover
more than 140,000 km², an area larger than England.
Tar sands extraction in Canada is now a major indus-
try, producing 1.7 million barrels of bitumen per day
in 2011.50 However, while there are huge remaining
resources, future production is currently limited by
the country’s ability to export tar sands in crude form.
Various pipelines aimed at increasing export capacity
are in construction or planned, such as the Keystone
XL pipeline which would link the tar sands to the
refineries in the Gulf Coast of the US, and there are
plans to increase tanker exports to Asian markets by
expanding ports.
Tar sands also occur in other parts of the world, with
the next largest deposits in Kazakhstan (42 billion
barrels of bitumen reserves), and Russia (28 billion
barrels).51 Exploration and test projects have been
carried out in Russia, Madagascar, Congo (Brazzaville),
Utah in USA, and Trinidad and Tobago.

companies involved
A wide variety of companies are involved in tar sands projects, from small local producers, to multinational
‘supermajors’ such as Shell and BP. Notable tar sands companies include: Suncor Energy, Syncrude Canada,
Canadian Oil Sands Limited, Canadian Natural Resources, Shell, BP, Exxon Mobil, Connoco Philips and Total.

32
 Resistance
Albertan tar sands
First Nations Canadians have been leading the resistance to tar sands operations in
Alberta. Canada has treaty agreements that protect the First Nations people’s rights to
use the land for traditional practices such as hunting and fishing in perpetuity. Many
indigenous communities have attempted to use the courts to uphold their treaty rights
and prevent tar sands extraction. However, bills introduced by the Canadian govern-
ment, primarily aimed at expanding tar sands developments, ignored the treaties and
have prompted a huge protest movement against them. The Idle No More movement
aims for environmental protection and indigenous sovereignty and has resulted in a
wave of direct action and solidarity protests around the world.
The Keystone XL pipeline has become a major focus of protests in Canada and the US,
with widespread civil disobedience and direct action targeting the project. Campaigners
have identified it as a key strategic point of resistance, in an attempt to limit export
capacity, and therefore further expansion of tar sands in Canada. Attempts to develop
tar sands deposits in Utah, US have also been met with strong local opposition.

For more information on resistance see the Corporate Watch website (corporatewatch.org/uff/resistance)

Royal Dutch Shell, 2009

Endnotes
1 ‘Alberta Energy: Facts and Statistics’. Accessed 25
February 2014. <http://www.energy.alberta.ca/
OilSands/791.asp>
2 ‘Petroleum Coke: The Coal Hiding in the Tar
Sands’. Oil Change International (Jan 2013). <http://
priceofoil.org/2013/01/17/petroleum-coke-the-
coal-hiding-in-the-tar-sands/>
3 ‘ST39: Alberta Mineable Oil Sands Plant
Statistics -2011’. Alberta Energy Regulator (2011).
<http://www.aer.ca/data-and-publications/
statistical-reports/st39>
4 Op.Cit (Oil Change International, Jan 2013)
5 Pavone A, ‘Converting Petroleum Coke to
Electricity. 14th National Industrial Energy
Technology Conference, Houston, TX (April 22-23,
1992). <http://repository.tamu.edu/bitstream/
handle/1969.1/92212/ESL-IE-92-04-47.pdf>
ene_10110501a.pdf>
6 ‘US Exports to China Increasing Barrels of Petcoke,
9 Marc Huot, Danielle Droitsch and P.J.Partington.
a Fuel Dirtier Than Coal - Businessweek’. Accessed ‘Canadian Oilsands and Greenhouse Gas Emissions:
25 February 2014. <http://www.businessweek. The Facts in Perspective’. The Pembina Institute
com/articles/2013-12-05/us-exports-to-china- (2010) 7. <http://www.pembina.org/pub/2057>
increasing-barrels-of-petcoke-a-fuel-dirtier-
10 ‘Beneath the Surface’. The Pembina Institute (Jan
than-coal>
2013). <http://www.pembina.org/pub/2404>
7 ‘Development of Baseline Data and Analysis of Life
11 ‘Canada’s Emission Trends (2012), 24 (table 5)’.
Cycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Petroleum- Environment Canada. <http://www.ec.gc.ca/
Based Fuels’. DOE/NETL-2009/1346 (2008), 13, Publications/253AE6E6-5E73-4AFC-81B7-
table 2-4. <http://www.netl.doe.gov/energy- 9CF440D5D2C5/793-Canada%27s-Emissions-
analyses/pubs/NETL%20LCA%20Petroleum- Trends-2012_e_01.pdf>
Based%20Fuels%20Nov%202008.pdf>
12 Hansen, James, Pushker Kharecha, Makiko
8 ‘Setting the Record Straight: Lifecycle Emissions Sato, Valerie Masson-Delmotte, Frank
of Tar Sands’. Natural Resources Defense Council Ackerman, David J. Beerling, Paul J. Hearty,
(2010). <http://docs.nrdc.org/energy/files/ et al. ‘Assessing “Dangerous Climate Change”:

33
 Required Reduction of Carbon Emissions to
Protect Young People, Future Generations and
Nature’. Edited by Juan A. Añel. PLoS ONE 8,
no. 12 (3 December 2013): e81648. doi:10.1371/
journal.pone.0081648. <http://www.plosone.
org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.
pone.0081648>
13 Ibid
14 Ibid
15 See <www.corporatewatch.org/uff/carbonbudget>
16 Standing Committee on the Environment and
Sustainable Development, House of Commons,
Canada, Evidence from Graham Thomson, March 30,
2010, Extracted from 40th Parliament, 3rd Session.
<http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/
Publication.aspxDocId=4402785&Language=
E&Mode=1&Parl=40&Ses=3#Int-3071313 >
17 ‘Carbon capture and storage in the Alberta oil
sands – a dangerous myth’. Cooperative Financial
Services and WWF-UK (Oct 2009). <http://www.
co-operative.coop/Corporate/PDFs/Tar%20
Sands%20CCS.pdf >
18 ‘Water use in Canada’s oil sands’. Canadian
Association of Petroleum Producers (June
2012). <http://www.capp.ca/getdoc.
aspx?DocId=193756>
19 J Kidd. ‘Running out of steam - A Workshop on Oil
Sands Development and Water Use in the Athabasca
River Watershed: Science and Market-Based
Solutions’ Kidd Consulting (May 2007). <http://powi.
ca/wp-content/uploads/2007/05/Final-Running-
out-of-Steam-Meeting-Notes.pdf>
20 ‘Oil Sands Water Use’ Alberta Environment &
Sustainable Resource Development, Oil Sands
Information Portal (accessed January 18, 2013).
<http://environment.alberta.ca/apps/osip/>
21 Mary Griffiths, Amy Taylor and Dan Woynillowicz.
‘Troubled Waters, Troubling Trends: Technology
and Policy Options to Reduce Water Use in Oil and
Oilsands Development in Alberta’. The Pembina
Institute (2006). <http://www.pembina.org/
pub/612>
22 Mario LÓpez Alcalá, Doug Cogan, Dinah Koehler,
Yulia Reuter, Dana Sasarean. ‘Canada’s Oil Sands:
Shrinking Window of Opportunity’. RiskMetrics
Group, Ceres, (May 2010). <http://www.ceres.org/
resources/reports/oil-sands-2010>
23 ‘Canada’s Oil Sands - Opportunities and Challenges
to 2015: An Update - Questions and Answers’.
National Energy Board (last modified July 2010).
<http://www.neb.gc.ca/clf-nsi/rnrgynfmtn/
nrgyrprt/lsnd/pprtntsndchllngs20152004/
qapprtntsndchllngs20152004-eng.html>
24 ‘Losing Ground -Why the problem of oilsands tailings
waste keeps growing’. Pembina Institute (Aug 2013).
<http://www.pembina.org/pub/2470>
25 P. G. Nix and R. W. Martin. “Detoxification and
Reclamation of Suncor’s Oil Sand Tailings Ponds”.
Environmental Toxicology and Water Quality 7, no. 2
(1992)
26 Joshua Kurek, Jane L. Kirk, Derek C. G. Muir, Xiaowa
Wang, Marlene S. Evans, and John P. Smol. ‘Legacy
to
the endsOFtheearth
a guide To unconventional fossil fuels
34
of a half century of Athabasca oil sands development
recorded by lake ecosystems’. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences of the United States of
America, published online before print on January 7,
2013 (201217675). <http://www.pnas.org/content/
early/2013/01/02/1217675110.full.pdf+html>
27 Erin N. Kelly, Jeffrey W. Short, David W. Schindler,
Peter V. Hodson, Mingsheng Ma, Alvin K. Kwan and
Barbra L. Fortin. ‘Oil sands development contributes
polycyclic aromatic compounds to the Athabasca
River and its tributaries’. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
107 (2009). <http://www.pnas.org/content/
early/2013/01/02/1217675110.full.pdf+html>
28 ‘River Metals Linked to Tar Sand Extraction’ .
Nature News (Accessed 25 February 2014). <http://
www.nature.com/news/2010/100831/full/
news.2010.439.html>
29 ‘Environmental and Health Impacts of Canada’s Oil
Sands Industry’. Royal Society of Canada (2009).
<http://www.ianas.org/books/Environmental_
and_health_impacts_of_canadas_oil_sands%20
Industry.pdf>
30 ‘National Pollutant Release Inventory, 2007
Summary’ Environment Canada, section 3.1.1.1
“Criteria Air Contaminants” (accessed January 29,
2013) .<http://www.ec.gc.ca/inrp-npri/default.
asp?lang=En&n=0D743E97-1>
31 Parajulee, A., and F. Wania. ‘Evaluating Officially
Reported Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon
Emissions in the Athabasca Oil Sands Region with a
Multimedia Fate Model’. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences (3 February 2014). doi:10.1073/
pnas.1319780111. <http://www.pnas.org/content/
early/2014/01/29/1319780111>
32 ‘NEB - Energy Reports - Canada’s Oil Sands:
Opportunities and Challenges to 2015 - Questions
and Answers’ (Accessed 25 February 2014).
<http://www.neb.gc.ca/clf-nsi/rnrgynfmtn/
nrgyrprt/lsnd/pprtntsndchllngs20152004/
qapprtntsndchllngs20152004-eng.html>
33 ibid
34 A rough approximation is that 100 GJs of energy – or
2,700 cubic metres or 94,800 cubic feet of natural
gas – is required to heat a newly built average-sized
single detached home in Canada for one year (from
here: http://www.nrcan.gc.ca/energy/sources/
natural-gas/1233). 2700/365 = 7.4 cubic metres per
day. 34 per barrel / 7.4 = 4.6 days. 45 million cubic
metres per day / 7.4 cubic metres per home = 6
millions homes
35 Van Hinte, Tim, Thomas I. Gunton, and J. C.
Day. ‘Evaluation of the Assessment Process
for Major Projects: A Case Study of Oil and Gas
Pipelines in Canada’. Impact Assessment and
Project Appraisal 25, no. 2 (June 2007): 123–137.
doi:10.3152/146155107X204491. <http://commdev.
org/files/1710_file_s5.pdfIII.pdf>
36 ‘Leak at Oil Sands Project in Alberta Heightens
Conservationists’ Concerns’. NYTimes.com.
Accessed 25 February 2014. <http://www.
nytimes.com/2013/08/09/business/global/
leak-at-oil-sands-project-in-alberta-
heightens-conservationists-concerns.
html?_r=0&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1393357691-
QGkbMuiFkuI+tJEnqTQlpQ>
37 ‘EPA Response to Enbridge Spill in Michigan’. US
EPA. Accessed 25 February 2014. <http://www.epa.
gov/enbridgespill/>
38 ‘Application for a Certificate of Need for a Crude Oil
Pipeline’. Enbridge Energy (Before the Minnesota
Public Utilities Commission). Revised 16 Aug
2013. <https://www.edockets.state.mn.us/
EFiling/edockets/searchDocuments.do?meth
od=showPoup&documentId={F1B13575-3D71-
4CAA-A86A-05CE1EBBCA38}&documentTit
le=20138-90363-03>
39 Lee P and R Cheng. ‘Bitumen and Biocarbon: Land
use changes and loss of biological carbon due to
bitumen operations in the boreal forests of Alberta,
Canada’. Global Forest Watch Canada (2009), p.30
40 ‘Oilsands 101: Reclamation’. Pembina
Institute. Accessed 25 February 2014. <http://
www.pembina.org/oil-sands/os101/
reclamation#footnote1_x43kjjk>
41 ‘Reclamation Illusions in Oil Sands Country’.
Parkland Post. Accessed 25 February 2014.
<http://parklandinstitute.ca/post/story/
reclamation_illusions_in_oil_sands_country/>
42 Jennifer Grant, Simon Dyer, Dan Woynillowicz. ‘Oil
Sands Myths: Clearing the Air’. Pembina Institute,
June 2009, p.23. <http://www.pembina.org/
pub/1839>
43 Op. Cit. ‘Oilsands 101: Reclamation’. Pembina Institute
44 Op. Cit. ‘Oil Sands Myths: Clearing the Air’. Pembina
Institute, June 2009
45 ‘Fort Chipewyan Cancer Study Findings Released’.
Alberta Health Services. Accessed 25 February 2014.
<http://www.albertahealthservices.ca/500.asp>
46 Ian Urquhart. ‘Between the Sands and a Hard Place?:
Aboriginal Peoples and the Oil Sands’. Buffett Center
for International and Comparative Studies Working
Paper No. 10-005: Energy Series, Department of
Political Science, University of Alberta, November
2010, pp.9,12,13
47 ‘Alberta MD: Canada “Lying” About Tar Sands
Health Impacts’. Environment News Service.
Accessed 7 March 2014. <http://ens-newswire.
com/2014/02/27/alberta-md-canada-lying-
about-tar-sands-health-impacts/>
48 ‘Survey of Energy Resources 2010’. World Energy
Council. <http://www.worldenergy.org/
publications/3040.asp>
49 Ibid
50 ‘Alberta Energy: Facts and Statistics’. Accessed 25
February 2014. <http://www.energy.alberta.ca/
OilSands/791.asp>
51 Op. Cit. (WEC 2010)
Corporate Watch
 to
the endsOFtheearth what is it?
Coalbed methane (CBM), also known as coal-seam gas
(CSG) in Australia, refers to methane found in coal seams
(underground layers of coal, also called ‘coal beds’). It
occurs when methane is absorbed into coal and is trapped
there by the pressure from the weight of the rocks that
overlie the coal-seams. CBM is formed and trapped during
the geological process that forms coal (coalification). It is
commonly found during conventional coal mining where
it presents a serious hazard (see ‘Coal Mine Methane’
below). As well as methane, CBM is typically made up of a
few percent carbon dioxide (CO2), carbon monoxide (CO)
and nitrogen (N2) and traces of other hydrocarbons such
as propane, butane and ethane.

The amount of methane in a coal seam varies accord-

ing to the geological conditions, particularly the type
of coal and depth of the seam, with higher quality
and deeper coal containing more methane.1 CBM is

Coalbed
usually found at depths of 300-2000 metres below
ground.2 At shallower depths (less than about 300
metres) the CBM concentration tends to be very low
as the pressure is not high enough to hold the gas in
place. At greater depths, while the gas concentrations

Methane
EXTRACTING METHANE FROM COAL SEAMS
BY DRILLING LARGE NUMBERS OF WELLS.
USUALLY INVOLVES PUMPING OUT VERY
LARGE VOLUMES OF GROUNDWATER TO GET
THE GAS TO FLOW AND OFTEN INVOLVES
HYDRAULIC FRACTURING (FRACKING).
POSES A SERIOUS RISK OF GROUNDWATER
POLLUTION, AND CAUSES SIGNIFICANT
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS, PRIMARILY
THROUGH METHANE LEAKAGE.
are generally higher, the high pressures and the lower
permeability of higher quality coals (e.g. bituminous
coals and anthracite) make extraction less efficient.
Studies of the major coal-bearing basins of the world
suggest that more than 50% of the estimated CBM is
found in coals at depths below 1500 metres.3
Methane has been removed from coal mines for a long
time, but it was not until the 1980s following a tax
break in the US, that commercial production of CBM
began.4 The industry continued to expand almost
exclusively in the US and by 2000 Australia was the
only other country to have commercial production,
although on a very small scale. There is now wide-
spread CBM extraction, both from coal mines (see
Coal Mine Methane below) and from ‘stand-alone’
CBM operations, in the US, Canada, Australia and
China, and a handful of production wells in the UK.

Coal Mine Methane CBM often accumulates in the working areas of underground coal mines.
In this context, CBM is commonly referred to as coal-mine methane (CMM) and presents a serious explosive and
suffocation hazard. Miners used canaries (and later Davy’s lamps) to warn them of the presence of methane and
other dangerous gases. CMM is commonly vented into the atmosphere or flared (controlled combustion) and both
of these processes release significant amounts of greenhouse gasses (GHGs) into the atmosphere.
Increasingly CMM is being used as an energy source and is extracted in manner very similar to CBM (see below).
While the CBM industry is keen to promote this as a way of reducing GHG emissions from venting or flaring, exploit-
ing CMM results in the same environmental problems associated with CBM.

