Scientific Studies on Hydraulic Fracking of Shale Gas & Coal Seam Gas

of 19

Scientific Studies on Hydraulic Fracking of Shale Gas and CSG Mining Compiled 2014-01-13

New Items added 03-09

The Independent Review of the NSW Chief Scientist and Engineer on Coal Seam Gas (CSG) Mining in

NSW Australia is expected to be completed late 2014. An interim Report was released 30 July 2013.

The 2013-2014 NSW State Government Coal Seam Gas (CSG) Mining Review

NSW Chief Scientist & Engineer, Professor Mary O'Kane, was directed by the Premier in February this year to conduct an independent review of the state's coal seam gas activities. On 30 July 2013, Professor O'Kane released publicly an initial report from the independent review. The initial report contains a number of recommendations to the NSW Government.

In the next phases of the Review, Professor O'Kane will address in more depth the principles that can underpin setbacks and exclusion zones; international best practice; risk characterisation and mitigation; as well as undertake a comprehensive study of industry compliance. The independent review is expected to continue well into 2014.

Initial Report on the Independent Review of Coal Seam Gas Activities in NSW is available here.

Since the release of its initial report in July 2013, the independent review has been focussing predominantly on:

1. Its study of industry compliance;

2. Completion of its study of the appropriate insurance levels for the CSG industry;

3. Understanding more about government best practice in managing coal seam gas extraction especially

through its study of international good practice; and

4. Undertaking its in-depth study of how to assess and manage risk dynamically for CSG systems.

The independent review is expected to continue until late 2014 ~ NSW Coal Seam Gas Regulatory Protections
http://