35
 "countries that have
carried out CBM activities
have experienced numerous
blow-outs, spillages
and other accidents"
how is it extracted?
To extract CBM, wells are drilled into the coal seam and
groundwater is pumped out (known as de-watering).
This reduces the water pressure within the bed, re-
leasing the methane trapped in the coal. The gas then
migrates along fractures in the coal and is pumped
out of the well. The process involves removing large
amounts of groundwater from the coal bed, especially
in the initial phases where mainly water is produced
and only small amounts of gas. About 7,200 to 28,800
gallons (27,255 to 109,020 litres) per day are initially
pumped from a coal bed methane well to release the
Coal bed methane equipment
36
methane.5 As production continues, the amount of wa-
ter extracted reduces, and the amount of gas extracted
increases until it peaks and declines. Typically a well
peaks in production after one or two years. In order to
maintain production rates from a seam more and more
wells are needed to keep the gas flowing.
There are a variety of methods used to extract the
methane, depending on the characteristics of the
coal seam being exploited. In the most permeable
seams, found at shallower depths, water is pumped
out and the gas simply flows after it. Most seams are
less permeable, and fracking or cavitation
is sometimes used to break up the coal
and allow the gas to flow more readily (see
‘Fracking’ and ‘Cavitation’ sections below).
Other technologies such as multilateral wells
(where one well exploits a number of seams)
and horizontal drilling are also utilised.
Occasionally de-watering is not required
and wells produce gas immediately. This
can be as a result of previous production
or for wells completed in coal seams where
water has been removed during mining
operations.
Although producing Coal Mine Methane
(CMM) can involve simply extracting the
gas that has accumulated in old coal mines
(in which case a CBM-air mixture is re-
covered, from which the methane can be
separated), in practice, many of the same
drilling extraction techniques used in CBM
extraction, such as fracking, are also used.
Climate change
It is sometimes argued that since burning natural gas
produces less greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions than
coal it can be used as a ‘bridging’ or ‘transition’ fuel,
replacing coal while renewable energy technologies
are developed and implemented. This argument is
used by governments and industry to promote gas
as a low carbon energy option. However, natural gas,
whether it comes from shale or conventional sourc-
es, is a fossil fuel and when it is burned it releases
significant GHG emissions. Further, as long as energy
demand increases additional sources of fossil fuels
such as coal bed methane are likely to supplement
rather than replace existing ones such as coal.
When comparing fuel types it is important to use
lifecycle GHG emissions, the total GHG emissions gen-
erated by developing and using the fuel. In the case of
CBM these include direct CO2 emissions from end-use
consumption (e.g. from burning gas in power
plants), indirect CO2 emissions from fossil fuel
derived energy used to extract, refine and
transport the gas, and methane from ‘fugitive’
emissions (leaks) and venting during well
development and production.
The gas industry is particularly reluctant to
investigate how much gas escapes as fugitive
methane emissions in the process of extract-
ing and transporting natural gas. However
various studies have found significant leakage,
and as methane is such a powerful GHG, even a
small percentage of the gas extracted escaping
to the atmosphere can have a serious impact
on the climate.
Lifecycle emissions from CBM are similar to
those of shale gas, but there are a number of
factors that could mean either slightly greater
or lower emissions. For example CBM requires
lots of wells to be drilled into the seam to
keep the gas flowing, all of which need to be
connected to a central processor. This means
additional sources of fugitive emissions from
the wells and connecting pipes. During the
initial phases when water is pumped from
the coal seam, any gas that comes out with
it is either flared (where gas is burned off) or
vented directly to the atmosphere, but there is
generally less gas flared or vented during these
initial phases than with shale gas. Fracking is
also normally used less with CBM than shale gas,
which could mean lower fugitive emissions.
An investigation by Southern Cross University into
atmospheric methane at a CBM field in Australia,
found methane levels to reach 6.9 parts per million
(ppm), compared to background levels of lower than
2 ppm outside the gas fields, suggesting significant
leakage.6 It has been estimated that leakage rates
may be as high as 4.4%.7
Methane is a powerful greenhouse gas, particularly
its short term influence on the atmosphere. This
means that if more than 3.2% of extracted methane
is lost to the atmosphere then switching from coal
to gas will result in no immediate benefits in terms
of contribution to climate change. 8
CONVENTIONAL OIL
325 GtC
‘SAFE’
EMISSIONS LIMIT
130 GtC COAL BED
METHANE CONVENTIONAL GAS
130 GtC 277 GtC
If we are to reduce carbon emissions
to anything like the levels required to maintain
a reasonably habitable planet we must move away from all
forms of fossil fuel as fast as possible. Measuring from the start
of the industrial revolution (around 1750), a maximum of 500
Gigatonnes of carbon (GtC) can be emitted to the atmosphere
while still avoiding most serious impacts and the risk of irre-
versible and uncontrollable changes to the climate.9 Between
1750 and now (2014), we have already emitted about 370 Gt
leaving a limit of 130Gt that could be further added.10
In order to stay within this limit we have to leave the vast
majority of the remaining conventional oil, coal and gas
in the ground. Estimates vary significantly, but remaining
conventional coal reserves alone are well over 500GtC.11
Exploiting the world’s CBM would add around 130
GtC to the atmosphere.12 This is a huge amount and is
clearly incompatible with staying within the limit out-
lined above. This means that rather than being part of
the solution, the development of CBM is dramatically
worsening the problem of climate change.
37
 CBM and Carbon Capture and Storage
(CCS)
Those involved in the CBM industry say it is ideally
suited for CCS, as the coal seams that hold the meth-
ane will also readily take up CO2. However in practice
technical and economic problems have prevented
the use of CCS at CBM sites. Only certain highly
permeable coal seams would be appropriate for
injecting CO2, and not all CBM sites fit this criterion.
Another problem with CCS in coal seams is the fact
that the coal expands and reduces in permeability as
it absorbs CO2, meaning that injection becomes more
and more difficult. CBM is also trapped in the coal
and held in place by water pressure rather than by a
layer of impermeable ‘cap rock’ above the seam (as
is the case with conventional gas). As CO2 dissolves
in water much more readily than methane it is less
likely to be held in place by water pressure. Injecting
CO2 into the coal seam is also used as a way to eke-out
the remaining gas (see ECBM below).
Proponents of unconventional fossil fuels often argue
that with CCS technologies, these new energy sources
could be exploited at the same time as reducing GHG
emissions. However, even if the huge problems with CCS
technology are overcome (and this currently looking
Other social and environmental issues
Fracking
Fracking, or hydraulic fracturing, is used to free
gas trapped in rock by drilling into it and injecting
pressurised fluid, creating cracks and releasing the gas.
The fracking fluid consists of water, sand and a variety
of chemicals which are added to aid the extraction
process e.g. by dissolving minerals, killing bacteria
that might plug up the well, or reducing friction.
Fracking is sometimes used in CBM extraction and
often takes place before water is pumped out from the
coal bed. This means that most of the fracking fluid
will be extracted along with the groundwater, adding
further contaminants to the waste water. In Australia
about a tenth of CBM sites have been hydraulically
fractured to date, but this expected to grow to 40% or
more, since there is a tendency to target the seams
that are easiest to exploit first. A much higher propor-
tion of CBM wells in the US are fracked.
38
extremely unlikely), it would not change the fact that
we need to move away from all forms of fossil fuel,
conventional and unconventional, as soon as possible.
In the most optimistic (and highly implausible)
scenario, CCS could be used to reduce a small proportion
of emissions from fossil fuels. In reality, the promise of
CCS being implemented in the future is being used to
allow the continued expansion of fossil fuel production,
to prevent alternatives from being developed, and to
deflect attention away from approaches which tackle
the underlying systemic causes of climate change and
other ecological crises. Ultimately CCS is a smokescreen,
allowing the fossil fuel industry to continue profiting
from the destruction of the environment. (see ‘Carbon
Capture Storage’ factsheet for more information).
Enhanced Coal Bed Methane (ECBM)
ECBM is the process of injecting CO2 into a coal seam
containing CBM in order to extract more gas. The CO2
pushes out the remaining methane, and is intended
to stay trapped in the coal. While the industry argues
that this is a way of making CCS economical, in
reality it is just a way to extract more methane [See
enhanced recovery section Other Unconventional
Fossil Fuels factsheet].
As the coal seams are generally shallower and closer
to aquifers CBM fracking poses a greater risk of
contamination than when it is used to extract shale
or tight gas and oil. Fracking can both create connec-
tions to aquifers and lead to cross-contamination
between aquifers.
There has been a great deal of controversy over the
chemicals contained in fracking fluids. In the US many
companies have resisted revealing the recipes for their
fracking mixes, claiming commercial confidentiality,
or have adopted voluntary reporting measures in order
to avoid stricter mandatory reporting requirements.
Although the specific mix of chemicals used varies
significantly, a US House of Representatives Committee
on Energy and Commerce report found 750 different
chemicals had been used in fracking fluids, including
many known human carcinogens and other toxic com-
pounds such as benzene and lead.13 Chemicals found to
 be most commonly used in fracking fluids such as methanol
and isopropyl alcohol are also known air pollutants.
A variety of chemicals are also added to the ‘muds’ used to
drill well boreholes in order to reduce friction and increase
the density of the fluid. Analysis of drilling mud has also
found that they contain a number of toxic chemicals.14 15
Water use and waste water
Aside from climate change, the main environmental
issues with CBM concern its impact on water resources.
Extracting CBM involves removing large volumes of
groundwater, and also results in large volumes of con-
taminated waste water. The contaminants in the waste
water arise both from fracking chemicals, if they have
been used, and from higher concentrations of harmful
substances naturally present in coal-seams and coal-
seam waters.
Waste water from CBM varies greatly depending on the
geology of the coal seam, with deeper seams usually
containing saltier water. It can be saline (with high con-
centrations of dissolved salt), or sodic (with high concen-
trations of sodium) or both. Highly saline or sodic waters
damage soils and affect plant growth.16
As the water is pumped out it brings along the naturally
occuring contaminants stored in the coal seam. These
can typically include heavy metals,17 radioactive materi-
al,18 and hydrocarbons,19 including carcinogenic organic
compounds.
Waste water is dealt with in a variety of ways, either
directly disposing of it into streams and rivers, discharg-
ing onto land or roads, storing in surface ‘impoundments’
and sending it to be processed, or re-injecting it into the
coal seam or the rock below. All of these disposal methods
have associated problems.
Surface impoundments are often unlined, meaning that
subsurface water can be contaminated and accidents can
lead to surface water contamination. Evaporation from
impoundments can also further concentrate pollutants in
CBM waste water.20 Disposal on land or into streams and
rivers pollutes the local environment,21 and re-injection
can lead to pollution of aquifers. Re-injection is also only
possible in certain high-porosity formations located
below saline aquifers, and risks contaminating ground
water. Treatment of the contaminated water is extremely
difficult due to the volumes involved, the salinity of the
water, and the variety of containments present, particu-
larly radioactive material.22
Effects on groundwater and aquifers
In some places coal seams are adjacent to or are
themselves important aquifers, and both pumping
out water for CBM extraction and re-injecting
waste water can seriously affect local drinking
water sources.
Extracting water for CBM production also affects
pressures and flows of surrounding groundwater
and can result in lowered water levels in aquifers,
making water more difficult or impossible to ac-
cess from wells and springs.23 Water levels several
miles away from the CBM site can be reduced
by tens of feet and levels can take years or even
decades to recover.24
The changes in water pressure can also mobilise
naturally occurring pollutants, and enable any
remaining fracking fluids to flow in to surround-
ing groundwater. Methane released in the process
can also contaminate groundwater. Research on
the health impacts on those living near CBM sites
is now starting to emerge.25 26
Well failure and methane leakage
Methane can naturally leak from coal seams into
surrounding aquifers. However, de-watering the
coal seam for CBM extraction releases the meth-
ane and significantly increases the risk of seepage
to aquifers, water wells and surface soil.27 Methane
pollutes drinking water and if it reaches soil it
displaces oxygen, killing vegetation.
Failure of CBM well casings also increases the risk
of leakage and contamination. Despite industry
claims that leakage of methane and fracking
chemicals is due to bad well design, research has
shown that some leakage is inevitable and that
fracking only exacerbates the problem.28 Wells
routinely lose their structural integrity and
leak methane and other contaminants outside
their casings and into the atmosphere and water
wells. Even research by oil services company
Schlumberger suggests half of conventional gas
wells will be leaking within 15 years.29 Failure rates
for some CBM wells could be even higher due to
fracking activities. Well failure is a problem as it
contributes to both groundwater pollution and
greenhouse gas emissions (see climate change
section for more on methane leakage rates).
39
 Cavitation
Cavitation or Open-Hole Cavity Completion involves
injecting a very high pressure foamy mixture of air
and water into the coal seam, then suddenly releasing
the pressure, causing an explosive release of coal, wa-
ter and rock from the well, a bit like shaking up a bottle
of fizzy drink and taking the lid off. The violent process
of liquid, foam and fragments of rock flowing out the
well, sometimes know as ‘surging’ can last up to fifteen
minutes and is extremely noisy. The cavitation process
is repeated dozens of times over about a two week
period,30 expanding the diametre of the initial bore
hole. It also connects the natural fractures in the coal,
creating channels for gas to flow.
Kate Ausburn 2012
Gas produced by the process is vented or flared off,
creating huge flames. Cavitation also produces signif-
icant quantities of coal and other solid waste which
Air pollution
is burned or stored on-site. Caviataion is used as an
alternative to fracking to increase permeability of coal As well as GHG emissions, CBM extraction produc-
seams, but is very unclear how frequently it is used, in es various sources of local air pollution, including
what situations and how its use is evolving with time. increased vehicle traffic, venting and flaring, and
pollutants from compressor stations. Air pollutants
from CBM operations are likely to be similar to those of
Industrialisation of countryside
shale gas extraction including BTEX (benzene, toluene,
In order to be economically viable CBM requires an ethylene and xylene), NOx (mono oxides of nitrogen),
ever expanding networking of wells, pipelines, com-
VOCs (volatile organic compounds), methane, ethane,
pressor stations and roads to be built, leading to wide-
sulphur dioxide, ozone and particulate matter.32
spread industrialisation of the countryside. Equipment
also needs to be monitored in future, meaning that
the impact will last long after the wells have stopped Subsidence
producing gas. The various stages of CBM extraction Removing large volumes of groundwater, particu-
also generate significant noise, through heavy traffic, larly from shallow aquifers, can result in significant
drilling, gas compressors and other industrial equip- subsidence at the surface. This can damage infrastruc-
ment, flaring and explosions. ture and put ground and surface water resources at
CBM operations have a very high density of wells risk. Depending on the site, removing water for CBM
(boreholes), typically varying between 1 to 3 wells extraction can cause subsidence.33 Many CBM sites are
per square kilometre.31 in former coalfield areas, where de-watering will have
significant impacts on surface stability; reactivating
old subsidence f
 aults, as well as creating new ones.
Underground fire risk Subsidence also increases the risk of fugitive emis-
The process of removing water from the coal-seams sions, creating new pathways for gasses to escape to
during CBM extraction from old or operating mines the atmosphere.
increases the risk of underground fires, as oxygen
from shafts and tunnels can replace the water and
come into contact with the coal, resulting in spon-
Accidents
taneous coal combustion. The lowering of the water Despite industry claims of it being a safe, controlled
table can also increase the fire risk to nearby seams. process, countries that have carried out CBM activities
Underground coal fires pose a serious risk of ground- have experienced numerous blow-outs, spillages and
water contamination and are also a source of signifi- other accidents.34 35These have resulted in serious
cant CO2 emissions. ground and surface water contamination.

40
Where and how Much?
Coal bed methane occurs around the world along-
side coal resources, and although it is only currently
extracted on a large scale in a few countries, it is
being rapidly adopted in other places. Extraction is
widespread in the US (over 55,000 wells), Canada (over
17,000 wells), Australia (over 5,000 wells) and China
(thousands of wells). India also began commercial
production in 2007 and now has hundreds of wells, and
there are a handful of wells in the UK. Around forty
other countries are looking into exploiting their
CBM resources.36
The global market for coal bed methane was estimat-
ed to be 2,932 billion cubic feet (bcf) or 894 billion
cubic metres (bcm) in 2010 and is predicted to reach
market volumes of 4,074 bcf (1,242 bcm) by 2018.37

1 Canada 17-92
2 Russia 17-80
3 China 30-35
4 Australia 8-14
5 US 4-11
In 2006 global 6 Ukraine 2-12
reserves were 7 India 0.85-4.0
estimated to be 143 8 Germany 3.0
9 Poland 3.0
trillion cubic metres 10 UK 2.45
(or 143,000 billion cubic
metres) by the IEA,38 with
the following countries
have the greatest reserves
(in trillions of cubic
metres):

Resistance
companies involved Coal Bed Methane operations have been met with
sustained resistance in the US and even more so in
Current major players in the industry include:
Australia, where the Lock the Gate movement has seen
Australia: QGC (BG Group), Santos, Origin land owners, community groups and environmental-
Canada: Apache, Encana, MGV ists join forces to prevent exploration and production
of CBM (known as Coal Seam Gas in Australia).
US: Pioneer, CONSOL, Williams
UK: Dart, IGas (though they are tiny compared
Lock the Gate Alliance 2012
to companies in other countries)
Other companies involved include Arrow
Energy, Baker Hughes, Far East Energy Corp,
Queensland Gas, Sydney Gas, Sinopec and
PetroChina.
Many of the well known ‘super majors’ such
as Royal Dutch Shell, ConocoPhillips, BP
and ExxonMobil are also involved in CBM
production.

For more information on resistance see the Corporate Watch website (corporatewatch.org/uff/resistance)

41
 Endnotes
1 ‘Coalbed methane development: Boon or bane for
Rural Residents’ Factsheet, Western Organization of
Resource Councils (WORC) (2003).<http://www.worc.
org/pdfs/CBM.pdf>
2 ‘World Energy Resources: 2013 Survey’. World Energy
Council (2013). <http://www.worldenergy.org/
publications/2013/world-energy-resources-2013-
survey >
3 Larry Thomas. ‘Coal Geology’ (West Sussex,
England: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.), 2002
4 Rogers, R.E. ‘Coalbed Methane: Principles and
Practice’, 345. (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey:
Prentice Hall) 1994
5 ‘Oil and Gas Production Activities’. Accessed 25
February 2014. <http://teeic.anl.gov/er/oilgas/
activities/act/index.cfm>
6 ‘Australian Scientists Find Excess Greenhouse
Gas near Fracking’. Los Angeles Times.
Accessed 25 February 2014. <http://
articles.latimes.com/2012/nov/17/world/
la-fg-wn-australia-fracking-leakage-20121116>
7 ‘Fugitive Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Coal
Seam Gas Production in Australia’. CSIRO (Feb 2013).
<http://www.csiro.au/Outcomes/Energy/Fugitive-
Greenhouse-Gas-Emissions-from-Coal-Seam-
Gas-Production-in-Australia.aspx>
8 Alvarez, R. A., S. W. Pacala, J. J. Winebrake, W. L.
Chameides, and S. P. Hamburg. ‘Greater Focus
Needed on Methane Leakage from Natural Gas
Infrastructure’. Proceedings of the National Academy
of Sciences 109, no. 17 (9 April 2012): 6435–6440.
doi:10.1073/pnas.1202407109. <http://www.pnas.org/
content/109/17/6435>
9 Hansen, James, Pushker Kharecha, Makiko Sato,
Valerie Masson-Delmotte, Frank Ackerman,
David J. Beerling, Paul J. Hearty, et al. ‘Assessing
“Dangerous Climate Change”: Required Reduction of
Carbon Emissions to Protect Young People, Future
Generations and Nature’. Edited by Juan A. Añel. PLoS
ONE 8, no. 12 (3 December 2013): e81648. doi:10.1371/
journal.pone.0081648. <http://www.plosone.
org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.
pone.0081648>
10 Ibid
11 Ibid
12 See <www.corporatewatch.org/uff/carbonbudget>
13 Chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing’. United States
House of Representatives, Committee on Energy
and Comerce Minority Staff (April 2011). <http://
democrats.energycommerce.house.gov/sites/
default/files/documents/Hydraulic-Fracturing-
Chemicals-2011-4-18.pdf>
14 Colborn, Theo et al., “Natural Gas Operations
from a Public Health Perspective.” International
Journal of Human and Ecological Risk Assessment.
September-October 2011, p. 11. <http://cce.cornell.
to
the endsOFtheearth
a guide To unconventional fossil fuels
42
edu/EnergyClimateChange/NaturalGasDev/
Documents/PDFs/fracking%20chemicals%20
from%20a%20public%20health%20perspective.
pdf>
15 ‘Toxic Chemicals in the Exploration and Production of
Gas from Unconventional Sources’. National Toxics
Network April (2013). <http://www.ntn.org.au/wp/
wp-content/uploads/2013/04/UCgas_report-
April-2013.pdf>
16 ‘The Basics of Salinity and Sodicity Effects on Soil
Physical Properties’. Accessed 25 February 2014.
<http://waterquality.montana.edu/docs/methane/
basics_highlight.shtml>
17 Atkinson, C.M. ‘Environmental Hazards of Oil and
Gas Exploration’. Report prepared for National Parks
Association NSW Inc (August 2002)
18 ‘Oil and Gas Production Wastes’. Radiation Protection.
US EPA. Accessed 25 February 2014. <http://www.
epa.gov/radiation/tenorm/oilandgas.html>
19 Fisher, J. B., A. Santamaria. ‘Dissolved Organic
Constituents in Coal-Associated Waters and
Implications for Human and Ecosystem health’.
9th Annual International Petroleum Environmental
Conference, 2002 October 22-25
20 ‘Coalbed Methane Extraction: Detailed Study Report
(4.3.2.)’. United States Environmental Protection
Agency (Dec 2010) <http://water.epa.gov/scitech/
wastetech/guide/304m/upload/cbm_report_2011.
pdf>
21 Ibid (see 4.1 to 4.3)
22 Ibid [see 3.4)
23 John Wheaton, John Metesh. Potential Groundwater
Drawdown and Recovery from Coalbed Methane
Development in the Powder River Basin, Montana.
US Bureau of Land Management (May 2003).
<http://www.mt.blm.gov/mcfo/cbm/eis/
CBM3DGWReport.pdf>
24 Ibid
25 Lloyd-Smith M, Senjen R. ‘Hydraulic Fracturing
in Coal Seam Gas Mining: The Risks to Our
Health, Communities, Environment and Climate’.
National Toxics Network [Internet]. 2011. Accessed
July 2013. <http://ntn.org.au/wp/wp-content/
uploads/2012/04/NTN-CSG-Report-Sep-2011.pdf
> – 2018’. Transparency Market Research. <http://
26 ‘Report Details Health Concerns for Residents
Affected by CSG’. Sunshine Coast Daily.
Accessed 25 February 2014. <http://www.
sunshinecoastdaily.com.au/news/report-details-
health-concerns-residents-affected-/1862076/>
27 Tim Jones ‘(draft) Wyong hydrogeological
report’. Northern Geoscience (Jan 2005).
<http://wage.org.au/documents/doc-41-
wyonghydrogeologicalreport.pdf>
28 ‘Wellbore Leakage Potential in CO2 Storage or
EOR’. Fourth Wellbore Integrity Network Meeting,
Paris, France. March 19, 2008. <http://www.
ieaghg.org/docs/wellbore/Wellbore%20
Presentations/4th%20Mtg/19.pdf>
29 ‘From Mud to Cement—Building Gas Wells ‘. Oilfield
review (Autumn 2003) <http://www.slb.com/~/
media/Files/resources/oilfield_review/ors03/
aut03/p62_76.pdf>
30 ‘Northern San Juan Coal Basin Methane Project
Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Appendix
E. “Well Field Development Activities Common
to All Alternatives,” p. E15.’. Bureau of Land
Management (June 2004)
31 Jenkins, C.D. and Boyer, C.M. ‘Coalbed- and
shale-gas reservoirs. Distinguished Author Series’.
Journal of Petroleum Technology, February Issue,
92-99, SPE 103514 (2008)
32 ‘Environmental water and air quality issues
associated with shale gas development in the
Northeast’. Environmental water and air quality
working group, NYS Water Resources Institute,
Cornell University. <http://wri.eas.cornell.edu/
MSARC%20Env%20H2O%20Air%20Group%20
Revised%20071012.pdf>
33 M.A. Habermehl. ‘Summary of Advice in Relation to
the Potential Impacts of Coal Seam Gas Extraction
in the Surat and Bowen Basins, Queensland’.
Geoscience Australia (29 September 2010).
<http://www.environment.gov.au/epbc/notices/
pubs/gladstone-ga-report.pdf>
34 ‘Contaminated-sites-and-accidents-related-
specifically-to-CSG-in-Australia’. coalseamgasnews.
org. Accessed 25 February 2014. <http://
coalseamgasnews.org/wp-content/
uploads/2012/10/Contaminated-sites-and-
accidents-related-specifically-to-CSG-in-
Australia.pdf >
35 ‘CSG Myth Busting - Lock the Gate Alliance’. Accessed
25 February 2014. <http://www.lockthegate.org.au/
csg_myth_busting >
36 ‘Coalbed Methane: Clean Energy for the World’. Oilfield
Review, Vol. 21, Issue 2 (06/01/2009). <http://www.
slb.com/~/media/Files/resources/oilfield_review/
ors09/sum09/coalbed_methane.pdf >
37 ‘Coal Bed Methane Market – Global Industry Size,
Market Share, Trends, Analysis, and Forecast, 2010
www.transparencymarketresearch.com/coal-bed-
methane-market.html>
38 IEA Clean Coal Centre 2005 <http://www.iea-coal.
org.uk/site/2010/publications-section/cct2005?>.
Corporate Watch
 to
the endsOFtheearth

what is it?
Underground Coal Gasification (UCG) is a way of
producing fuel from coal seams, generally those
that are uneconomical to extract using convention-
al mining methods because they are too thin, too
deep or too low-quality. Pairs of wells are drilled
into the coal seam. One well is used to ignite the
seam and control the flow of air, oxygen or steam,
allowing the coal to be partially burned. The other
well is used to extract the resulting gases which can
then be separated at the surface into carbon diox-
ide, water, and syngas (see below). Prior to ignition,
hydraulic fracturing (fracking), directional drilling,
or various other techniques are used to connect the
wells together and allow the gas to flow.

The syngas (an abbreviation of synthesis

Underground
gas) is made up of hydrogen, methane,
carbon monoxide, and can be directly
burned to generate electricity, or used

CoalGasification
BURNING COAL SEAMS UNDERGROUND AND
EXTRACTING THE RESULTING GAS TO USE AS FUEL.
VERY HIGH WATER CONSUMPTION,
CATASTROPHIC GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION,
AND DRAMATICALLY INCREASES ACCESSIBLE
COAL RESOURCES WITH SEVERE IMPLICATIONS
FOR CLIMATE CHANGE.
to make other fuels and chemicals such
as hydrogen, ammonia and methanol.
The process is chemically similar to
how town gas (also known as coal gas)
used to be made from coal before the
adoption of natural gas in the mid 20th
century.
Experiences with town gas should as
serve as a warning. The industry left a
legacy of highly contaminated industrial
sites around the world. The UCG process
results in similar pollutants, the main
difference being that UCG takes place
in the open environment instead of a
sealed metal chamber, increasing the
risk of contamination.

The idea of UCG has been around for a long time, and experiments have been carried out since the 1912
in the UK,1 with further experiments in the 1930s. The use of the technology peaked in the 1960s in the
Soviet Union, with up to 14 industrial-scale UCG fired power plants operating at different times between
the 1950s and 1960s. Except for the Angren plant still operating in Uzbekistan, all the USSR’s plants
were closed down by the end of the 1960s, following significant natural gas discoveries. Initially projects
exploited shallow, easily accessible coal seams, but recent technology such as directional drilling, means
that deeper and harder to reach seams can now also be accessed.

43
 Recent pilot projects have been carried out in Diagram of UCG operations
Australia, China, New Zealand, South Africa, New
Zealand, Canada and the US, and one commercial plant
has been operating in Uzbekistan (Angren) for over
40 years.2 A host of other countries are developing
projects including the UK, Hungary, Pakistan, Poland,
Bulgaria, Chile, China, Indonesia, India, and Botswana.
Most UCG projects aim to produce electricity at the
same site where extraction and gasification takes
place. There are also plans to create liquid fuels from
syngas using the Fischer-Tropsch process (so-called
‘coal to liquid’ technology – see separate factsheet).
Test projects have been plagued by accidents, and have
resulted in massive long term groundwater pollution.
The implications for climate change are disastrous,
as the technology produces large greenhouse gas
emissions and would give access to vast previously
inaccessible coal resources.

Climate change
Whether in coal power stations or using UCG, burning
coal produces more greenhouse gas emissions (GHG)
than almost any other fossil fuel. UCG is particular-
ly inefficient as energy is wasted heating the rock
surrounding the chamber where the gasification takes
place (known as the gasifier or combustion chamber).
Other processes, such as removing hydrogen sulphide
from exhaust gasses also require large amounts of
energy. Altogether around 40% of the energy from burn-
ing the coal is lost in the process.3
This wasted energy, combined with the high CO2 content
and relatively low energy content of the syngas, mean
that UCG produces large greenhouse gas emissions.
Reliable figures are difficult to find, but it has been esti-
mated that UCG would have CO2 emissions comparable
with that from a conventional coal power station.4

Damage from coal seam fire in

Glenwood springs, U.S.

"UCG projects around

the world have been
plagued with accidents,
including examples
of catastrophic
groundwater
contamination"

44
 Another issue is the amount of coal that
UCG would allow to be accessed. Global
coal resource figures vary significantly,
but it has been estimated that there are
still around 860 billion tonnes of coal
remaining that can be accessed with
conventional mining techniques,5 possi-
bly enough to last over a hundred years.
However, using UCG technologies, coal
seams that are uneconomical to mine can
be exploited, giving access to even more
coal, conservatively estimated as an extra
600 billion tonnes.6 The real figure could
be much higher, as the total global coal
resources (which includes coal that can-
not be accessed with current technology)
have been estimated to be in the trillions
of tonnes. 7
Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Proponents of UCG say that the technology is ideal-
ly suited for combination with CCS as it is relatively
easy to remove the concentrated CO2 and inject it
back into the exhausted coal seam. The argument
then goes that CO2 could be removed directly from
the UCG gas, or from the flue gas after combustion.
However, there are significant concerns over the
viability of CCS and UCG technologies, and there
are no demonstrated projects where they work in
combination.
Despite industry claims that exhausted gasifiers
would be ideal storage sites for CO2 produced during
the process, there are in fact a number of serious
problems that make them unsuitable. The expected
collapse of the rock layer above gasifier means that
the integrity of any potential ‘cap rock’ is likely to
have been compromised, allowing CO2 to escape.
High pressures and temperatures during and after
gasification may also cause fracturing and changes
in the permeability of the rock surrounding the
gasifier, creating pathways through which CO2 could
escape.11 There is also no guarantee that there is any
‘cap rock’ present above the coal-seam since, unlike
oil and gas, coal seams don’t need impermeable rock
above them to hold the coal in place.
Due to high underground pressures, UCG carried out
on deep coal seams would mean that the CO2 would
If we are to reduce carbon emissions to anything like the levels
required to maintain a reasonably habitable planet we must move
away from all forms of fossil fuel as fast as possible. Measuring
from the start of the industrial revolution (around 1750), a
maximum of 500 Gigatonnes of carbon (GtC) can be emitted to
the atmosphere while still avoiding most serious impacts and the
risk of irreversible and uncontrollable changes to the climate.8
Between 1750 and now (2014), we have already emitted about
370 GtC leaving a limit of 130 GtC that could be further added.9
In order to stay within this limit we have to leave the vast major-
ity of the remaining conventional oil, coal and gas in the ground.
Estimates vary significantly, but remaining conventional coal
reserves alone are well over 500 GtC.10
Clearly developing UCG and giving access to enormous
further coal resources, is absolutely incompatible with
staying below this limit.
have to be stored in a ‘supercritical’ fluid state (a
state in which the CO2 has the density of a liquid
but flows like a gas). If this supercritical fluid
escapes to shallower depths where pressures are
lower, the CO2 would turn into gas, leading it to
rapidly expand and become much more mobile.
This could result in a sudden release of CO2 gas to
aquifers or even to the surface. CO2 stored in the
seam is also likely to react with pollutants and
make them more mobile. It can also react with
water and ash to make carbonic and sulphuric
acid which can leach further contaminants from
the rock, and reduce the sites’ ability to store
CO2.12 Due to these and other factors, investiga-
tions into UCG have concluded that “it is consid-
ered unlikely therefore, that sequestration in an
exhausted gasifier could provide a secure long
term repository of CO2”13 and that there “remains
substantial scientific uncertainty in the environ-
mental risks and fate of CO2 stored this way”.14
CO2 storage in adjacent coal seams is also being
considered, however this would only be possible
in the highest permeability seams.
There are also numerous critical problems with
CCS itself, which remains a largely unproven
technology, especially at the enormous scale that
would be required (see CCS factsheet).
45
 Proponents of unconventional fossil fuels often argue that with CCS technologies, these new energy sources could be exploited
at the same time as reducing GHG emissions. However, even if the huge problems with CCS technology are overcome (and this
currently looking extremely unlikely), it would not change the fact that we need to move away from all forms of fossil fuel,
conventional and unconventional, as soon as possible.
In the most optimistic (and highly implausible) scenario, CCS could be used to reduce a small proportion of emissions from fossil
fuels. In reality, the promise of CCS being implemented in the future is being used to allow the continued expansion of fossil fuel
production, to prevent alternatives from being developed, and to deflect attention away from approaches which tackle the under-
lying systemic causes of climate change and other ecological crises. Ultimately CCS is a smokescreen, allowing the fossil fuel indus-
try to continue profiting from the destruction of the environment. (see ‘Carbon Capture Storage’ factsheet for more information).

Other social and environmental issues

Groundwater pollution surrounding grounwater they can eliminate the risk
of contamination, as water will flow towards the
The various UCG projects that have been carried out
gasifier rather than away from it. However, in practice
around the world have been plagued with accidents,
controlling the pressures has proven difficult, and op-
including examples of catastrophic groundwater
erating at lower pressures can result in less efficiency
contamination.15 Studies in the Soviet Union in the
and more contamination.24 The Chinchilla test site in
1960s revealed that UCG could result in widespread
Australia claimed to have prevented contamination by
groundwater contamination.16
controlling pressures, however others described it as
In the 1970s a project at Hoe Creek, Wyoming,
USA resulted in massive groundwater contami-
nation.17 Potable groundwater was polluted with James St John 2012
benzene, requiring an expensive long-term clean
up operation.18 In 2011, Brisbane based company
Cougar Energy was ordered to shut down its trial
underground coal gasification project at Kingaroy
due to environmental concerns over benzene
contamination.19
The gasification cavity is a source of both gas and
liquid pollutants that risk contaminating nearby
groundwater. These include mercury, arsenic and
selenium,20 coal tars containing phenols, BTEX (ben-
zene, toluene, ethyl benzene, xylene) and other vol-
atile organic compounds, and polycyclic aromatic
Damage from an underground
hydrocarbons (PAHs).21 22 Of particular concern are coal fire in Centralia, U.S.
benzene and phenols, as they are water soluble, can
be transported by other chemicals, and are more “rather unsuccessful”.25 In addition, during previous
likely to float upwards due to their low molecular test projects gasses escaped from the gasifier, finding
weight. Altogether, one hundred and thirty-five the paths of least resistance, and carrying liquid
compounds that might pollute the local groundwa- pollutants along with them against the direction of
ter sources near UCG sites have been identified.23 groundwater flow.26 Any large open fissures or faults,
There have been instances of contaminants being the presence of which could be impossible to predict,
forced out into groundwater due to high pres- would create emission pathways that could not be
sures in the gasifier. The industry claims that by controlled by changing the pressures. Coal seams
maintaining pressures lower than those in the typically contain many natural fractures.

46
In many demonstration projects in shallow Syngas and air pollution
seams the area above the combustion chamber
The burning of UCG syngas at the surface to pro-
collapsed, and it is assumed at deeper sites that
duce electricity is known to generate air pollution,
this will always happen. This can cause surface
including oxides of sulphur and nitrogen, hydrogen
subsidence (see below), but also creates fractured
sulphide, particulates and heavy metals such as
pathways around the collapsed chamber for
mercury and arsenic.28 The syngas also contains
contaminants to leak into the groundwater. There
contaminants which create problems for processing
is also the possibility of so called ‘cross contami-
and transportation. These contaminants include
nation’ where already poor quality groundwater
dust, soot and tars which can clog up pipes and
around the coal seam can flow to good quality
equipment; oxygen, from air or poor combustion
ground water areas due to the changes in rock
control, which can potentially result in explosive
structures and water pressures caused by the UCG
mixtures; chlorine and chlorine compounds which
process. Another issue is the fact that the heat
can corrode equipment.29
generated by gasification causes groundwater
above the gasifier to rise, carrying contaminants
with it. Subsidence
As the reaction burns through the coal seam in the
The contaminated ash left in the exhausted coal
gasification chamber, it leaves a hole behind it filled
seam will remain there more or less indefinitely,
with ash. The roof area directly above this hole usu-
meaning that it is a potential source of groundwa-
ter contamination decades or even centuries after ally collapses, which can result in subsidence at the
gasification. Due to the depth of the coal seams surface, potentially damaging roads and buildings.
where most UCG would be likely to take place it The risk and extent of surface subsidence is greater
would also be extremely difficult to deal with any the shallower the exploited coal-seam is, the larger
water contamination problems. the dimensions of the combustion chamber are
and the weaker the rock is above the coal-seam.
Underground and resulting surface subsidence can
Water consumption, also affect the drainage patterns of surface water,
waste and surface water the movement of ground water, with the potential
Several aspects of the UCG process (such as initial to increase contamination, and can damage UCG
mining, operation, then flushing and venting once injection and production wells.
gasification has finished) require injecting and ex-
tracting water from the gasifier. This means that Rueter
the process consumes large volumes of water and
produces large volumes of contaminated water.
Waste water will vary significantly in terms of the
contaminants present, as different coal seams and
different stages of the process will generate differ-
ent pollutants. This makes treating the waste
water particularly difficult.
There is also the risk of surface spillage from
waste water storage facilities and transportation,
and pollutants being released to the environment
due to accidents at the site. In Australia, Carbon
Energy was charged in 2011 with not reporting a
series of “very serious” incidents involving spills
and disposal of waste water.27
A burning coal seam

47
 Explosions and accidents
The high temperature and pressure flammable gases
created by UCG, along with the blockages which can
result from tar and soot contaminants mean there
is the potential for explosions. This happened at the
European UCG trial in Thulin, Belgium (1979-87),
intended to test the feasibility of UCG on deeper coal
seams. The trial had to be halted after one of the
supply tubes to the burner became blocked leading
to an underground explosion which damaged the
injection well.30 In 1984, another test project in
France was stopped due to tar and particles blocking
the production well.31
During tests in the 1990s in Spain, an attempt to
restart a UCG operation caused the accumulation
of methane underground resulting in an explosion
which damaged the production well.32 The injection
and production wells are also prone to being dam-
aged, as the gasification process results in extreme
temperatures and pressures, and creates (as dis-
cussed above) cavities that are likely to collapse and
compromise the integrity of the wells.
Scale
UCG plants produce a relatively small amount of
power. The European trial in Tremedal, Spain in
the 1990s only sustained gasification for a few days
48
at a time, and briefly peaked to produce gas with
the equivalent of 8 Mega Watts (MW)of power.33
Eskom’s trial project in South Africa has a similar
output of about 9 MW.34 A small coal fired power
station produces well over a hundred times this
much power and gets through as much coal in a
day as many of the test projects burned in a year.
Taking into account the energy lost from produc-
ing and burning the syngas, this means hundreds,
possible even thousands of UCG plants could be
required in order to replace just one coal power
station. Considering the greenhouse gas emissions
and the impact on groundwater resources experi-
enced in test projects, scaling up UCG technology
to provide a significant proportion of our energy
would have a devastating impact on local environ-
ments and the global climate.
Industrialisation of countryside
UCG sites also require industrial equipment at the
surface including drilling rigs, wellheads, connect-
ing pipework, and plants for handling and process-
ing the injection and production gases. As opera-
tions continue, additional wells and pipelines will
be required, progressing further away from surface
plants to access new coal supplies. There will also
be a substantial increase in traffic volumes, in
order to transport equipment and waste.
Damage from an underground
coal fire in Centralia, U.S.
 Uncontrolled burns
Coal seams sometimes start burning naturally as a
result of lightning, forest fires or spontaneous com-
bustion following exposure to oxygen in air. These
fires can continue to burn for decades or even cen-
turies. When close to the surface, oxygen from the
atmosphere fuels the fire, with subsidence from the
burning seam often providing more air as the burn
continues. In uncontrolled burns at greater depths,
such as old deep coal mines, the oxygen usually
Where, how Much and Who?
In recent years there has been renewed interest
in UCG. There are about 30 projects using un-
derground coal gasification in various phases of
preparation in China and the Indian government
has plans to use UCG to access the country’s huge
remaining coal reserves.36
South African companies Sasol and Eskom both
have UCG pilot facilities that have been operating
for some time. In Australia, Linc Energy has the
Chinchilla site, which first started operating in 2000.
Demonstration projects and studies are also cur-
rently under way in the USA, Western and Eastern
Europe, Japan, Indonesia, Vietnam, India, Australia
and China.37 The Chukotka autonomous district in
Russia’s Far East looks set to be the first place in the
country to implement the technology,38 and Eon has
signed a memorandum of understanding with the
For more information on resistance see the Corporate Watch website (corporatewatch.org/uff/resistance)
comes from ventilation shafts. Coal seam fires can
have serious consequences. For example, in Centralia,
Pennsylvania, US an uncontrolled mine fire beneath
the borough that has been burning since 1962 has
resulted in the population dwindling from over 1,000
residents in 1981 to 10 in 2010.35
Even with UCG of deeper coal seams there is a risk of
uncontrolled burns as forgotten mine shafts, bore-
holes, damaged wells or geological faults could provide
a source of air
Hungarian government to develop UCG projects.
In the UK Cluff Natural Resources have plans to
implement the first UK UCG site in Warwickshire.
Another UK company, Clean Coal Ltd, had planned
to carry out the first UK test project under Swansea
Bay in Wales.
Other notable companies around the world in-
volved in the development of UCG include: Swan
Hills Synfuels in Alberta, Virginia, USA, Santos in
New South Wales, Australian and Carbon Energy
and Portman Energy which have developed UCG
techniques.
In addition, the Underground Coal Gasification
Association,39 an industry membership organisa-
tion, has been playing a key role in promoting the
technology.
49
 Endnotes
1 Klimenko, Alexander Y. ‘Early Ideas in
Underground Coal Gasification and Their
Evolution’. Energies 2, no. 2 (24 June 2009):
456–476. doi:10.3390/en20200456. <http://
www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/2/2/456>
2 ‘Viability of Underground Coal Gasification
with Carbon Capture and Storage in Indiana’.
School of public and environmental affairs,
Indiana University (2011). <http://www.
indiana.edu/~cree/pdf/Viability%20of%20
Underground%20Coal%20Gasification%20
Report.pdf>
3 ‘European UCG case study’. UCGP training
course March 2011, UCG Partnership (2011).
<http://repository.icse.utah.edu/dspace/
bitstream/123456789/11029/1/European%20
UCG%20Case%20Study%20MBGreen2011.
pdf>
4 Laughlin K and Summerfield I. ‘Environmental
Impact of Underground Coal Gasification’. Report
prepared by the CRE Group Ltd for the Coal
Authority (2000)
5 ‘Survey of Energy Resources 2010’. World
Energy Council. <http://www.worldenergy.
org/publications/3040.asp>
6 ‘Survey of Energy Resources 2007’. World
Energy Council (2007). <http://www.
worldenergy.org/publications/survey_of_
energy_resources_2007/coal/634.asp>
7 ‘Resources to Reserves 2013’. International
Energy Agency (2013). <http://www.iea.org/
Textbase/npsum/resources2013SUM.pdf>
8 Hansen, James, Pushker Kharecha,
Makiko Sato, Valerie Masson-Delmotte,
Frank Ackerman, David J. Beerling, Paul
J. Hearty, et al. ‘Assessing “Dangerous
Climate Change”: Required Reduction of
Carbon Emissions to Protect Young People,
Future Generations and Nature’. Edited
by Juan A. Añel. PLoS ONE 8, no. 12 (3
December 2013): e81648. doi:10.1371/journal.
pone.0081648. <http://www.plosone.org/
article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.
pone.0081648>
9 Ibid
10 Ibid
11 ‘CCTR Basic Facts File # 12 - Underground Coal
Gasification’. Indiana Center for Coal Technology
Research (Oct 2008). <http://www.purdue.
edu/discoverypark/energy/assets/pdfs/cctr/
outreach/Basics12-UCG-Oct08.pdf>
12 Ibid
13 ‘Review of Environmental Issues of Underground
Coal Gasification’. UK Department of Trade and
Industry, Report No. COAL R272 DTI/Pub URN
04/1880 (November 2004). <http://webarchive.
to
theendsOFtheearth
a guide To unconventional fossil fuels
50
nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http:/www.dti.
gov.uk/files/file19154.pdf>
14 Friedmann, S. Julio, Ravi Upadhye, and
Fung-Ming Kong. ‘Prospects for Underground
Coal Gasification in Carbon-Constrained World’.
Energy Procedia 1, no. 1 (February 2009):
4551–4557. doi:10.1016/j.egypro.2009.02.274.
<http://wenku.baidu.com/view/
a76810f64693daef5ef73dc2.html >
15 Kapusta, Krzysztof, and Krzysztof Stańczyk.
‘Pollution of Water during Underground
Coal Gasification of Hard Coal and Lignite’.
Fuel 90, no. 5 (May 2011): 1927–1934.
doi:10.1016/j.fuel.2010.11.025. <http://www.
sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/
S001623611000640X>
16 Liu Shu-qin, Li Jing-gang, Mei Mei and
Dong Dong-lin. ‘Groundwater Pollution from
Underground Coal Gasifiacation’. Journal of
China University of Mining & Technology 17, 4
(2007)
17 Shafirovich, Evgeny, and Arvind Varma.
‘Underground Coal Gasification: A Brief Review
of Current Status’. Industrial & Engineering
Chemistry Research 48, no. 17 (2 September
2009): 7865–7875. doi:10.1021/ie801569r. <http://
pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ie801569r>
18 ‘Fire in the Hole’. Science and Technology
Review, April 2007. Accessed 26 February
2014. <https://www.llnl.gov/str/April07/
Friedmann.html>
19 ‘Cougar Energy to Drop Law Suit against
Government’. ABC News (Australian
Broadcasting Corporation). Accessed 26
February 2014. <http://www.abc.net.au/
news/2013-07-27/energy-company-to-drop-
law-suit-against-government/4847704>
20 Liu, S, Y Wang, L Yu, and J Oakey. ‘Volatilization
of Mercury, Arsenic and Selenium during
Underground Coal Gasification’. Fuel
85, no. 10–11 (July 2006): 1550–1558.
doi:10.1016/j.fuel.2005.12.010. <http://www.
sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/
S0016236105004904>
21 ‘Environmental Issues in Underground Coal
Gasification (with Hoe Creek example)’.
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (under
the auspices of the U.S. Department of Energy).
<http://fossil.energy.gov/international/
Publications/ucg_1106_llnl_burton.pdf>
22 Smoliński, Adam, Krzysztof Stańczyk, Krzysztof
Kapusta, and Natalia Howaniec. ‘Chemometric
Study of the Ex Situ Underground Coal
Gasification Wastewater Experimental Data’.
Water, Air, & Soil Pollution 223, no. 9 (22
September 2012): 5745–5758. doi:10.1007/s11270-
012-1311-5. <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/
pmc/articles/PMC3487001/>
23 Stuermer, D.H., J.N. Douglas, and C.J. Morris.
‘Organic contaminants in groundwater near
an underground coal gasification site in
northeastern Wyoming’. Environmental Science
and Technology 16: 582-587 (1982)
24 Op cit ‘Review of Environmental Issues of
Underground Coal Gasification’. UK DTI (Nov
2004)
25 Coal Insights, vol.6 iss.8 (28 Mar 2012). <http://
ezines.mjunction.in/coalinsights/28032012/
pdf/pagetemp.pdf >
26 Op cit ‘Review of Environmental Issues of
Underground Coal Gasification’. UK DTI (Nov
2004)
27 ‘Carbon Energy Fined Over UCG Spill’. Accessed
26 February 2014. <http://www.brisbanetimes.
com.au/queensland/charges-laid-over-ucg-
spill-20110712-1hbvu.html>
28 Op. Cit. ‘Review of Environmental Issues of
Underground Coal Gasification’. UK DTI (Nov
2004)
29 ‘Underground Coal Gasification (UCG), its
Potential Prospects and its Challenges’.
Duncan and Seddon Associates. <http://www.
duncanseddon.com/underground-coal-
gasification-ucg-potential-prospects-and-
challenges/>
30 Op. Cit. (‘European UCG case study’ 2011)
31 Op Cit. (‘Viability of Underground Coal
Gasification with Carbon Capture and Storage in
Indiana’ 2011)
32 Op. Cit. (Shafirovich and Varma 2009)
33 Op. Cit. (‘European UCG case study’ 2011)
34 ‘South Africa’s Eskom Unveils Ambitious UCG
Plans’. www.worldfuels.com. Accessed 26
February 2014. <http://www.worldfuels.com/
wfExtract/exports/Content/de47011b-2bd5-
43ef-ba29-8b42fca895f4.html>
35 ‘Profile of General Population and Housing
Characteristics: 2010: 2010 Demographic
Profile Data’. U.S. Census Bureau. Retrieved 26
February 2013. <http://factfinder2.census.gov/
faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.
xhtml?src=bkmk>
36 Op. Cit. [WEC 2013]
37 Op. Cit. [WEC 2013]
38 ‘Russia’s First Coal Gasification Project Could
Begin in Chukotka’. The Moscow Times.
Accessed 26 February 2014. <http://www.
themoscowtimes.com/news/article/russias-
first-coal-gasification-project-could-begin-
in-chukotka/484534.html>
39 <http://www.ucgassociation.org/>
Corporate Watch
 to
the endsOFtheearth
what is it?
Sometimes known as “the rock that burns”, oil shale
is sedimentary rock that is rich in kerogen, a solid
tar-like material, which becomes a liquid when heated.
It can be burned in its rocky form straight from the
ground, or oil and gas can be extracted using a process
called ‘retorting’. This is done either after the oil shale
has been mined, where it is crushed up and refined, or
‘in-situ’ (in place) underground by directly heating the
deposit and extracting the resulting liquid, which then
requires further processing. The ‘oil’ produced from
oil shale, sometimes referred to as synthetic crude,
synfuel or shale oil (see below) is of lower quality and
contains less energy than conventional crude oil.
Global resources are estimated at 4.8 trillion barrels.1

Oil shale has been used as a fuel for thousands

of years, initially burned directly as a source of

Oilshale
heat and later to produce steam and electricity.
It was not until the mid 19th century in France
and Scotland that it was used to produce oil on an
industrial scale. As crude oil extraction increased
after the Second World War, oil shale became
less attractive as a fuel source. Production of
synthetic crude from oil shale peaked following
OILY ROCK THAT CAN BE BURNED, OR the 1973 oil crisis and then fell sharply. It is only
recently, with high oil prices, increasing scarcity
PROCESSED TO PRODUCE A LIQUID FUEL. of conventional crude, and countries’ increasing
concern over energy security, that there has been
EXTREMELY INEFFICIENT AS A FUEL, RESULTS a resurgence in interest in oil shale.
IN VERY HIGH GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Oil shales vary significantly in terms of the
AND SERIOUS WATER POLLUTION. quantity of kerogen and the other substances
they contain, some of which can be commercially
extracted along with the oil shale. Uranium, vana-
dium, zinc, alumina, phosphate, sodium carbon-
ate minerals, ammonium sulphate, and sulphur
are all sometimes found in oil shales.2
Oil shale or shale oil?
Confusingly, ‘shale oil’ can refer to the liquid fuel extracted from ‘oil shale’ by heating it (this was always the
traditional meaning of the term), or to oil extracted from shale rock using techniques such as fracking. The second
definition began being used when the US boom in shale gas resulted in shale formations also being exploited for
oil (see separate ‘Shale Oil’ factsheet for more information). A great deal of confusion and disagreement persists,
but many have started to use the term ‘tight oil’ to refer to oil extracted from shale formations using horizontal
drilling and fracking. Even more confusingly, the term ‘oil shale’, which usually means the oily rock rich in kero-
gen being discussed in this factsheet, is also sometimes used to refer to shale formations which contain oil.
Baffled? Well, you’re not alone!

51
 Shell’s experimental freeze
wall oil shale installation

creates large amounts of solid waste (the shale actually

how is it extracted?
Oil shale can be burned in its rocky form, or can be
processed, to produce a form of oil. This processing
can either be done after the oil shale has be mined, or
can take place underground using in-situ techniques.
The raw oil shale is usually extracted using surface
mining techniques, such as open pit or strip mining,
but underground mining can also be used. When
burned directly, oil shale is usually used to generate
electricity. In Estonia, which has by far the most devel-
oped oil shale industry, 90% of the country’s electricity
is provided by oil shale fuelled power stations.3
expands during the processing, meaning there is more
volume of waste than was dug out the ground).4
Various techniques have either been experimented
with or considered for underground in-situ retorting.5
Methods of heating include placing gas powered fuel
cells below the oil shale to heat it; drilling into the
deposit and injecting it with super-heated air, steam
or gas; using electrical resistance heaters; and heating
using radio or microwaves which can penetrate into
the deposit instead of slowly heating from the outside.
The heating process usually takes a number of years
before the liquid can be extracted.

However, currently the most financially attractive Many methods of in-situ extraction also require
feature of oil shales is that they can be used to produce breaking up the oil shale to allow fluids to flow more
liquid fuel.
There are a variety of ‘sur-
face retorting’ techniques
Wikipedia user: PjotrMahh1 2005

used to extract liquid after

mining. These involve
crushing up the mined oil
shale, heating it to around
450°C which converts the
kerogen into liquid which
is then removed and pro-
cessed. Surface retorting
methods have been around
for a long time and are
currently used on a com-
mercial scale in various
countries including China
and Estonia. Surface retort-
ing results in high green-
house gas emissions, uses
large amounts of water and An oil shale excavator

52
easily. Some include the use of ‘fracking’ (hydrau-
lic fracturing), explosives, or partially mining the
deposit (in the 1960s, nuclear explosions were even
considered as a way of breaking up the oil shale!).
Fracking is a controversial technology also used in
shale gas extraction, which involves drilling into rock
and injecting pressurised fluid, creating cracks that
allow trapped gasses and liquids to flow. The fracking
fluid consists of water, sand and a variety of chem-
icals which are added for various purposes, such as
dissolving minerals, killing bacteria that might plug
up pipes and wells, or reducing friction.
Other proposed methods of in-situ extraction include
mining into the deposit then setting off explosives to
turn the oil shale to rubble (known as rubblisation),
then igniting part of the deposit and using the heat to
convert kerogen into synthetic crude which is then
extracted. Nuclear reactors have also been proposed
as a heat source.6
Climate change
The amount of CO2 produced from using oil shale for
energy varies significantly depending on composi-
tion of the oil shale, the method of extraction and
how it is used to generate energy. However, regard-
less of the deposit exploited or method used, oil shale
is a highly greenhouse gas intensive energy source.
A major problem with using oil extracted from oil
shale as an energy source is the amount of energy
input needed in order to get energy out (known as
Energy Return On Investment or EROI). A 1984 study
estimated the EROI of the various known oil shale
deposits as varying between 0.7–13.3;7 The World
Energy Outlook 2010 estimated the EROI of ex-situ
processing as around 4 to 5 and in-situ processing as
low as two.8 The true value could be even lower: a
review by Western Resource Advocates found that
the most reliable studies, which include self-energy
(energy released by the oil shale conversion process
that is used to power that operation), suggest an EROI
for liquid fuel from oil shale between one and two,
but could not guarantee that it was greater than one.9
These all compare badly with current conventional
oil and wind energy which both have an EROI of
about 25.10 11 Whatever the exact figure, it is clear
that oil shale is an extremely inefficient fuel source.
Shell have also been experimenting with a ‘freeze
wall’ technology, in which chilled liquid is circulat-
ed through a system of pipes, freezing water in the
surrounding rock to form a wall of ice. This freeze wall
is intended to both keep groundwater away from the
area where retorting takes place, and to stop pollut-
ants from the process contaminating groundwater.
Oil shale gas is also produced during retorting and
can be either separated and sold off, used as a fuel to
provide heat for retorting, or heated and injected un-
derground to convert kerogen to liquid during in-situ
retorting.
Many of these techniques have been demonstrated on
small scale test sites. However, experiments have been
plagued with difficulties and there is currently no
in-situ oil shale extraction taking place on a commer-
cial scale. So far it has simply proven to be too difficult,
too expensive and too environmentally damaging.
Part of the reason for the low EROI values for liquid
fuels derived from oil shale is that kerogen is like an
immature form of crude oil, and it requires signif-
icant further processing (particularly heating) to
make up for the final stage of geological processing
that produces oil.
Burning mined oil shale directly to generate elec-
tricity produces significantly higher amounts of CO2
than conventional fossil fuels. Using current meth-
ods it produces about one and a half the CO2 per
unit of energy of coal, and even with technological
improvements would still result in the same green-
house gas emissions as coal.12 One reason for this is
that oil shales contain a relatively small proportion
of useful fuel (organic material) and carbonate in
the oil shale is also burned which adds to the CO2
produced without providing more energy.
Extracting liquid fuel from oil shale also results in
large amounts of CO2 emissions. A recent study of
the full lifecycle carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions
from oil shale derived liquid fuels estimated them to
be 25 to 75% higher than those from conventional
liquid fuels, depending on the process used.13 The
various sources of greenhouse gas emissions include
53
 generating heat for retorting, high
temperature decomposition of carbon-
ates, methane release and upgrading
and refining of the shale oil crude.14
The oil shale industry claims that new
in-situ retorting methods will reduce
greenhouse gas emissions, however
the main sources of emissions will
remain, and some methods even
create additional sources, such as
the huge amount of energy required
to create the refrigerated barrier in
Shell’s ‘freezewall’ method. It has
been estimated that the full-fuel-cycle
emissions for fuels derived using the
Shell process are 21%-47% larger than
those from conventionally produced
petroleum-based fuels.15
Regardless of how oil shales compare
to coal or conventional oil as an energy
source, they represent a vast source
of carbon which we cannot afford to
develop.
If we are to reduce carbon emissions to anything like the levels
required to maintain a reasonably habitable planet we must move
away from all forms of fossil fuel as fast as possible. Measuring
from the start of the industrial revolution (around 1750), a
maximum of 500 Gigatonnes of carbon (GtC) can be emitted to
the atmosphere while still avoiding most serious impacts and the
risk of irreversible and uncontrollable changes to the climate.16
Between 1750 and now (2014), we have already emitted about
370 GtC leaving a limit of 130 GtC that could be further added.17
In order to stay within this limit we have to leave the vast majority
of the remaining conventional oil, coal and gas in the ground.
Estimates vary significantly, but remaining conventional coal
reserves alone are well over
500 GtC.18
CONVENTIONAL OIL
‘SAFE’ 325 GtC
EMISSIONS LIMIT
130 GtC OIL SHALE
CONVENTIONAL GAS
295 GtC
277 GtC
Exploiting the world’s oil shale would add
around 295 GtC to the atmosphere.19 This is an enormous
amount and is absolutely incompatible with staying below
the limit outlined above.

Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)

There have been investigations into the possiblity of using waste ash from oil shale
fuelled power stations to store CO2. However, even if it works the proportion of CO2
emissions absorbed would be small (10 – 11%) and it would still be an extremely carbon
intensive energy source.20

Proponents of unconventional fossil fuels often argue that with CCS technologies, these new energy
sources could be exploited at the same time as reducing GHG emissions. However, even if the huge
problems with CCS technology are overcome (and this currently looking extremely unlikely), it
would not change the fact that we need to move away from all forms of fossil fuel, conventional
and unconventional, as soon as possible.
In the most optimistic (and highly implausible) scenario, CCS could be used to reduce a small pro-
portion of emissions from fossil fuels. In reality, the promise of CCS being implemented in the future
is being used to allow the continued expansion of fossil fuel production, to prevent alternatives
from being developed, and to deflect attention away from approaches which tackle the underlying
systemic causes of climate change and other ecological crises. Ultimately CCS is a smokescreen,
allowing the fossil fuel industry to continue profiting from the destruction of the environment.
(see ‘Carbon Capture Storage’ factsheet for more information).

54
Other social and environmental issues
Water consumption
Although estimates of the exact amounts vary widely,
producing liquid fuel from oil shale requires a lot
of water. Using surface retorting requires between
about 2 and 5 barrels of water for every barrel of oil
produced.21 For in-situ methods the amount of water
required is anywhere between 1 and 12 barrels per
barrel of oil.22
When you consider that globally there are trillions of
barrels of oil shale resources, that adds up to a lot of
water being used.
In 2002, in Estonia, where oil shale provides 90% of
the country’s electricity,23 the oil shale-fired power
industry used 91% of the total water consumed in the
country.24
In addition to water directly consumed during
operations, underground oil shale mining could also
disrupt groundwater flow, as large volumes of water
will need to be extracted, potentially reducing water
levels in shallow aquifers. The heat required for
in-situ extraction is also likely to disrupt groundwa-
ter flows, and hot gases escaping during the process
could fracture the rock and create new pathways for
water (and contaminants) to flow.
Kiviõli Oil Shale Processing & Chemicals
Plant in ida-Virumaa, Estonia
"In 2002, in Estonia, the oil
shale-fired power industry
used 91% of the total water
Water contamination
Oil shale extraction and processing involves seri-
ous risk of water contamination. For mining and
surface retorting, this is mainly a result of the used
oil shale left after it has been retorted. The waste
shale contains various salts and toxic substances
such as arsenic and selenium.25 This is often used
to fill the space left after mining (see waste section
below). As groundwater comes into contact with
spent shale it can leach out the contaminants,
polluting the water. Research in China found
evidence of soil and groundwater contamination
by heavy metals and carcinogenic hyrdocarbons
which were traced back to an oil shale waste site.26
Other potential sources of water pollution from
mining and surface retorting include mine drain-
age, discharges from surface operations associated
with solids handling, retorting, upgrading, and
plant utilities. Oil shale processing results in waste
waters that contain phenols, tar and several other
toxic substances.27
There is a lack of research into effects of in-situ oil
shale production on groundwater, however water
pollution is a serious concern. The heat from the
process will create and release contaminants from
consumed in the country"
55
 the surrounding rock and as a result retort waters Industrialisation of countryside
are likely to have high concentrations of soluble Oil shale is often found in remote areas without
organic materials, along with very high concentra- existing major roads and pipelines, and signifi-
tions of ammoniacal nitrogen, alkalinity, chlorides, cant new infrastructure would accompany any
and sulfates.28 Past studies have found that in-situ oil shale extraction operations. Surface facilities
production processes could leak contaminated would be required for upgrading, storage and
water into adjacent aquifers and surface water.29 30 31 transportation. Roads, power plants, power
distribution systems, pipelines, water storage
Air pollution and supply facilities, construction staging areas,
Oil shale operations, (mining, burning, refining hazardous materials handling facilities, and
etc.) can result in a variety of air pollutants. These various other buildings would also be required.
can include hydrogen sulphide, sulphur oxides, In addition there would be significant impact
nitrogen oxides, particulates, ozone precursors, on the landscape from associated surface and
and carbon monoxide.32 Small amounts of other underground mining. As an example, if quarried
pollutants may also be produced, such as arsenic, in open pits, a single full scale processing plant
mercury, cadmium and selenium compounds.33 with an output of 100 000 barrels per day, would
To take the example of Estonia again, in 2002, 97% require a mining operation similar in size to the
of air pollution came from the power industry, largest of the vast brown-coal mines in Germany.38
the vast majority of which is fuelled by oil shale.34 Using in-situ methods still has widespread and
In short, if the oil shale industry were to be devel- serious impacts. The landscape would be dotted
oped on a global scale it would create serious with wells, heating holes and installations
and widespread local air pollution problems. which will be in operation for 15 to 25 years.39
Wells would have to be drilled close to each
Other waste other, and each would have to be connected to
Oil shale production creates large amounts of a treatment plant by a network of pipelines.
solid waste. Burning oil shale produces toxic ash, It has been estimated that 15 to 25 heating
which is sometimes partially ‘backfilled’ into the holes per acre (per 0.004 square kilometres)
cavity that it was mined from, risking groundwater would be required for in-situ production.40
contamination. Surface re-
torting also produces large
volumes of waste, according
to the European Academies
Science Advisory Council
(EASAC) producing a barrel
of shale oil can generate 1.5
tons (1.4 tonnes) of spent
shale, which occupies 15 -
25% greater volume than
the original shale, due to
‘popcorn’ like expansion
during the process.35
Waste material can include
several pollutants including
sulfates, heavy metals, and
polycylic aromatic hydro-
carbons (PAHs), some of
which are carcinogenic.36 37 Oil shale

56
Where and how Much?
There is a well developed oil shale industry in Estonia,
which currently consumes the majority of the world’s
oil shale production to generate electricity. Many are
also trying to profit from exporting this expertise
to other countries. Oil shale is also exploited on an
industrial scale in China (which is rapidly expanding
its capacity), Brazil and to a lesser extent in Russia,
Germany and Israel. By far the largest deposits are
found in the US, with one deposit alone, the Green
River formation, containing the equivalent of 3 trillion
barrels of oil, over 60% of the total oil shale resources
found in the world.41
There have been several failed attempts at commercial
development of oil shale in the US. For example Exxon
invested $5billion in the 1970s, but pulled out in 1982
when oil prices fell again.42
Oil prices have also largely driven global production,
which peaked following the 1973 oil crisis and then fell
with the price of oil. It is only recently, with high oil
prices, conventional crude becoming more scarce, and
countries’ increasing concern over energy security,
that there has been a resurgence in interest in oil shale.
In 2003, an oil shale development program restarted in
the United States. Having lifted a previous moratori-
um, Australia is similarly beginning to re-start oil shale
activities. Many other countries are also currently
investigating or have plans to exploit their oil shale
resources. Jordan for example has signed memoran-
dums of understanding with various companies and
has plans to rapidly develop its resources.43 Israel
and Morocco also have plans to develop oil shale in-
dustries aiming to achieve greater energy security or
even independence. Mongolia has shown interest in
the resource and several companies including Total
now have an oil shale presence in the country.
Despite this recent interest, difficulties remain. For
example, Chevron stopped its oil shale research in
Rio Blanco County, Colorado, US in February 2012,44
and Shell recently closed its experimental oil shale
plant, saying it planned to focus on other activi-
ties.45 One factor hindering the industry in the US
is the surge in domestic tight oil production which
has made oil shale less economically attractive (see
above for an explanation of the terms ‘oil shale’,
‘shale oil’ and ‘tight oil’).
Despite the enormous total global oil shale
resources (estimated at 4.8 trillion barrels),46
there is still a great deal of uncertainty over the
exact amount and what proportion of it could be
economically extracted, as much of it is found in
found in extremely low grade rock.

companies involved Resistance

Grassroots opposition to oil shale extraction
Several of the multinational ‘super major’ oil
in Australia resulted in a 20-year moratorium
companies are involved in oil shale development
on development of the McFarlane oil shale
in the US, particularly Shell, Chevron and Exxon.
deposit. However, the government recently an-
Many ‘national’ or semi public oil companies,
nounced that it will allow the development of a
such as Petrobras in Brazil, PetroChina in China
commercial oil shale industry in Queensland.47
and Jordan Oil Shale Energy Company are leading
Development in the US has also been met with
development in their respective countries.
resistance from environmental groups.48

For more information on resistance see the Corporate Watch website (corporatewatch.org/uff/resistance)

57
 Endnotes
1 ‘World Energy Resources: 2013 Survey’.
World Energy Council (2013). <http://www.
worldenergy.org/publications/2013/world-
energy-resources-2013-survey >
2 ‘Oil Shale: A fuel lifeline’. Oil Shale Information
Centre. Accessed 26 Feb 2014. <http://www.
oilshale.co.uk/oilshaleguide.pdf>
3 Francu, Juraj; Harvie, Barbra; Laenen, Ben; Siirde,
Andres; Veiderma, Mihkel. A study on the EU oil
shale industry viewed in the light of the Estonian
experience. A report by EASAC to the Committee
on Industry, Research and Energy of the European
Parliament. European Academies Science Advisory
Council. pp.14–15; 45 (May 2007). Retrieved
2011-05-07. <http://www.easac.org/fileadmin/
PDF_s/reports_statements/Study.pdf>
4 [ibid]
5 ‘An Assessment of Oil Shale Technologies’. Office
of Technology Assessment, Congress of the United
States (June 1980). <http://www.princeton.
edu/~ota/disk3/1980/8004_n.html>
6 ‘Nuclear energy proposed for production of shale
oil’. Oil and Gas Journal (07/10/2006). <http://
www.ogj.com/articles/print/volume-104/
issue-26/general-interest/nuclear-energy-
proposed-for-production-of-shale-oil.html>
7 Cleveland, C. J., R. Costanza, C. A. S. Hall, and
R. Kaufmann. ‘Energy and the U.S. Economy:
A Biophysical Perspective’. Science 225, no.
4665 (31 August 1984): 890–897. doi:10.1126/
science.225.4665.890. <http://www.sciencemag.
org/content/225/4665/890 >
8 ‘World Energy Outlook 2010’. Paris: International
Energy Agency, 2010. <http://www.
worldenergyoutlook.org/media/weo2010.pdf>
9 ‘An Assessment of the Energy Return on
Investment (EROI) of Oil Shale ‘. Western
Resource Advocates (June 2010). <http://www.
westernresourceadvocates.org/land/oseroi.
php>
10 Kubiszewski, I., & Cleveland, C. ‘Energy return on
investment (EROI) for wind energy’ (2013) <http://
www.eoearth.org/view/article/152560>
11 ‘Oil Sands Mining Uses Up Almost as Much Energy
as It Produces’. Inside Climate News. Accessed 26
February 2014. <http://insideclimatenews.org/
news/20130219/oil-sands-mining-tar-sands-
alberta-canada-energy-return-on-investment-
eroi-natural-gas-in-situ-dilbit-bitumen>
12 Op cit (Francu et al 2007)
13 Adam R. Brandt et al. ‘Carbon Dioxide Emissions
from Oil Shale Derived Liquid Fuels’. Chapter 11 in
Oil Shale: A Solution to the Liquid Fuel Dilemma,
pp.219-48 (2010). <http://pubs.acs.org/doi/
abs/10.1021/bk-2010-1032.ch011>
14 Op cit (Francu et al 2007)
15 Brandt, Adam R. ‘Converting Oil Shale to
Liquid Fuels: Energy Inputs and Greenhouse
Gas Emissions of the Shell in Situ Conversion
Process’. Environmental Science & Technology
42, no. 19 (October 2008): 7489–7495. doi:10.1021/
es800531f. <http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/
es800531f>
16 Hansen, James, Pushker Kharecha, Makiko
Sato, Valerie Masson-Delmotte, Frank
Ackerman, David J. Beerling, Paul J. Hearty,
endsOFtheearth
to
the
a guide To unconventional fossil fuels
58
et al. ‘Assessing “Dangerous Climate Change”:
Required Reduction of Carbon Emissions to
Protect Young People, Future Generations and
Nature’. Edited by Juan A. Añel. PLoS ONE 8,
no. 12 (3 December 2013): e81648. doi:10.1371/
journal.pone.0081648. <http://www.plosone.
org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.
pone.0081648>
17 Ibid
18 Ibid
19 See <www.corporatewatch.org/uff/carbonbudget>
20 Uibu, Mai, Mati Uus, and Rein Kuusik. ‘CO2 Mineral
Sequestration in Oil-Shale Wastes from Estonian
Power Production’. Journal of Environmental
Management 90, no. 2 (February 2009): 1253–1260.
doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2008.07.012. <http://
www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/
S0301479708002053>
21 J. T. Bartis, T. LaTourrette, L. Dixon, D.J. Peterson,
and G. Cecchine. ‘Oil Shale Development in the
United States Prospects and Policy Issues’. RAND
Corporation, MG-414-NETL (2005). <http://
www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/
monographs/2005/RAND_MG414.pdf>
22 ‘Impacts of Potential Oil Shale Development on
Water Resources’. GAO, Energy Development and
Water Use, GAO-11-929T, p.8 (August 24, 2011).
<http://www.gao.gov/assets/130/126827.pdf>
23 Op cit (Francu et al 2007)
24 Raukas, Anto. ‘Opening a new decade’. Oil
Shale. A Scientific-Technical Journal (Estonian
Academy Publishers) 21 (1): 1–2. ISSN 0208-189X.
(2004). <http://www.kirj.ee/public/oilshale/1_
ed_page_2004_1.pdf>
25 Op. Cit. (Francu et al 2007)
26 Ding, Aizhong, Jiamo Fu, Guoying Sheng, Puxin
Liu, and P. J. Carpenter. ‘Effects of Oil Shale
Waste Disposal on Soil and Water Quality:
Hydrogeochemical Aspects’. Chemical Speciation
and Bioavailability 14, no. 1 (10 November 2002):
79–86. doi:10.3184/095422902782775353. <http://
www.ingentaconnect.com/content/stl/
csb/2002/00000014/F0040001/art00010>
27 Kahru, A.; Põllumaa, L. ‘Environmental hazard of
the waste streams of Estonian oil shale industry:
an ecotoxicological review’. Oil Shale. A Scientific-
Technical Journal (Estonian Academy Publishers)
23 (1): 53–93. ISSN 0208-189X (2006). <http://
www.kirj.ee/public/oilshale/oil-2006-1-5.pdf>
28 Harding, B.L., K.D. Linstedt, E.R. Bennet, and R.E.
Poulson. ‘Study Evaluates Treatments for Oil Shale
Retort Waters’. Industrial Wastes, Vol. 24, No. 5
(1978).
29 Amy, Gary, and Jerome Thomas. ‘Factors That
Influence the Leaching of Organic Material From
In-situ Spent Shale’. Proceedings of the Second
Pacific Chemical Engineering Congress, Denver,
CO (August 1977)
30 Parker, H.W., R.M. Bethea, N. Guven, M.N. Gazdar,
and J.C. Watts. ‘Interactions Between Ground
Water and In-situ Retorted Oil Shale’. Proceedings
of the Second Pacific Chemical Engineering
Congress, Denver CO (August 1977)
31 ‘White River Resource Area Resource Management
Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement’. US
Bureau of Land Management, pp. 4-5 (1996)
32 Op. Cit. (Francu et al 2007)
33 Ibid
34 Raukas, Anto. ‘Opening a new decade’. Oil Shale.
A Scientific-Technical Journal (Estonian Academy
Publishers) 21 (1): 1–2. ISSN 0208-189X. (2004).
<http://www.kirj.ee/public/oilshale/1_ed_
page_2004_1.pdf>
35 Op. Cit. (Francu et al 2007)
36 Mölder, Leevi. ‘Estonian Oil Shale Retorting
Industry at a Crossroads’. Oil Shale. A Scientific-
Technical Journal (Estonian Academy Publishers)
21 (2): 97–98. ISSN 0208-189X. (2004).
<http://www.kirj.ee/public/oilshale/1_ed_
page_2004_2.pdf>
37 Tuvikene A., Huuskonen S., Koponen K., Ritola O.,
Mauer U., Lindstrom-Seppa P. Oil shale processing
as a source of aquatic pollution: Monitoring of
the biologic effects in caged and feral freshwater
fish. Environ. Health. Persp. 1999;107:745–752.
doi:10.1289/ehp.99107745. <http://www.ncbi.nlm.
nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1566439/>
38 Op cit (Francu et al 2007)
39 Ibid
40 ‘Oil Shale Research, Development, and
Demonstration’ Bureau of Land Management,
Environmental Assessment CO-110-2006-117 EA, p.
132. (November 2006). <http://www.co.blm.gov/
wrra/wrfo_os_eas.htm>
41 ‘Survey of Energy Resources 2010’. World Energy
Council. <http://www.worldenergy.org/
publications/3040.asp>
42 ‘Oil Shale Never Stays down Long’. High Country
News. Accessed 8 March 2014. http://www.hcn.
org/wotr/oil-shale-never-stays-down-long/
print_view
43 ‘Karak International to Develop Oil Shale Projects’.
‘Jordan News Agency (Petra). Accessed 7 March
2014. <http://www.petra.gov.jo/
Public_News/Nws_NewsDetails.aspx?Site_
Id=1&lang=2&NewsID
=140237&CatID=13&Type=Home&GType=1>
44 ‘Chevron Leaving Western Slope Oil Shale Project’
Denver Business Journal. Accessed 8 March
2014. <http://www.bizjournals.com/denver/
news/2012/02/28/chevron-leaving-western-
slope-project.html?page=all>
45 ‘Shell Abandons Western Slope Oil Shale Project’.
trib.com. Accessed 26 February 2014. <http://
trib.com/business/energy/shell-abandons-
western-slope-oil-shale-project/article_
f8e1dee8-a04f-5444-ba86-9585b3340f74.
html>
46 Op. Cit. [WEC 2013]
47 ‘Newman Government Approves Oil Shale
Industry’ The Queensland Cabinet and Ministerial
Directory. Accessed 26 February 2014. <http://
statements.qld.gov.au/Statement/2013/2/13/
newman-government-approves-oil-shale-
industry>
48 for example see: http://www.tarsandsresist.org/
stopenefit/
Corporate Watch
 to
theendsOFtheearth

what is it?
Shale oil, or tight oil, is a type of crude oil that is
found in low permeability rock formations such
as shale or tight sandstone. The ‘tight’ refers to
the fact that the oil is tightly trapped in the rock,
unlike conventional oil formations where the oil
flows relatively easily. Recent technologies used
for shale gas extraction, such as fracking and
horizontal drilling, have made it economical to
extract shale and tight oil.

how is it extracted?
Shale oil has been known about for a long time,
but has only been exploited on a large-scale in the
last ten years or so. This has partly been driven by

shale Oil
( Tight oil)
CRUDE OIL FOUND IN SHALE OR OTHER ROCK
WHERE IT IS TIGHTLY HELD IN PLACE AND DOES
NOT FLOW EASILY.
REQUIRES USE OF FRACKING WITH RISK OF WATER
POLLUTION AND WORSENS CLIMATE CHANGE.
the development of two technologies: horizontal
drilling, which opens up deposits inaccessible
by conventional vertical drilling, and advanced
hydraulic fracturing, or fracking.
Fracking is used to free oil or gas trapped in rock
by drilling into it and injecting pressurised fluid,
creating cracks and releasing the oil or gas. The
fracking fluid consists of water, sand and a variety
of chemicals which are added to aid the extraction
process e.g. by dissolving minerals, killing bacteria
that might plug up the well, or reducing friction.
The fracking process produces a large volume of
waste water, containing a variety of contaminants
both from the fracking fluid, and toxic and radioac-
tive materials which are leached out of the rocks. In
addition to fracking, acidisation is also sometimes
used. This is where the well is pumped with acid to
dissolve the rock that is obstructing the flow of oil.

Production from shale oil wells declines very quickly and so new wells must be drilled constantly.
This process of continual drilling and fracking means that huge areas of land are covered with well
pads where thousands of wells are drilled, with each well requiring millions of litres of water.
Shale and tight oil deposits are also highly heterogenous, meaning there is substantial variation
within the formation in the qualities of the rock and the oil it contains. Even adjacent wells can
have very different production rates. The oil that is extracted from shale is very similar to crude oil
from conventional sources and does not require further processing before it can be refined.

59
 Marcellus Protest

"US House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce report

found 750 different chemicals had been used in fracking fluids, including
many known human carcinogens and other toxic compounds "

Oil shale or shale oil?

Confusingly, ‘shale oil’ can refer oil extracted from shale rock using techniques such as fracking, or to the
liquid fuel extracted from ‘oil shale’ by heating it (see separate Oil Shale factsheet). The first definition began
being used when the US boom in shale gas resulted in shale formations also being exploited for oil. A great
deal of confusion and disagreement persists, but many have started to use the term ‘tight oil’ to refer to oil
extracted from shale formations using horizontal drilling and fracking. Even more confusingly, the term ‘oil
shale’, which usually means the oily rock rich in kerogen (discussed in a separate factsheet), is also some-
times used to refer to shale formations which contain oil. Baffled? Well, you’re not alone!

Climate change
Oil, whether from shale or conventional sources, is a fossil fuel and releases significant greenhouse gas
emissions when burned. As long as energy demand increases additional sources of fossil fuels such as shale
oil are likely to supplement rather than replace other existing ones such as coal.

If we are to reduce carbon emissions to anything like
the levels required to maintain a reasonably habitable
EMISSIONS LIMIT
planet we must move away from all forms of fossil fuel
130 GtC
as fast as possible. Measuring from the start of the
industrial revolution (around 1750), a maximum of
500 Gigatonnes of carbon (GtC) can be emitted to the
atmosphere while still avoiding most serious impacts
and the risk of irreversible and uncontrollable changes
to the climate.1 Between 1750 and now (2014), we have
already emitted about 370 GtC leaving a limit of 130 GtC
that could be further added.2
In order to stay within this limit we have to leave the
vast majority of the remaining conventional oil, coal
and gas in the ground. Estimates vary significantly, but
remaining conventional coal reserves alone are well
over 500GtC.3
CONVENTIONAL OIL
‘SAFE’ 325 GtC
42 GtC CONVENTIONAL GAS
277 GtC
SHALE OIL
(not including tight oil)
Exploiting the world’s shale oil resources would
add around 42 GtC to the atmosphere.4 This is
certainly an underestimate as it excludes Russia,
which is estimated to have the largest shale oil
reserves, much of the Middle East, and tight oil
formations other than shale. The carbon locked up
in shale and tight oil represents a huge source of
emissions which, given the limits outlined above,
we clearly cannot afford to add to the atmosphere.

60
Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Proponents of unconventional fossil fuels often
argue that with CCS technologies, these new en-
ergy sources could be exploited at the same time
as reducing GHG emissions. However, even if the
huge problems with CCS technology are overcome
(and this currently looking extremely unlikely), it
would not change the fact that we need to move
away from all forms of fossil fuel, conventional
and unconventional, as soon as possible.
In the most optimistic (and highly implausible)
scenario, CCS could be used to reduce a small
proportion of emissions from fossil fuels. In
reality, the promise of CCS being implemented in
the future is being used to allow the continued
expansion of fossil fuel production, to prevent
alternatives from being developed, and to deflect
attention away from approaches which tackle the
underlying systemic causes of climate change
and other ecological crises. Ultimately CCS is a
smokescreen, allowing the fossil fuel industry
to continue profiting from the destruction of
the environment. (see ‘Carbon Capture Storage’
factsheet for more information).
Fracking equipment
There has been some discussion about the
possibility of using exhausted shale oil for-
mations as a place for storing carbon dioxide.
Injecting CO2 into fracked shale formations is
also being considered as a way of both storing
carbon and extracting more oil at the same
time (so called Enhanced Oil Recovery – see
‘Other Unconventional Fossil Fuels’ factsheet).
However, their viability as CO2 storage sites
is questionable, and there are currently no
shale oil sites being used to store CO2. In
addition there are concerns that fracking may
be compromising other potential CO2 storage
sites, as the fracked shale formations are no
longer impermeable and would therefore not
keep CO2 trapped in the deep saline aquifers
below them.5
In addition fracking, the underground
injection of fracking waste water (see below),
and even the injection of CO2 itself have been
shown to cause earthquakes, which reveal a
major flaw in CCS technology.6 7
wikipedia user: Joshua Doubek  2011
61
 Other social and environmental issues
Water use
The fracking process uses huge volumes of wa-
ter, which becomes contaminated and cannot be
returned to the water table. Depending on the char-
acteristics of the well, the amount of water needed
will be somewhere between about 3 million and 40
million litres.8
Sourcing water for fracking is a major problem.
Because of transportation costs of bringing water
from great distances, drillers in the US usually
extract on-site water from nearby streams or
underground water supplies. This puts pressure on
local water resources which can lead to the wors-
ening of droughts.9 In 2011, the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency estimated that 70 to 140 billion
gallons (265 – 531 billion litres) of water are used to
fracture 35,000 wells in the United States each year.10
Water pollution
There has been a great deal of controversy over
the chemicals contained in fracking fluids. In
the US many companies have resisted revealing
the recipes for their fracking mixes, claiming
commercial confidentiality, or have adopted
voluntary reporting measures in order to avoid
stricter mandatory reporting requirements.
Although the specific mix of chemicals used var-
ies significantly, a US House of Representatives
Committee on Energy and Commerce report found
750 different chemicals had been used in fracking
fluids, including many known human carcinogens
and other toxic compounds such as benzene and
lead.11 Chemicals found to be most commonly
used in fracking fluids such as methanol and
isopropyl alcohol are also known air pollutants.
A variety of chemicals are also added to the
‘muds’ used to drill well boreholes in order to
reduce friction and increase the density of the
fluid. Analysis of drilling mud has also found that
they contain a number of toxic chemicals.12 13
62
Waste water
Shale oil extraction results in large volumes of
waste water contaminated by fracking fluids
and naturally occurring chemicals leached out
of the rock. These can include dissolved solids
(e.g., salts, barium, strontium), organic pollutants
(e.g., benzene, toluene) and normally occurring
radioactive material (NORM) such as the highly
toxic Radium 226.14
The volumes of waster water generated and the
kinds of contaminants it contains makes treating
and disposing of it safely extremely challenging.
Treatment of waste water is expensive and energy
intensive, and still leaves substantial amounts of
residual waste that then has to be disposed of. In
addition the waste water from most sites would
have to transported large distances to specialised
treatment plants.
In many cases, the waste water is re-injected back
into the well, a process that has been shown to trig-
ger earthquakes (see earthquake section below).
In the US, there have been numerous cases of
dumping of drilling cuttings and storage of waste
water in open evaporation pits. In some cases waste
water has even been disposed of by spreading it on
roads under the guise of dust control or de-icing.
Any accidental spillages could have serious envi-
ronmental and human health consequences.
Human and animal health
It is difficult to assess the health effects of fracking
sites, as many impacts will take time to become
apparent and there is a lack of background data
and official studies. Despite this there is mounting
evidence linking fracking activities to local health
impacts on humans and animals. 15 16 17
Air Pollution
Air pollution at shale oil sites includes emissions
from vehicle traffic, flaring and venting during
drilling and completion (where gas is burned off
or released to the atmosphere) and on-site ma-
chinery. Local air pollution from these sources is
likely to be similar to that of shale gas extraction,
including BTEX (benzene, toluene, ethylene and
xylene), NOx (mono oxides of nitrogen), VOCs
(volatile organic compounds), methane, ethane,
sulphur dioxide, ozone and particulate matter.18
Industrialisation of countryside
As shale is impermeable the oil cannot easily
flow through it and wells are needed wherever
there is oil. This means that, unlike conventional
oil, exploiting tight oil requires large numbers of
wells to be be drilled. In the US tens of thou-
sands of shale wells have been drilled leading to
widespread industrialisation of the landscape in
some states.
It has been estimated that fracking requires 3,950
truck trips per well during early development of
the well field.19 A single well pad could generate
tens of thousands of truck journeys over its life-
time20 In addition to these increases in traffic for
transportation of equipment, waste water and
other materials the site itself creates significant
noise, light pollution and direct impact on local
wildlife and ecosystems.
Earthquakes
Underground fluid injection has been proven to
cause earthquakes, and there are instances in the
UK where fracking has been directly linked to small
earthquakes.21 The injection of waste water from
fracking back in to wells has also been shown to cause
earthquakes.22 Although these earthquakes are usually
relatively small, they can still cause minor structural
damage and of particular concern is the possibility of
damaging the well casings thus risking leakage. This
did in fact happen after the earthquake at Cuadrilla’s
site in Lancashire, UK. The company failed to report
the damage and were later rebuked by the then UK
energy minister, Charles Hendry, for not doing so.
Occasionally larger earthquakes are triggered. A
2013 study in prestigious journal Science linked a
dramatic increase in seismic activity in the midwest-
ern United States to the injection of waste water. It
also catalogues the largest quake associated with
waste water injection, which occurred in Prague on
November 6, 2011. This measured 5.7 on the Richter
scale, and destroyed fourteen homes, buckled a
highway and injured two people.23 It should be noted
that mining and conventional gas and oil extraction
can also cause earthquakes.
Jobs
In practice much of the employment for oil shale
developments are from outside the area in which
the oil is extracted, and any boost to the local
economy is relatively short lived as the industry
moves on once wells are depleted. This under-
mines the argument, often used by those trying
to promote the industry, that it will generate
large-scale employment.
Economic issues
It is sometimes argued that shale oil can be
used as a ‘bridging fuel’ in the short term while
renewables are developed.24 However, estimates
of reserves containing so many years’ worth of
a country’s oil supply ignore the fact that it will
take many years and thousands of wells drilled
before production rates rise sufficiently to
provide significant amounts of fuel.
In addition, as the most productive shale plays
and their ‘sweet spots’ are used up first, it
becomes increasingly more expensive, both in
terms of money and energy, to maintain pro-
duction levels and there are various predictions
that the shale oil boom in the US may be short
lived.25 Concerns that the same kind of financial
practices that led to the US housing bubble were
used to provide investment (with the prospect
of profitable merger and acquisition deals
attracting the financial sector) are leading some
to predict that the financial bubble behind the
US shale boom will burst, possibly even risking
another global economic crisis.26
63
 Where and how Much?
According to the International Energy Agency,27 economically recoverable shale oil reserves around the world
are as follows (in billions of barrels):

1 Russia 75
2 United States 48-58
3 China 30-35
4 Australia 27
5 Libya 26
6 Venezuela 13
7 Mexico 13
8 Pakistan 9
9 Canada 9
10 Indonesia 8

World Total 335-345 billion barrels

Mexico and Argentina are aggressively pursuing

However, these figures are only for shale rather than
other tight oil formations, and do not include most of
the Middle East or Russia, which is estimated to have
the largest shale oil resources in the world.
In the United States, where the industry has under-
gone rapid development over the last ten years or so,
the Bakken, Eagle Ford, Niobrara and Permian fields
hold large resources of shale oil. At least 4,000 new
shale oil wells were brought online in the United
States in 2012.28 Canada also has an advanced shale
oil industry.
Other countries are also now beginning to consider ex-
ploiting their shale oil resources. In particular China,
shale oil extraction. China and Mexico have been
hampered by lack of expertise and difficulties
with national oil and gas companies. In Argentina
the industry is set to rapidly expand with a deal
between the national oil and gas company YPF
S.A. and Chevron to produce both shale gas and
shale oil from the Vaca Muerta (Dead Cow) basin,
believed to hold as much as 23 billion barrels of
oil equivalent.29
Russia has the largest shale oil resources, but
seems unlikely to exploit them in the near future,
as it still has large reserves of other, easier to
extract fossil fuels.30

credo.fracking 2012 Bosc d’Anjou 2011

64
 companies involved
In the US multinational super-major corporations such as Exxon, Shell and Total do not dominate the shale oil
industry. Mostly the work is undertaken instead by American companies, ranging in size from tiny start-ups to
mid-sized companies worth tens of billions. Notable US shale companies include Chesapeake Energy, Continental
Resources, Occidental Petroleum, Pioneer Natural Resources, Apache, Whiting Petroleum, Hess, EOG Resources,
ConocoPhillips and Chesapeake.
Often small companies carry out the initial exploratory drilling and testing in places where the industry is in a
fledgling stage. If the process is proved economically viable these companies are often bought up by larger com-
panies. In this way, the bigger companies are protected from any loses, should the testing prove unsuccessful.

Resistance
There has been widespread resistance to fracking wherever it has been conducted. The most active national
movement is in the US, and many have been inspired by the film Gaslands. Protests have spurred various countries,
including France, Bulgaria, Romania and the Czech Republic to adopt moratoriums or outright bans on fracking.31
Protesters in a number of countries have used direct action and civil disobedience to oppose fracking. The ‘Lock
the Gate’ movement in Australia saw environmental activists and local communities linking together, using
blockades in their attempts to prevent exploration.
In the village of Pungesti, in Romania, the local community have managed to remove and sabotage Chevron’s
equipment to test fracking, despite receiving violent police repression for doing so. Similarly, indigenous
Elsipogtog First Nation and other local residents blocked a road near Rexton, New Brunswick in Canada
successfully preventing South Western Energy from carrying out tests at a potential fracking site. In the UK
there have been community blockades of potential fracking sites, for instance at Balcombe in Sussex and
Barton Moss in Lancashire.

For more information on resistance see the Corporate Watch website (corporatewatch.org/uff/resistance)

Endnotes
1 Hansen, James, Pushker Kharecha, Makiko Sato, Valerie Masson- 2013): E2762–E2771. doi:10.1073/pnas.1302156110. <http://www.pnas.
Delmotte, Frank Ackerman, David J. Beerling, Paul J. Hearty, et al. org/content/early/2013/07/03/1302156110.abstract>
‘Assessing “Dangerous Climate Change”: Required Reduction of Carbon
7 Gan, W., and C. Frohlich. ‘Gas Injection May Have Triggered
Emissions to Protect Young People, Future Generations and Nature’.
Earthquakes in the Cogdell Oil Field, Texas’. Proceedings of the National
Edited by Juan A. Añel. PLoS ONE 8, no. 12 (3 December 2013): e81648.
Academy of Sciences 110, no. 47 (4 November 2013): 18786–18791.
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0081648. <http://www.plosone.org/article/
doi:10.1073/pnas.1311316110. <http://www.pnas.org/content/
info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0081648>
early/2013/10/31/1311316110>
2 Ibid
8 Cooley, H, Donnelly, K. ‘Hydraulic Fracturing and Water Resources:
3 ibid Separating the Frack from the Fiction’. Pacific Institute (June 2012).
<http://www.pacinst.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/full_
4 See <www.corporatewatch.org/uff/carbonbudget>
report35.pdf>
5 Elliot, T. R., and M. A. Celia. ‘Potential Restrictions for CO2 Sequestration
9 ‘A Texan tragedy: ample oil, no water’. Guardian website (Retrieved Feb
Sites Due to Shale and Tight Gas Production’. Environmental Science &
2014). <http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/aug/11/
Technology 46, no. 7 (3 April 2012): 4223–4227. doi:10.1021/es2040015.
texas-tragedy-ample-oil-no-water>
<http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es2040015>
10 ‘Draft Plan to Study the Potential Impacts of Hydraulic
6 Verdon, J. P., J.- M. Kendall, A. L. Stork, R. A. Chadwick, D. J. White,
Fracturing on Drinking Water Resources’ US EPA. (Feb2011).
and R. C. Bissell. ‘Comparison of Geomechanical Deformation Induced
<http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/0/
by Megatonne-Scale CO2 Storage at Sleipner, Weyburn, and In Salah’.
D3483AB445AE61418525775900603E79/$File/Draft+Plan+to+Stu
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 110, no. 30 (8 July

65
 dy+the+Potential+Impacts+of+Hydraulic+Fracturing+on+Drinking
+Water+Resources-February+2011.pdf>
11 Chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing’. United States House of
Representatives, Committee on Energy and Comerce Minority
Staff (April 2011). <http://democrats.energycommerce.house.
gov/sites/default/files/documents/Hydraulic-Fracturing-
Chemicals-2011-4-18.pdf>
12 ‘Toxic Chemicals in the Exploration and Production of Gas from
Unconventional Sources’, National Toxics Network April (2013). <http://
www.ntn.org.au/wp/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/UCgas_
report-April-2013.pdf>
13 Fontenot, Brian E., Laura R. Hunt, Zacariah L. Hildenbrand, Doug
D. Carlton Jr., Hyppolite Oka, Jayme L. Walton, Dan Hopkins, et
al. ‘An Evaluation of Water Quality in Private Drinking Water Wells
Near Natural Gas Extraction Sites in the Barnett Shale Formation’.
Environmental Science & Technology 47, no. 17 (3 September 2013):
10032–10040. doi:10.1021/es4011724. <http://pubs.acs.org/doi/
abs/10.1021/es4011724>
14 Mielke E, Anadon LD, Narayanamurti V. ‘Water Consumption of Energy
Resource Extraction, Processing, and Conversion’. Harvard Kennedy
School, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs. October
2010. <http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/files/ETIP-DP-2010-15-
final-4.pdf>
15 ‘Statement on Preliminary Findings from the Southwest Pennsylvania
Environmental Health Project Study’. Press Release, Concerned Health
Professionals of New York (27 Aug 2013) <http://concernedhealthny.
org/statement-on-preliminary-findings-from-the-southwest-
pennsylvania-environmental-health-project-study/ >
16 Steinzor N, Septoff A. ‘Gas Patch Roulette, How Shale Gas
Development Risks Public Health in Pennsylvania’. EarthWorks
(Oct 2012). <http://www.earthworksaction.org/library/detail/
gas_patch_roulette_full_report#.UwzG187xHSe>
17 Slatin, Craig, and Charles Levenstein. ‘An Energy Policy That
Provides Clean and Green Power’. NEW SOLUTIONS: A Journal of
Environmental and Occupational Health Policy 23, no. 1 (1 January
2013): 1–5. doi:10.2190/NS.23.1.a. <http://www.prendergastlibrary.
org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/New-Solutions-23-1-Binder.
pdf>
18 ‘Environmental water and air quality issues associated with shale gas
development in the Northeast’. Environmental water and air quality
working group, NYS Water Resources Institute, Cornell University.
<http://wri.eas.cornell.edu/MSARC%20Env%20H2O%20Air%20
Group%20Revised%20071012.pdf>
19 ‘Revised Draft SGEIS on the Oil, Gas and Solution Mining Regulatory
Program (September 2011)’ New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation (2011). <http://www.dec.ny.gov/
energy/75370.html>
20 ‘How many tanker trucks does it take to supply water to and remove
waste from a horizontally drilled and hydrofracked wellsite’. un-
naturalgas.org. <http://www.un-naturalgas.org/Rev%201%20
Truckloads+to+service+a+well+pad+-+DJC.pdf>
21 ‘Fracking and Earthquake Hazard’, British Geological Survey website
(accessed Feb 2014). <http://earthquakes.bgs.ac.uk/research/
earthquake_hazard_shale_gas.html>
22 ‘Man-Made Earthquakes Update’ US geological survey website
(Posted on 17 Jan, 2014). <http://www.usgs.gov/blogs/features/
usgs_top_story/man-made-earthquakes/>
23 Van der Elst, N. J., H. M. Savage, K. M. Keranen, and G. A. Abers.
‘Enhanced Remote Earthquake Triggering at Fluid-Injection Sites in
the Midwestern United States’. Science 341, no. 6142 (11 July 2013):
164–167. doi:10.1126/science.1238948. <http://www.sciencemag.org/
content/341/6142/164.abstract>
24 Hughes D J. ‘Drill, Baby, Drill: Can Unconventional Fuels Usher in a
New Era of Energy Abundance?’. Post Carbon Institute (Mar 2013).
<http://www.postcarbon.org/drill-baby-drill/>
25 ibid
26 D Rogers. ‘Shale and wall street: was the decline in natural gas prices
orchestrated?’. Energy Policy Forum (Feb 2013). <http://shalebubble.
org/wall-street/>
27 ‘Technically Recoverable Shale Oil and Shale Gas Resources: An
Assessment of 137 Shale Formations in 41 Countries Outside the United
States’. U.S. Energy Information Administration (June 2013). <http://
www.eia.gov/analysis/studies/worldshalegas/pdf/overview.pdf>
28 Maugeri, Leonardo. ‘The Shale Oil Boom: a US Phenomenon’. Harvard
University, Geopolitics of Energy Project, Belfer Center for Science and
International Affairs, Discussion Paper 2013-05. <http://belfercenter.
ksg.harvard.edu/files/draft-2.pdf>
29 ‘The Shale Oil Boom Is Going Global (Starting With This Huge Deal
in Argentina)’. moneymorning.com. Accessed 8 March 2014. <http://
moneymorning.com/2013/08/13/the-shale-oil-boom-is-going-
global-starting-with-this-huge-deal-in-argentina/>
30 ‘Tight Oil Developments in Russia’. Oxford Institute for Energy Studies.
Accessed 8 March 2014. <http://www.oxfordenergy.org/2013/10/
tight-oil-developments-in-russia/>
31 For an update list of countries and states see here:
<http://keeptapwatersafe.org/global-bans-on-fracking>

to
theendsOFtheearth
a guide To unconventional fossil fuels Corporate Watch

66
 to
the endsOFtheearth

what is it?
Converting coal to a liquid fuel is known as coal
liquefaction and can be done in two ways; direct
liquification, where the coal is dissolved at high tem-
perature and pressure and then refined; and indirect
liquification, where it is ‘gasified’ to form a ‘syngas’ (a
mixture of hydrogen and carbon monoxide), which is
then condensed to make a liquid fuel. Both processes
require large amounts of energy.
Converting gas to liquids (GTL) can also be done
using two methods, via direct conversion, or indi-
rectly by converting first to syngas then using the
Fisher-Tropsh process. The Fischer-Tropsch process
was invented in the 1920s by two German chemists.
The process was used to produce liquid fuel from
coal during the Second World War as Germany lacked

Coalandgas
access to sufficient crude oil. The advent of cheap
oil led to the technology being largely abandoned.
Several direct conversion processes have been
developed but have proven uneconomical. So far

to Liquids
only indirect methods have been commercialised.1

Coal to liquids (CTL) technology was re-invigorated

( Synthetic Liquid Fuels)
TURNING COAL OR NATURAL GAS INTO LIQUID FUELS.
PROCESS WASTES A LOT OF ENERGY AND HAS
SERIOUS CONSEQUENCES FOR WATER RESOURCES
AND CLIMATE CHANGE.
in the 1950s in South Africa when the country was
isolated during apartheid, and it remains the only
country with significant commercial CTL operations.
However, as most transport infrastructure around
the world is dependent on liquid fuels (particularly
cars and planes), and with conventional oil reserves
slowly running low, there is huge demand for alter-
native liquid fuels. Converting coal and gas to liquid
fuels also means some countries can use their own
resources for transportation fuel instead of being
dependent on foreign imports. Another attractive
feature of synthetic liquid fuels from coal and gas
is that they can be used to create various chemicals
traditionally made from crude oil.

Coal can also be converted to gas (coal gasification) using a process which is also very energy
inefficient. This can be carried out underground, which results in serious greenhouse gas
emissions, groundwater pollution, and other environmental problems (see Underground
Coal Gasification factsheet for more information)
Note that GTL technologies are different from Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG). LNG is where
natural gas is cooled and pressurised so it condenses into a liquid. It needs to be maintained
at the correct temperatures and pressure in order to remain in liquid form. The processes
for making and transporting LNG also use large amounts of energy.

67
 Sasol 2013

"total 'lifecycle' greenhouse gas emissions for

liquid fuel from coal is about double that of fuel
from refining conventional crude oil"
The ORYX GTL plant, Qatar

Climate change If we are to reduce carbon emissions to anything

The energy used in converting coal and natural gas to
liquid fuels means that they result in higher greenhouse
gas emissions than fuel from conventional crude oil.
The total ‘lifecycle’ greenhouse gas emissions (which
includes all emissions generated in extraction, pro-
cessing, transportation etc.) for liquid fuel from coal is
about double that of fuel from refining conventional
crude oil.2 3
GTL fuels have been estimated to have about 30%
higher lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions than fuel
from refining conventional crude oil.4 5
like the levels required to maintain a reasonably
habitable planet we must move away from all forms
of fossil fuel as fast as possible. Measuring from the
start of the industrial revolution (around 1750), a
maximum of 500 Gigatonnes of carbon (GtC) can
be emitted to the atmosphere while still avoiding
most serious impacts and the risk of irreversible and
uncontrollable changes to the climate.6 Between
1750 and now (2014), we have already emitted about
370 GtC leaving a limit of 130 GtC that could be
further added.7

The conversion process is usually powered by electric-
ity, so greenhouse gas emissions from coal and gas to
liquid technologies depend on how this electricity is
generated. However, even if renewable sources are used,
the process still wastes a lot of energy that could have
been used for other purposes.
In order to stay within this limit we have to leave
the vast majority of the remaining conventional oil,
coal and gas in the ground. Estimates vary signifi-
cantly, but remaining conventional coal reserves
alone are well over 500GT of carbon.8

It has been estimated that using a quarter of the world’s coal as CTL would increase atmospheric CO2 concen-
trations by approximately 300 parts per million (ppm) 9 which equates to 636GtC.10 This is a huge amount,
far more than would result from burning all of the world’s conventional petroleum,11 and although there are
disagreements about coal reserves and resources, with some claiming estimates are far too high, there is cer-
tainly enough conventional coal to go well beyond the carbon limit mentioned in the box above. The additional
emissions that would result from developing coal and gas to liquid technologies only exacerbate the problem.

Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)

It has been estimated that CCS could only reduce
CTL carbon emissions by a maximum of 50%, so they
would still have high greenhouse gas emissions.12
There are also numerous critical problems with
CCS itself, which remains a largely unproven tech-
nology, especially at the enormous scale that would
be required (see CCS factsheet).
Proponents of unconventional fossil fuels often argue that
with CCS technologies, these new energy sources could
be exploited at the same time as reducing GHG emissions.
However, even if the huge problems with CCS technology are
overcome (and this currently looking extremely unlikely), it
would not change the fact that we need to move away from
all forms of fossil fuel, conventional and unconvention-
al, as soon as possible.
In the most optimistic (and highly implausible)
scenario, CCS could be used to reduce a small proportion
of emissions from fossil fuels. In reality, the promise of
CCS being implemented in the future is being used to
allow the continued expansion of fossil fuel production,
to prevent alternatives from being developed, and to
deflect attention away from approaches which tackle
the underlying systemic causes of climate change and
other ecological crises. Ultimately CCS is a smokescreen,
allowing the fossil fuel industry to continue profiting
from the destruction of the environment. (see ‘Carbon
Capture Storage’ factsheet for more information).

68
 Other social and environmental issues
Converting CTL fuel consumes large amounts of A further problem with coal and gas to liquid technol-
water and creates substantial amounts of contami- ogies is that they require increased coal mining and
nated waste water and solid waste.13 natural gas extraction, with all the associated social
and environmental problems.
A Greenpeace investigation
into a Coal to Liquids plant in The Sasol coal-to-liquids plant in Secunda
Ordos, China run by the com-
pany Shenhua, revealed how
the project required 10 tons of
fresh water to produce just 1
ton of end-product, while at the
same time producing 9 tons of
carbon dioxide and 4.8 tons of
waste water (1 ton = 0.9 tonnes).14
The investigation also found a
dramatic effect on local ground
water levels, seriously impacting
local farmers. Despite claims by
the company of a “zero-discharge
system” and that “the actual
number of pollutants entering
the water cycle is zero”, indepen-
dent analysis of waste water leak-
ing into the environment found
high levels of harmful substances
including carcinogens.15

Remigiusz Józefowicz 2007

Where, how Much and Who?

The South African energy and chemical company Sasol has a number of CTL
and GTL projects around the world. As well as plants in South Africa (where CTL
provides about 30% of the country’s gasoline and diesel),16 there are coal or gas
to liquid projects in the US, Qatar and Uzbekistan. China is rapidly developing
its coal to liquids capacity,17 and has the largest CTL plant in the world in Inner
Mongolia, run by state coal company Shenhua.18
Other companies with significant interest in CTL/GTL technologies include
Shell, Exxon, Statoil, Rentech and Syntroleum19. Shell is currently building the
largest GTL plant in the world, in Ras Laffan, Qatar.20
Ruins of a German synthetic
petrol plant in Police, Poland

For information on resistance see the Corporate Watch website (corporatewatch.org/uff/resistance)

69
 Endnotes
1 See here for examples: <http://www.chemlink.com.au/gtl.htm>
2 Jeff Logan and John Venezia.’Coal to Liquids, Climate Change, and
Energy Security’. World Resource Institute, May 2007. < [http://www.
rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monographs/2008/RAND_
MG754.pdf,>
3 Farrell, A E, and A R Brandt. ‘Risks of the Oil Transition’. Environmental
Research Letters 1, no. 1 (October 2006): 014004. doi:10.1088/1748-
9326/1/1/014004.<http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/1/1/014004/>
4 Ou, Xunmin, and Xiliang Zhang. ‘Life-Cycle Analyses of Energy
Consumption and GHG Emissions of Natural Gas-Based
Alternative Vehicle Fuels in China’. Journal of Energy (2013): 1–8.
doi:10.1155/2013/268263. <http://www.hindawi.com/journals/
jen/2013/268263/>
5 Op cit (Farrell et al 2006)
6 Hansen, James, Pushker Kharecha, Makiko Sato, Valerie Masson-
Delmotte, Frank Ackerman, David J. Beerling, Paul J. Hearty, et al.
‘Assessing “Dangerous Climate Change”: Required Reduction of Carbon
Emissions to Protect Young People, Future Generations and Nature’.
Edited by Juan A. Añel. PLoS ONE 8, no. 12 (3 December 2013): e81648.
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0081648. <http://www.plosone.org/article/
info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0081648>
7 Ibid
8 Ibid
9 Op. Cit. (Farrell et al 2006)
10 1ppm is roughly equivalent to 2.12 Gt. Op. Cit. (Hansen et al 2013)
to
theendsOFtheearth
a guide To unconventional fossil fuels
70
11 Op cit (Farrell et al 2006)
12 Ibid
13 Sonja Nowakowski ‘Coal to Liquids Water Usage’. November 8
ETIC meeting (2007) <http://leg.mt.gov/content/committees/
interim/2007_2008/energy_telecom/assigned_studies/
coal2liquidpage/Coal2liquidone.pdf>
14 ‘Thirsty Coal 2, Shenhua’s water grab’ Greenpeace East Asia (Jul
2013) <http://www.greenpeace.org/eastasia/Global/eastasia/
publications/reports/climate-energy/2013/Thirsty%20Coal%202.
pdf>
15 Ibid
16 ‘Coal to Liquid, Liquid Fuels’. World Coal Association. Accessed 8
March 2014. <http://www.worldcoal.org/coal/uses-of-coal/
coal-to-liquids>
17 ‘Coal Emerges as Cinderella at China’s Energy Ball’. FT.com. Accessed
8 March 2014. <http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/b3dff99a-b2a0-11e2-
a388-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2kX8ZWWmy>
18 ‘Institute for Energy Research’ China’s Coal to Liquids Program Not
Allowed in the United States. Accessed 8 March 2014. <http://www.
instituteforenergyresearch.org/2011/06/28/china%E2%80%99s-
coal-to-liquids-program-not-allowed-in-the-united-states/#_
edn5>
19 ‘Oil Shale: A Fuel Lifeline’. Oil Shale Information Centre.
<www.oilshale.co.uk/oilshaleguide.pdf >
20 ‘Pearl GTL - Qatar’. Shell.com. Accessed 8 March 2014.
<http://www.shell.com.qa/en/products-services/pearl.html>
Corporate Watch
 to
theendsOFtheearth

what is it?
Methane hydrate, also known as methane clathrate
or “fire ice”, occurs when methane molecules are
trapped in an ice-like form of water. At certain
temperatures and pressures the water molecules
surround the methane in a cage which forms a
slushy icy substance.

A diagram of methane
hydrate molecular structure

gas molecule

Methane
Hidrates water molecule

There are huge amounts of methane hydrate

METHANE (NATURAL GAS) AND WATER TRAPPED
AS AN ICY SUBSTANCE UNDER THE SEA FLOOR
AND IN THE ARCTIC PERMAFROST.
VAST STORE OF CARBON, WHICH IF RELEASED
around the world, mostly occurring on and
under the sea floor on the continental shelves,
with smaller amounts found in other marine and
deep fresh water lake locations and also on-land,
underground in Arctic regions. Methane hy-
drates may also trap large methane deposits (in
gas form) beneath them.1

WOULD HAVE DEVASTATING CONSEQUENCES
FOR CLIMATE CHANGE.
Methane hydrate deposits can be either biogenic in
origin, created by microbes in sediment, or ther-
mogenic, created by geological heating of organic
material at great depths. The characteristics of the
deposits vary significantly due to differences in
origin, their structure, temperature and pressure
conditions, and their association with different
geological formations.

71
 Methane hydrates were first created in labs in the
1800s and were found forming in and clogging up
natural gas pipelines in the 1930s. It wasn’t until
the 1960s that they were found to occur naturally,
and later still, in the 1980s, that people started
to consider methane hydrates as a potential fuel
source. However, methane hydrates have since
remained ‘a fuel of the future’ due to serious
technical obstacles to their extraction.
As well as a potential fuel source, methane hydrates
are also of interest due to their role in the global
climate system (see climate change section below).
Methane hydrate resources are extremely large.
While estimates still vary significantly,2 the total
amount in the oceans is likely to be around 1000 to
5000 trillion cubic metres (about 500–2500 giga-
tonnes of carbon (GtC)),3 with the amount in Arctic
regions around 400 GtC.4 An amount similar to
that in the Arctic may also occur in the Antarctic.5
Another recent study made a conservative estimate
of the total amount of carbon in methane hydrates
as 1800 GtC.6
Some estimates are much higher, putting the total
carbon in methane hydrates as similar to or even more
than the total carbon in all the other fossil fuels in the
world combined (about 5000 gigatonnes).7 8 9 10
A large proportion of the world’s methane hydrates
are found at depths of several hundreds of metres
below the sea floor in very fine-grained marine
sediments. They are essentially mixed with mud,
making their recovery and exploitation very difficult,
and there are no current proposals for technologies
to recover these deposits. The first assessments of
potential technically-recoverable resources give
an estimate of around 300 trillion cubic metres or
around 150 GtC).11 This is still a very large amount,
much more than the total estimated global natural
gas reserves (around 190 trillion cubic metres).12
If methane hydrates are exploited as a fuel source
it would add a massive amount of carbon to the
atmosphere, with dire consequences for the climate.
However, despite recent completed test projects,
some predict that methane hydrates will never be
an economical fuel source.

"there are huge amounts of

methane hydrates around the
world conceivably containing
as much as or even more
carbon than in all other
fossil fuels combined"

72
 Japanese drilling ship used for
methane hydrate extraction
how is it extracted?
As the methane is trapped in the ice-like hydrate
structure, the gas cannot be extracted using the same
methods as conventional natural gas extraction. Also,
if methane hydrates are removed from their natural
environment the change in pressure and temperature
makes them unstable and releases the methane. These
factors, combined with the fact that they are mainly
found below the sea bed on the continental shelf (or
underground on-land in polar regions), pose signifi-
cant problems for developing methane hydrates as a
fuel source.
Extraction is still at the experimental stage. However,
there are a number of methods that have been suggest-
ed and several test projects have been carried out. One
proposed method involves pumping hot water down a
drill hole to melt the hydrates and release the methane
which could then be pumped away in pipelines along
the sea bed.13 One drawback with this method is the
large amount of energy required to heat the hydrates.
A de-pressurisation method has been experimented
with which involves drilling into the deposit, and
pumping out excess fluid. This lowers the pressure and
releases the methane. This method had some success
at the Mallik Gas Hydrate Research Well in northern
Canada,14 and was used in Japan’s recent test project,
the first to successfully extract methane hydrates from
marine deposits (see below).
Wikimedia user: Gleam 2005
There are also proposed techniques that involve using
a combination of thermal and de-pressurisation meth-
ods. A further method, inhibitor injection, involves
injecting chemicals (usually salts, alcohols or glycols)
that lower the temperature at which the hydrates are
stable, and thus release the methane. These inhibi-
tors are regularly used to prevent methane hydrates
forming in pipelines and during undersea drilling
operations.
Another method involves injecting CO2 into the
deposit. The idea is for the CO2 to replace the methane
in the hydrate and become trapped there instead.15
This is intended as a way of extracting methane from
the hydrates and storing the CO2 at the same time.
The replacement of methane with CO2 in hydrates
has been demonstrated experimentally,16 and a test
project using this method in Prudhoe Bay, on Alaska’s
North Slope has been carried out.17 The project,
a collaboration between Conoco Philips, the US
Department of Energy (US DOE) and Japan Oil, Gas
and Metals National Corporation (JOGMEC), claims to
have successfully injected a CO2 /Nitrogen mixture and
extracted methane (along with large volumes of water,
mud, Nitrogen and CO2 ). However, a US Department
of Energy spokesperson said, “Ongoing analysis of the
extensive datasets acquired at the field site will be
needed to determine the efficiency of simultaneous
CO2 storage in the reservoirs”.18 The Prudhoe Bay test
73
 is a very long way from proving the feasibility of this of deposit. The vast majority of the world’s methane
method and it is still far from certain whether or not hydrates are found in low concentration marine
this will be viable technology, especially at the scale deposits, where the hydrates are spread over
and efficiencies that would be required for both com- wide areas and mixed with lots of mud. There are
mercial methane extraction and CO2 storage. currently no proposed technologies for extracting
methane from these ‘low grade’ sources.
It has been suggested that methane hydrates could
be mined from the sea-floor and transported to the The extreme difficulties with methane hydrate
surface in pressurised containers, but the technical extraction have led some to conclude it will never
difficulties mean this is highly unlikely in the near be a viable fuels source.
future.
Methane hydrate
Despite the completion of the recent resource triangle
Arctic sands Most methane hydrate resources
test project in Japan (see below),
are in low concentration deposits,
there remain significant obstacles Higher
Marine sands making them difficult to extract.
to methane hydrate extraction on a
commercial scale. As well as difficul- Non-sandstone marine reservoirs,
ties with extraction technologies, a including fractured fine-grained
Resource concentration

potential problem is in the dispersal Vent site related massive hydrate

of the deposits, if they are too widely
distributed it may be uneconomical to Marine fine-grained
extract them. In addition the varia-
tion in the types of deposits (the kind
of structures they have, the geological
formations they are associated with
etc.) could make it difficult to find
commercially exploitable deposits Gas hydrate resource triangle
Lower

and extraction technologies may only

be appropriate for very specific types Volume of resource

Climate change If we are to reduce carbon emissions to anything like the

Despite the variation in global resource estimates, levels required to maintain a reasonably habitable planet
it is clear that there are huge amounts of methane we must move away from all forms of fossil fuel as fast
hydrates around the world, representing a vast as possible. Measuring from the start of the industrial
store of carbon, conceivably as much as or even revolution (around 1750), a maximum of 500 Gigatonnes of
more than in all other fossil fuels combined. If we carbon (GtC) can be emitted to the atmosphere while still
are to reduce carbon emissions to anything like the avoiding most serious impacts and the risk of irreversible
levels required to maintain a reasonably habitable and uncontrollable changes to the climate.19 Between 1750
planet we must move away from all forms of fossil and now (2014), we have already emitted about 370 GtC
leaving a limit of 130 GtC that could be further added.20
fuel, including methane
hydrates, as fast as In order to stay within this limit we have to leave the vast
possible. CONVENTIONAL OIL
majority of the remaining conventional oil, coal and gas
in the ground. Estimates vary significantly, but remaining
325 GtC conventional coal reserves alone are well over 500 GtC.21
‘SAFE’
EMISSIONS LIMIT
METHANE
130 GtC HYDRATES CONVENTIONAL GAS
Exploiting the estimated 163 GtC22 of extractable
163 GtC 277 GtC methane hydrates is absolutely incompatible
with staying below the limit outlined above.

74
Methane hydrates
and the climate
As well as being a possible form of unconvention-
al fossil fuel, methane hydrates are of interest
to climate scientists from the perspective of the
climate system. It has been suggested that meth-
ane hydrates might induce a positive feedback
mechanisms (a process in which an initial change
will bring about an additional change in the same
direction i.e. A produces more of B which in turn
produces more of A). First, rising temperatures warm
and change the pressures surrounding the hydrates,
releasing some of the methane they contain to the
atmosphere. As methane is a powerful greenhouse
gas, it increases temperatures further, which further
warms the hydrates releasing yet more methane,
which then further warms the atmosphere. This is
referred to as the “clathrate gun” hypothesis. It has
been suggested that it may have been the cause of
periods of rapid warming in earth’s history and could
be an immediate cause for concern if it is triggered
by man-made climate change. However, while there
remains debate among scientists over the timescales
at which methane release would occur, it is likely to
be a matter of centuries rather than decades.23
There are also concerns that hydrate extraction
may result in the sudden release of large amounts
of methane, either as a result of sea-floor destabili-
sation causing landslides, or uncontrolled destabi-
lisation of the hydrates, where extracting methane
changes the pressure in the surrounding hydrates,
leading to a chain reaction spreading throughout
the deposit.

Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)

Proponents of unconventional fossil fuels often argue
that with CCS technologies, these new energy sources
could be exploited at the same time as reducing GHG
emissions. However, even if the huge problems with CCS
technology are overcome (and this currently looking
extremely unlikely), it would not change the fact that we
need to move away from all forms of fossil fuel, conven-
tional and unconventional, as soon as possible.
In the most optimistic (and highly implausible)
scenario, CCS could be used to reduce a small proportion
of emissions from fossil fuels. In reality, the promise of
CCS being implemented in the future is being used to
allow the continued expansion of fossil fuel production,
to prevent alternatives from being developed, and to
deflect attention away from approaches which tackle
the underlying systemic causes of climate change and
other ecological crises. Ultimately CCS is a smokescreen,
allowing the fossil fuel industry to continue profiting
from the destruction of the environment. (see ‘Carbon
Capture Storage’ factsheet for more information).
A method of extraction that replaces meth-
ane in the hydrates with carbon dioxide as
a means of CCS has been experimented with
in labs and at a test site, but it is far from
clear that this could ever be a viable tech-
nology (see ‘extraction methods’ above).
The long-term (and even short-term)
instability of CO2 hydrates, the substance
that would replace the methane hydrates,
raises serious concerns about the reliability
of using them as a trapping mechanism for
holding captured CO2.24

75
 Other social and environmental issues
The methane hydrates in marine sediments
beneath the seafloor are often thought to be in
a “precarious” state. Methane hydrate is a very
low-density compound and in principle would
float in sea-water if not held in place by the weight
of the overlying sediments. The presence of
methane gas bubbles sometimes held beneath the
methane hydrate layer makes the situation even
more unstable. If the mixture of solids (sediment
and methane hydrate), methane gas bubbles and
sea-water becomes unstable and starts to rise up
the gas bubbles expand, separating the sediment
further, causing it to rise even faster. This could
happen in response to a small temperature in-
crease, a physical shift or settlement of the marine
sediments. Methane naturally and regularly
escapes from the sediments into the ocean in this
way, leaving behind explosion craters on the sea-
floor called pockmarks.25
However, there are also examples where the meth-
ane hydrate instability described above is believed
to have caused or contributed to large under water
landslides. The ‘Storegga Submarine Landslide’ is
generally believed to be an instance of this. The
slide occurred 8000 years ago off the Norwegian
coast. It caused massive amounts of sediment
to slide down the continental slope, creating an
enormous tsunami, perhaps 25m high, that struck
Where, how Much and Who?
The vast majority of the world’s methane hydrates
are found on the edge of the continental shelf,
beneath the sea bed, mixed with fine-grained mud.
Methane hydrates also occur in much smaller
amounts in other marine locations (including the
floor of the Caspian Sea and the Gulf of Mexico)
and onshore, in and beneath the polar permafrost.
It is most likely that deposits in the permafrost
and marine deposits in sand (rather than mud)
on the sea bed will be targeted first as they are
significantly easier to extract.
76
Norway and Scotland. The landslide may have been
caused by rapid decomposition of hydrates due to
temperature and pressure changes and the end of
the last ice age.26
It is not clear how much of a risk methane hydrate
extraction would pose in terms of causing land-
slides and tsunamis, but it is obviously a cause
for concern. Geir Erlsand from the University of
Bergen in Norway warned, “Extraction increases
the risk of large-scale collapses, which might
have catastrophic consequences”.27 Even small
scale pressure changes or subsidence could cause
problems at extraction sites, potentially leading to
methane being lost to the sea and atmosphere.28
If methane hydrate extraction starts to take
place on a significant scale, it would involve
the deployment of large amounts of industrial
infrastructure, which could have a serious impact
on marine and Arctic environments. There are
also unique ecosystems on and below the sea
floor that include organisms which depend on
methane hydrates as a food source.
The race to secure methane hydrate resources may
also lead to conflict between countries, particular-
ly as some deposits are found in disputed territo-
ries such as the South and East China Seas.
Several countries have active methane
hydrate research programmes or are investi-
gating the possibilities of extraction, including the US,
Japan, China, Germany, Norway, India, South Korea,
the UK,Taiwan, New Zealand, Brazil and Chile.
Notable Research groups/projects include:
- The National Methane Hydrates R&D Program, US
Department of Energy.29
- Japan’s national methane hydrates R&D program
(MH21). The Ministry of Economy, Trade and
Industry (METI) is funding the JOGMEC methane
hydrate research (see below).30
 - German Submarine Gas Hydrate Reservoirs
(SUGAR) project. A project to develop marine
methane hydrates as an unconventional fuel
and to combine their production with CO2
sequestration.31
- Chinese Ministry of Land and Resources (MLR)
methane hydrate research project, collaborating
with Shenhua Energy.32
- India’s National Gas Hydrate Programme (NGHP),
a collaboration between the Indian Government,
national energy companies and research
institutions.33
- The Gulf of Mexico Joint Industry Project (JIP) is
a cooperative research program between the US
DOE and an industry consortium led by Chevron.
It aims to investigate methane hydrate accumula-
tions in the deep water Gulf of Mexico.34
- United Nations Environment Program, Global
Outlook on Methane Gas Hydrates, evaluating
methane hydrate as a potential energy resource
for future development.35
- Canada recently ended its 15 year research pro-
gramme saying that methane hydrate research
was “not a current priority” (probably due to
existing shale and tar sands projects).36
Around the world a number of test projects have
either been completed or are currently being
carried out, usually involving a collaboration of
national governments, research institutes, and
energy companies. These include:
1 Kvenvolden, K. ‘A review of the geochemistry of methane in natural gas
hydrate’. Organic Geochemistry 23 (11–12): 997–1008 (1995)
2 Ruppel, C.D. ‘Methane Hydrates and Contemporary Climate
Change’. Nature Education Knowledge 3(10):29 (2011).
<http://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/
methane-hydrates-and-contemporary-climate-change-24314790>
3 Milkov, Alexei V. ‘Global Estimates of Hydrate-Bound Gas in Marine
Sediments: How Much Is Really out There?’ Earth-Science Reviews
66, no. 3–4 (August 2004): 183–197. doi:10.1016/j.earscirev.2003.11.002.
<http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/
S0012825203001296>
4 MacDonald, G. J. ‘Role of methane clathrates in past and future
climates’. Climatic Change, 16, 247-281. (1990)
5 Wadham, J. L., S. Arndt, S. Tulaczyk, M. Stibal, M. Tranter, J. Telling, G.
P. Lis, et al. ‘Potential Methane Reservoirs beneath Antarctica’. Nature
488, no. 7413 (29 August 2012): 633–637. doi:10.1038/nature11374. <http://
- Completion of the first off shore extraction test
project in March 2013 by the national resource
company, Japan Oil, Gas and Metals National
Corporation (JOGMEC). The test took place in
the Nankai Trough off the coast of Japan using
the specialised drilling ship the Chikyu Hakken.
Extraction used a depressurisation method and
successfully produced an average of 20,000 cubic
metres of gas per day over six days. On the sixth
day sand clogged a pump and extraction had to be
halted early.
- CO2 /methane exchange project in Prudhoe Bay,
on Alaska’s North Slope (mentioned in extraction
methods section above). The project, completed in
2012 was a collaboration between Conoco Philips,
the US Department of Energy (US DOE) and
Japan Oil, Gas and Metals National Corporation
(JOGMEC).37
- An international consortium, led by Japan
and Canada and including the US, conducted
short-duration production testing in 2002
at the Mallik site in Beaufort Sea, Canada. It
demonstrated, for the first time, that methane
could be produced from hydrate.
- There are also various other current and past
US DOE methane hydrate projects.38
Notable companies involved in methane hydrate
extraction include BP, ConocoPhillips, Anadarko
Petroleum, Chevron, Shenhua Energy, Japan Oil,
Gas and Metals National Corp. (JOGMEC) and Mitsui
Engineering and Shipbuilding Co.
www.nature.com/nature/journal/v488/n7413/abs/nature11374.
html>
6 Boswell, R. & Collett, T. S. ‘Current perspectives on gas hydrate
resources’. Energy and Environmental Science 4, 1206-1215 (2011).
7 Buffett, Bruce, and David Archer. ‘Global Inventory of Methane Clathrate:
Sensitivity to Changes in the Deep Ocean’. Earth and Planetary
Science Letters 227, no. 3–4 (November 2004): 185–199. doi:10.1016/j.
epsl.2004.09.005. <geosci.uchicago.edu/~archer/reprints/
buffett.2004.clathrates.pdf>
8 Kvenvolden, Keith A. ‘Methane Hydrate — A Major Reservoir of Carbon in
the Shallow Geosphere?’ Chemical Geology 71, no. 1–3 (December 1988):
41–51. doi:10.1016/0009-2541(88)90104-0. <http://www.sciencedirect.
com/science/article/pii/0009254188901040>
9 MacDonald, G J. ‘The Future of Methane as an Energy Resource’.
Annual Review of Energy 15, no. 1 (November 1990): 53–83. doi:10.1146/
annurev.eg.15.110190.000413. <http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/
abs/10.1146%2Fannurev.eg.15.110190.000413>
77
 10 Gornitz, V., and I. Fung. ‘Potential Distribution of Methane Hydrates in
the World’s Oceans’. Global Biogeochemical Cycles 8, no. 3 (September
1994): 335–347. doi:10.1029/94GB00766. <http://www.sciencedirect.
com/science/article/pii/0009254188901040>
11 Boswell, Ray, and Timothy S. Collett. ‘Current Perspectives on Gas
Hydrate Resources’. Energy & Environmental Science 4, no. 4 (2011):
1206. doi:10.1039/c0ee00203h. <http://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/
articlelanding/2011/ee/c0ee00203h#!divAbstract>
12 ‘Survey of Energy Resources: Focus on Shale Gas’. World Energy Council
(2010). <www.worldenergy.org/documents/shalegasreport.pdf>
13 ‘Gas Hydrate Extraction from Marine Sediments by Heat Stimulation
Method’. The Proceedings of the Fourteenth International Offshore
and Polar Engineering Conference (2004). <https://www.isope.org/
publications/proceedings/ISOPE/ISOPE%202004/volume1/2004-
jsc-140.pdf>
14 ‘Analysis of 2007 and 2008 gas hydrate production tests on the Aurora/
JOGMEC/NRCan Mallik 2L-38 well through numerical simulation’.
Natural Resources Canada (20012). <http://www.pet.hw.ac.uk/icgh7/
papers/icgh2011Final00449.pdf>
15 B. P. McGrail, T. Zhu, R. B. Hunter, M. D. White, S. L. Patil, and A. S.
Kulkarni. ‘A New Method for Enhanced Production of Gas Hydrates
with CO2’. AAPG Hedberg Conference (Vancouver): Gas Hydrates:
Energy Resource Potential and Associated Geologic Hazards
(2004) <http://www.searchanddiscovery.com/documents/
abstracts/2004hedberg_vancouver/extended/mcgrail/mcgrail.htm>
16 Ibid
17 ‘DOE/NETL Methane Hydrate Projects’. National Energy Technology
Laboratory (NETL), U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). Accessed 9 March
2014. <http://www.netl.doe.gov/research/oil-and-gas/project-
summaries/methane-hydrate> .
18 ‘ConocoPhillips Group Evaluating Alaska Hydrate Test’. Oil & Gas Journal.
Accessed 9 March 2014. <http://www.ogj.com/articles/2012/05/
conocophillips-group-evaluating-alaska-hydrate-test.html>
19 Hansen, James, Pushker Kharecha, Makiko Sato, Valerie Masson-
Delmotte, Frank Ackerman, David J. Beerling, Paul J. Hearty, et al.
‘Assessing “Dangerous Climate Change”: Required Reduction of Carbon
Emissions to Protect Young People, Future Generations and Nature’.
Edited by Juan A. Añel. PLoS ONE 8, no. 12 (3 December 2013): e81648.
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0081648. <http://www.plosone.org/article/
info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0081648>
20 Ibid
21 Ibid
to
theendsOFtheearth
a guide To unconventional fossil fuels
78
22 See <www.corporatewatch.org/uff/carbonbudget>
23 Op. Cit. (Ruppel 2011)
24 Brewer, P. G. ‘Direct Experiments on the Ocean Disposal of Fossil
Fuel CO2’. Science 284, no. 5416 (7 May 1999): 943–945. doi:10.1126/
science.284.5416.943.
25 Hill, Jenna C. ‘Large-Scale Elongated Gas Blowouts along the
U.S. Atlantic Margin’. Journal of Geophysical Research 109, no. B9
(2004). doi:10.1029/2004JB002969. <http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/
doi/10.1029/2004JB002969/abstract>
26 Maslin, M., M. Owen, R. Betts, S. Day, T. Dunkley Jones, and A. Ridgwell.
‘Gas Hydrates: Past and Future Geohazard?’ Philosophical Transactions
of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences
368, no. 1919 (19 April 2010): 2369–2393. doi:10.1098/rsta.2010.0065.
<http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/368/1919/2369.
long>
27 ‘Tundra Gas Inc.’ Methane Hydrate. Accessed 9 March 2014. <http://
tundragas.com//methane-hydrate.html>
28 Rutqvist, J. and G. Moridis. ‘Evaluation of geohazards of in situ gas
hydrates related to oil and gas operations’. Fire in the Ice, US Department
of Energy, Office of Fossil Energy, National Energy Technology
Laboratory, 10(2), 1-4 (2010)
29 <http://www.netl.doe.gov/research/oil-and-gas/methane-hydrates>
30 <http://www.mh21japan.gr.jp/english/>
31 <http://www.geomar.de/en/research/fb2/fb2-mg/projects/
sugar-2-phase/>
32 ‘China Hypes Methane Hydrates despite Industry Ambivalence’
Progressivechina. Accessed 9 March 2014. <http://progressivechina.
com/china-hypes-methane-hydrates-despite-industry-
ambivalence/4421>
33 <http://oidb.gov.in/index3.asp?sslid=257&subsublinkid=69>
34 Op. Cit. ‘DOE/NETL Methane Hydrate Projects’
35 <http://www.methanegashydrates.org/>
36 ‘Canada Drops out of Race to Tap Methane Hydrates’. Technology &
Science - CBC News. Accessed 9 March 2014. <http://www.cbc.ca/
news/technology/canada-drops-out-of-race-to-tap-methane-
hydrates-1.1358966?cmp=rss>
37 Op. Cit. ‘DOE/NETL Methane Hydrate Projects’
38 Op. Cit. ‘DOE/NETL Methane Hydrate Projects’
Corporate Watch
 to
theendsOFtheearth

Other
Unconventional
FossilFuels
BELOW IS A QUICK SUMMARY OF SOME OF THE LESS WELL KNOWN UNCONVENTIONAL FOSSIL FUELS:
Enhanced oil and gas recovery (EOR/EGR); extra-heavy crude; deep water oil and gas;
Arctic oil and gas; and geopressurised zones.

Enhanced Oil and Gas
Recovery (EOR/EGR)
When conventional oil and gas deposits are exploited,
only a certain amount can be extracted using drilling.
A large percentage of the oil or gas remains under-
ground. Enhanced oil and gas recovery techniques
can be used to increase the amount recovered from
the deposit. The terms enhanced oil or gas recovery
are also used to refer to methods of extraction (such
as fracking or steam assisted gravity drainage) of
unconventional fossil fuel deposits (such as shale gas
and tar sands).
Methods for increasing the amount of oil or gas
recovered from conventional deposits include the
injection of gases such as CO2, nitrogen or natural gas,
the injection of other chemicals to aid the flow of oil,
heating the deposit, or injecting water. Microbial EOR
involves injecting microbes into a deposit (or stimulat-
ing existing ones) which then enhance oil recovery by
producing carbon dioxide, partially digesting the oil
and/or plugging up pores in the rock.
EOR/EGR increases the amount of fossil fuel that can
be recovered, and while this may be good news for
oil companies its very bad news for the climate.

79
 As EOR/EGR techniques require more energy, the result- Mainly due to the huge investment and infrastruc-
ing fuels have significantly higher lifecycle greenhouse ture required, as well as technical and political
gas emissions than conventionally produced oil and gas.1 obstacles, Venezuela’s extra-heavy crude resources
EOR is sometimes used in conjunction with Carbon remain largely unexploited. However, they have
Capture Storage technologies (CCS – see separate CCS enormous value and are seen as vital to the future
factsheet). CCS involves pumping CO2 into underground economy of Venezuela. The government and state
storage sites, as a way of reducing emissions. However, owned oil company Petroleos de Venezuela have
the injection of CO2 into oil fields is primarily about plans to expand production.
extracting more oil rather than a way of addressing Heavy oil/crude is also sometimes included as an
climate change.2 In addition the injection of CO2 for EOR unconventional fossil fuel. It is more dense and
has been linked to earthquakes, which undermines the viscous than conventional crude, but less so than
concept of CCS technologies in general, as earthquakes extra-heavy crude.
are likely to create fractures allowing the CO2 to escape
Exploiting the world’s heavy and extra-heavy crude
to the atmosphere.3
resources would add an estimated 81 Gigatonnes of
Many EOR methods also produce large amounts of brine carbon to the atmosphere.6
(salty waste water), which can contain toxic and radioac-
tive substances leached from the rock.
Deep water oil and gas
Over the next decade or so more fossil fuels are likely Definitions vary as to what constitutes ‘deep water’
to be produced using EOR than through other uncon- drilling. Anything at depths of greater than 500 feet
ventional methods. This is because the infrastructure is (152 metres) used to be considered deep water, but
already there and EOR has better financial returns than the definition now refers to greater depths some-
other unconventional forms of fossil fuel production. times over 500 metres (1640 feet). Estimates of the
amount of oil and gas in deep water fields also vary
Extra-heavy crude significantly. Energy giant Total puts the amount of
Extra heavy crude is is a dense, thick form of oil. It oil and gas at 330 billion barrels (330Gb) oil equiva-
is similar to bitumen (see Tar Sands factsheet), but lent – that’s 7% of the world’s oil and gas resources.7
flows slightly more easily. Around 90% of the world’s Others have estimated the amount of deep-water oil
proven extra-heavy crude reserves are in Venezuela,4 as being 150 Gb.8
mainly in the Orinoco Belt. Venezuela’s heavy and ex- Our thirst for energy is pushing oil and gas ex-
tra-heavy crude reserves are estimated at 220 billion traction to ever deeper waters, but working in these
barrels (220 Gb), giving it total oil reserves of
296 Gb, more than Saudi Arabia (265 Gb).
Extracting and processing extra-heavy crude
requires significantly more energy than
drilling and refining conventional crude oil.
Removing it can require multilateral drill-
ing or energy intensive ‘in-situ’ (in place)
extraction techniques. It also needs to be
upgraded, requiring further energy. As a re-
sult it has much higher lifecycle greenhouse
gas emissions, estimated at 30.8 kg CO2E/
MMBtu*,5 almost as much as the Canadian tar
sands (estimated by the same study as 34 kg
CO2E/MMBtu), compared with conventional
crude oil at about 18 kg CO2E/MMBtu
*kg CO2E/MMBtu is emissions in the equiv-
alent weight in carbon dioxide per million
british thermal units – it is a measure of a fuels Deepwater Horizon offshore
greenhouse gas emissions per unit energy. drilling unit on fire

80
extreme environments involves significantly increased
risks. The Deep Water Horizon platform spectacular-
ly demonstrated this in 2010, when the failure of a
blowout preventer resulted in a disaster that killed 11
workers, and caused the largest off shore oil spill in
history resulting in massive environmental damage.
Deep water deposits can be found around the world,
but there is a ‘golden triangle’ between the offshore
regions of West Africa, Brazil and the Gulf of Mexico
that holds the bulk of the deep-water resources.
Exploiting the world’s deep water oil and gas resources
would add an estimated 40 Gigatonnes of carbon to the
atmosphere.9
Arctic oil and gas
It has been known for a long time that there are
significant oil and gas resources in the Arctic but it
has always been considered too difficult to exploit
them due to the extreme conditions. However, things
are changing: due to melting Arctic ice, high oil prices
and energy security concerns (not to mention the
huge profits to be made) several governments and
companies now have plans to drill for oil and gas in the
Arctic. The US geological survey estimated in 2008 that
the Arctic’s technically recoverable resources include
90 billion barrels of oil and 1,670 trillion cubic feet
(47 trillion cubic meters) of natural gas.10
There are concerns that if an oil spill were to occur
in the Arctic environment it could have a devastating
impact. The logistical difficulties, sensitive ecosytems
Shell’s Arctic exploration rig, the
Kulluk, after running aground in 2013
and lack of bacteria to digest and break down the oil
mean that a spill in the Arctic could have significantly
more serious consequences than in other locations.11 12
The extreme technical difficulties of Arctic oil explo-
ration were recently demonstrated when, following a
host of other problems, Shell’s Arctic exploration rig,
the Kulluk ran aground and Shells plans for 2013 had
to be put on hold.
There are also various competing claims over countries’
rights to extract resources from the Arctic, and fears
that this may fuel military conflict in the future.13
There is a cruel irony at play in the Arctic: burning
fossil fuels is warming the atmosphere, melting the
ice caps and opening up access to yet more fossil
fuels. Extracting them will cause further CO2 emis-
sions, warming the atmosphere even more. If we
are to end this vicious cycle we must reduce energy
consumption, move to renewable energy sources and
leave the fossil fuels in the ground, in the Arctic and
around the world.
Exploiting Arctic oil and gas resources would add an
estimated 39 Gigatonnes of carbon to the atmosphere.14
Countries involved in development of Arctic oil and
gas resources include: Norway, Russia, Denmark,
Canada, US and China. Notable companies involved in
Artic oil and gas include: Shell, BP, Exxon, Gazprom,
Rosneft and Statoil.
Geopressurised Zones
Geopressurized zones are deposits of natural gas under
very high pressure, found at depths
of about 3,000 to 7,500 metres below
the earth’s surface either inland or
under the sea. There is a particularly
high concentration of geopres-
surised zones in the Gulf Coast
region off the United States, which
have been estimated to hold large
gas resources.15
There has been some exploratory
drilling of geopressurised zones,
however, and due to the difficulties
of extreme pressure and depth
no commercial extraction has yet
taken place. Despite the extremely
large estimated global resources,16
geopressurised natural gas remains
an undeveloped energy source.
81
 Endnotes
1 Farrell, A E, and A R Brandt. ‘Risks of the Oil Transition’. Environmental
Research Letters 1, no. 1 (October 2006): 014004. doi:10.1088/1748-
9326/1/1/014004. <http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/1/1/014004/
pdf/1748-9326_1_1_014004.pdf>
2 ‘CO2-driven Enhanced Oil Recovery as a Stepping Stone to What?’.
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, US Department of Energy (Jul
2010). <http://www.pnl.gov/main/publications/external/technical_
reports/PNNL-19557.pdf>
3 ‘The Latest on Earthquakes: Enhanced Oil Recovery Shaking Things Up
in U.S.’. Duke Dean’s Blog: The Green Grok. Accessed 9 March 2014.
<https://blogs.nicholas.duke.edu/thegreengrok/the-latest-on-
earthquakes-enhanced-oil-recovery-shaking-things-up-in-u-s/>
4 Hughes D J. ‘Drill, Baby, Drill: Can Unconventional Fuels Usher in a
New Era of Energy Abundance?’. Post Carbon Institute (Mar 2013).
<http://www.postcarbon.org/drill-baby-drill/>
5 ‘An Evaluation of the Extraction, Transport and Refining of Imported
Crude Oils and the Impact of Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions’.
National Energy Technology Laboratory, US Department of Energy
(Mar 2009).
6 See <www.corporatewatch.org/uff/carbonbudget>
7 ‘Deep Offshore: Global Oil and Gas Reserves’. Total.com. Accessed
9 March 2014. <http://total.com/en/energies-expertise/oil-gas/
exploration-production/strategic-sectors/deep-offshore/
challenges/context-overview>
8 ‘Updating World Deepwater Oil & Gas Discovery’. Resilience.org.
Accessed 9 March 2014. <http://www.resilience.org/stories/
2012-05-14/updating-world-deepwater-oil-gas-discovery>
to
theendsOFtheearth
a guide To unconventional fossil fuels
82
9 See <www.corporatewatch.org/uff/carbonbudget>
10 ‘USGS Release: 90 Billion Barrels of Oil and 1,670 Trillion Cubic Feet of
Natural Gas Assessed in the Arctic (7/23/2008 1:00:00 PM)’. USGS.gov.
Accessed 9 March 2014. <http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.
asp?ID=1980&from=rss_home#.UxyLYc7xHSc>
11 ‘Oil Spill Prevention and Response in the U.S. Arctic Ocean:
Unexamined Risks, Unacceptable Consequences. The Pew Charitable
Trusts (Nov 2010). <http://www.pewtrusts.org/our_work_report_
detail.aspx?id=61733>
12 ‘U.S. Icebreakers Can’t Handle Alaska Oil Spills: Official’.
Reuters. Accessed 9 March 2014. <http://www.reuters.com/
article/2011/02/11/us-arctic-oil-vessels-idUSTRE71A5RM20110211>
13 ‘Heat over Arctic: Battle for North Pole High on Global Military
Agenda’. Global Research. Accessed 9 March 2014. <http://www.
globalresearch.ca/heat-over-arctic-battle-for-north-pole-high-
on-global-military-agenda/5351489>
14 See <www.corporatewatch.org/uff/carbonbudget>
15 Quitzau, R., and Z.A. Bassiouni. ‘The Possible Impact of the
Geopressure Resource on Conventional Oil and Gas Exploration’.
Society of Petroleum Engineers, 1981. doi:10.2118/10281-MS.
<https://www.onepetro.org/conference-paper/SPE-10281-MS>
16 ‘Unconventional Forms of Natural Gas’. JUICE: Alternate Fuels World’.
Accessed 9 March 2014. <http://www.alternatefuelsworld.com/
unconventional-forms-of-natural-gas.html>
Corporate Watch
 to
theendsOFtheearth

what is it?
Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) technologies are
designed to take carbon dioxide from fossil fuels
(either before or after they are burned) and inject it
into underground storage sites, usually geological
formations. Proponents of the technology (often
employees of the fossil fuels industry) say that it
can provide significant emissions reductions, and
allow us to go on burning coal, oil, natural gas, and
even unconventional fossil-fuels such as tar sands,
while still reducing emissions sufficiently to stabilise
the global climate. In reality it is not a viable way of
effectively reducing CO2 emissions.

There are three main types of CCS technology.

The first is post combustion capture, where CO2
is ‘scrubbed’ from the exhaust gases after fuel is

Carbon Capture
burned. The second is pre-combustion capture,
where the fuel is heated and mixed with oxygen
to produce hydrogen (a clean burning fuel)

andstorage
CAPTURING CO2 WHERE IT IS PRODUCED, TRANS-
PORTING IT, AND PUMPING IT INTO UNDERGROUND
STORAGE SITES TO REDUCE EMISSIONS.
THE TECHNOLOGY HAS SEVERE LIMITATIONS,
LIKELY IMPOSSIBLE AT THE SCALE REQUIRED, BUT
IS USED AS A SMOKESCREEN FOR THE CONTINUED
EXPANSION OF FOSSIL FUEL PRODUCTION.
and carbon dioxide, which is then removed.
Thirdly, oxy-fuel combustion involves burning
the fuels in oxygen rather than air, producing
pure CO2 which can then be removed. Once the
CO2 has been extracted it can be transported to
storage sites in pipelines. Underground oil and
gas fields (either depleted fields or declining
fields as part of enhanced oil/gas recovery – see
‘Other Unconventional Fossil Fuels’ factsheet)
are most likely to be used for storage, but un-
derground saline aquifers (underground layers
of rock containing salt water), underground
coal seams, basaltic rocks beneath the seafloor,
ocean storage and mineral carbonation (where
CO2 is reacted with minerals to form solids)
have also been suggested.

Although the various technologies involved

in CCS have been tested on a relatively small
scale for some time, they have only been put
together on an industrial scale in a handful of
installations. There are currently no commer-
cial installations and no large-scale installa-
tions dealing with emissions from electricity
production.

83

Emissions Limitations
Even those who have faith in CCS as a viable tech-
nology for emissions reductions admit that there
are limits to its effectiveness. Removing the CO2
will always require a certain amount of energy,
with further energy expended on transportation
to storage sites. It is estimated that the energy cost
of CO2 extraction from a coal power station would
represent up to 40% of the energy produced by
burning the coal.1 This extra energy would require
more coal to be mined and transported, and the
emissions from this mining and transportation
could not be captured. In addition, CCS technologies
only work on power generated from coal and gas
and, in theory, some industrial processes such as
cement production. This means that they would not
mitigate emissions from the oil-based transport sys-
tem, for example. In 2010 transport was estimated
to make up 22% of global greenhouse gas emissions
(16% from road transport and 6% from other sources
including aviation and shipping).2
Ultimately, even if CCS were rapidly and widely
implemented, it would only have potential to
reduce global emissions by a limited amount. A very
optimistic projection of the development of CCS
technology, with 3800 CCS projects in operation by
2050 (at enormous cost), would lead to a total of 34
Gigatonnes of carbon (GtC) stored.3
Measuring from the start of the industrial revolu-
tion (around 1750), a maximum of 500 GtC can be
emitted to the atmosphere while still avoiding most
84
serious impacts and the risk of irreversible and
uncontrollable changes to the climate.4 Between 1750
and now (2014), we have already emitted about 370
GtC, leaving a limit of 130 GtC that could be further
added.5 Considering that there are at least 500 GtC in
remaining conventional coal reserves alone, being
able to store at best 34 GtC by 2050 using CCS does
not change the fact that the vast majority of all fossil
fuels must remain in the ground.
So even if all the huge technical problems were
overcome and CCS were to be fully employed, we still
could not afford to burn even a small fraction of the
conventional fossil fuels we have, let alone exploit
the huge additional unconventional resources.
Further to this, CO2 can be (and is) injected into old
oil, coal and gas deposits in order to extract more
resources (known as Enhanced Oil, Gas or Coal Bed
Methane Recovery, EOR, EGR or ECBM). Somewhat
ironically, proponents of CCS advocate the technolo-
gy being used in combination with EOR/EGR to make
it financially viable. So a technology that is supposed
to be used to reduce emissions, in practice would
actually be used to access to even greater amounts
of fossil fuels.
Storage
All of the proposed storage options have their own
problems. Ocean storage is not generally considered
to be viable as it would rapidly accelerate ocean
acidification. Another possibility, which can be car-
ried out above ground, is ‘mineral carbonation’. This

involves allowing CO2 to react with suitable minerals
(for example some silicate minerals) to produce a
rock product in which the CO2 is effectively stored.
However, mineral carbonation is also not an option
due to the vast amounts of suitable minerals that
would need to be mined and the enormous quantities
of waste material (i.e., the CO2 -rock product) that
would be produced.6
For CCS to be viable, gasses would have to be reliably
stored at sites over very long time-scales, for hundreds
or possibly thousands of years. While CO2 and other
gases can naturally remain trapped for extremely long
periods in geological formations, storage of man-made
CO2 underground poses various problems.
Every potential site has its own unique geology, which
will respond to the injection of high pressure CO2 in a
variety of ways. In some cases injection has resulted in
earthquakes and significant changes of ground level,
posing serious risk of leakage.7 8
Other issues
Scale. The amount of CO that would need to be
2
condensed into liquid and transported to storage sites
(which would often be a long way from the source)
is enormous, and could require a pipeline network
similar in scale to the existing fossil fuel pipeline
infrastructure.10 This would of course be accompanied
by the social and environmental impacts that a project
of such a size would involve. There are also serious
doubts about there being sufficient suitable storage
sites around the world to sequester the volume of gas
that would be required.11
Cost. No one knows exactly how much it would
cost to implement a CCS system across the globe, as
different parts of the technology are at various stages
of development, but the amounts involved would
be huge. In particular, the transportation of CO2 by
pipeline would be extremely expensive. In the best
case scenario, close to a storage site, CCS is expected to
increase the cost of electricity from a new power plant
by 21–91%.12
Despite their supposed enthusiasm for the technology,
there is apparently little desire for the energy industry
A paper published in the journal the Proceedings of
the National Academy of Sciences found that in many
areas, carbon sequestration is likely to create pressure
build-up large enough to break the reservoirs’ seals,
releasing the stored CO2.9 They also found that there is
a high probability that the injection of large volumes
of CO2 will trigger earthquakes, and that even small to
moderate sized earthquakes threaten the seal integrity
of storage sites. This led the authors to conclude that,
“large-scale CCS is a risky, and likely unsuccessful,
strategy for significantly reducing greenhouse gas
emissions”.
There are also concerns that contaminants within the
CO2, and the CO2 itself, might react with water to create
acids which would then damage the structure of the
rock and undermine its ability to keep the CO2 trapped.
It should be noted too that abrupt leakage could pose
a significant risk to human health and the local envi-
ronment. In 1986 a large natural CO2 leakage rose from
Lake Nyos in Cameroon and asphyxiated 1,700 people.
to take on the cost of developing CCS. Several com-
petitions for CCS demonstration projects with very
generous government grants have collapsed as a result
of lack of commercial interest. Despite £1 billion being
made available, the UK’s Longannet CCS demonstra-
tion project collapsed in 2011 after the consortium
failed to keep estimated costs down. In July 2013
an EU CCS programme, NER300, attracted only one
submission.13
Liability. A similar dilemma to that of responsi-
bility for the long term storage of nuclear waste exists
with CCS. It is far from clear who would be responsible
for monitoring and maintaining the sites for hundreds
or even thousands of years, or for the cost (economic,
social and environmental) of any leakage. Liability
issues remain very much unresolved.14
Other problems. Other problems include:
water usage (carbon capture technologies require
large volumes of water), leakage from underground
storage reservoirs through old and unrecorded wells,
and soil and groundwater pollution from a variety of
contaminants as a result of CO2 leakage.15
85
 Conclusion
Even if the huge problems with CCS technology are
overcome (and this currently looking extremely
unlikely), it would not change the fact that we need to
move away from all forms of fossil fuel, conventional
and unconventional, as soon as possible. In the most
optimistic (and highly implausible) scenario, CCS could
be used to reduce a small proportion of emissions
Endnotes
1 Abanades, J. C., et al. Metz, B., et al, ed. ‘Summary for Policymakers
in IPCC, Special Report on Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage’.
Cambridge University Press (2005) <https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/
special-reports/srccs/srccs_wholereport.pdf >
2 ‘Trends in Global CO2 Emissions: 2013 Report’. PBL Netherlands
Environmental Assessment Agency (2013) http://www.pbl.nl/sites/
default/files/cms/publicaties/pbl-2013-trends-in-global-co2-
emissions-2013-report-1148.pdf]
3 ‘Unburnable Carbon 2013: Wasted capital and stranded assets’. Carbon
Tracker & The Grantham Research Institute, LSE (2013). <http://www.
carbontracker.org/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2013/04/
Unburnable-Carbon-2-Web-Version.pdf>
4 Hansen, James, Pushker Kharecha, Makiko Sato, Valerie Masson-
Delmotte, Frank Ackerman, David J. Beerling, Paul J. Hearty, et al.
‘Assessing “Dangerous Climate Change”: Required Reduction of Carbon
Emissions to Protect Young People, Future Generations and Nature’.
Edited by Juan A. Añel. PLoS ONE 8, no. 12 (3 December 2013): e81648.
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0081648. <http://www.plosone.org/article/
info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0081648>
5 Ibid
6 Op. Cit. (Abandes et. al. 2005) -see sections 23 and 24 of
<http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/special-reports/srccs/srccs_
summaryforpolicymakers.pdf>
7 Verdon, J. P., J.- M. Kendall, A. L. Stork, R. A. Chadwick, D. J. White,
and R. C. Bissell. ‘Comparison of Geomechanical Deformation Induced
by Megatonne-Scale CO2 Storage at Sleipner, Weyburn, and In Salah’.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 110, no. 30 (8 July
2013): E2762–E2771. doi:10.1073/pnas.1302156110. <http://www.pnas.
org/content/early/2013/07/03/1302156110.abstract >
8 Gan, W., and C. Frohlich. ‘Gas Injection May Have Triggered
Earthquakes in the Cogdell Oil Field, Texas’. Proceedings of the National
to
theendsOFtheearth
a guide To unconventional fossil fuels
86
from fossil fuels. In reality, the promise of CCS being
implemented in the future is being used to allow the
continued expansion of fossil fuel production, to pre-
vent alternatives from being developed, and to deflect
attention away from approaches which tackle the
underlying systemic causes of climate change and oth-
er ecological crises. Ultimately CCS is a smokescreen,
allowing the fossil fuel industry to continue profiting
from the destruction of the environment.
Academy of Sciences 110, no. 47 (4 November 2013): 18786–18791.
doi:10.1073/pnas.1311316110.<http://www.pnas.org/content/
early/2013/10/31/1311316110>
9 Zoback, M. D., and S. M. Gorelick. ‘Earthquake Triggering and
Large-Scale Geologic Storage of Carbon Dioxide’. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences 109, no. 26 (18 June 2012): 10164–10168.
doi:10.1073/pnas.1202473109. <http://www.pnas.org/content/
early/2012/06/13/1202473109.abstract>
10 ‘Developing a Pipeline Infrastructure for CO2 Capture and Storage:
Issues and Challenges’. INGAA Foundation (Feb 2009). <http://www.
ingaa.org/cms/31/7306/7626/8230.aspx>
11 Ehlig-Economides, Christine, and Michael J. Economides.
‘Sequestering Carbon Dioxide in a Closed Underground Volume’.
Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 70, no. 1–2 (January
2010): 123–130. doi:10.1016/j.petrol.2009.11.002. <http://twodoctors.org/
manual/economides.pdf>
12 ‘The Cost of CCS’. British Geological Survey (BGS). Accessed 9 March
2014. <http://www.bgs.ac.uk/discoveringGeology/climateChange/
CCS/TheCostofCSS.html>
13 ‘White Rose the Sole CCS Project in Europe’s NER300 Competition’.
Utility Week. Accessed 9 March 2014. <http://www.utilityweek.co.uk/
news/white-rose-the-sole-ccs-project-in-europes-ner300-
competition/894062#.UxyW7s7xHSd>
14 Op. Cit. (Abandes et. al. 2005) see sections 29 of <http://www.ipcc.
ch/pdf/special-reports/srccs/srccs_summaryforpolicymakers.
pdf>
15 Little, Mark G., and Robert B. Jackson. ‘Potential Impacts of Leakage
from Deep CO2 Geosequestration on Overlying Freshwater Aquifers’.
Environmental Science & Technology 44, no. 23 (December 2010):
9225–9232. doi:10.1021/es102235w. <http://www.sciencedaily.com/
releases/2010/11/101111111022.htm>
Corporate Watch
Glossary
Aromatic compounds
Permeability
Compounds containing benzene rings: six
carbon atoms joined in a ring shaped structure. A measure of how quickly a liquid or gas flows
Also known as aromatics. through a rock.

Aquifer Polyaromatic compounds

An underground layer of rock, sand or gravel Compounds containing more than one benzene
containing water. rings (carbon atoms joined in a ring shaped
structure). They are potent atmospheric pollutants
Bitumen and many have serious human health impacts.
A dense, sticky, semi-solid form of crude oil.
Produced water
Bituminous Contaminated water produced in the process of
extracting fossil fuels such as oil and gas, usually
A substance containing bitumen.
with a very high salt content.
Chemical compound
Resource estimate
Substances containing two or more chemical
A resource estimate is a measures of the amounts
elements.
that exist that either are or may be valuable in the
future.
Coal seam/bed
An underground layer of coal. Reserve estimate
A reserve estimate is the amount of a particular
Deposit resource (e.g. mineral ore, coal etc.) that it is
An underground layer of rock, coal, or other currently economically viable to extract.
material.
Saline
Flaring Water containing salt.
Burning off flammable gas
Salinity
Fugitive Emmissions The saltiness of water or soil.
Unintended releases of gases (leaks)
Sedimentary rock
Greenhouse effect Rock formed when mineral or organic particles,
A process where solar radiation absorbed by the usually suspended in water, settle slowly over time
earth’s surface is re-emitted as infra-red radiation to in layers.
which is then absorbed by greenhouse gasses,
heating the atmosphere. Upgrading
The process of converting bitumen into synthetic
Greenhouse gas crude oil
A gas that contributes to the ‘greenhouse effect’ by
absorbing infra-red radiation. Venting
Deliberate release of gas to the atmosphere
Groundwater
Water held underground in soil or pores and crevic- Water table
es in rock.
The level below which the ground is saturated by
water.
Hydrocarbon
A compound made up of only hydrogen and carbon Well pad
atoms.
The surface the wells are drilled from
Organic compounds
Compounds containing carbon atoms.
 CORPORATE WATCH
exposing corporate abuse since 1996
“The Earth is not dying it is being killed.
And those who are killing it have names and addresses.”
Utah Phillips

Books and reports C om p a ny p

Magazines rofiles

Corporate Watch is run on a tight budget.

We do our best to avoid dodgy funding and
provide all of our output for free online.

Support us by becoming a ‘friend of

Corporate Watch’ for just £5 a month.

www.corporatewatch.org/support

ISBN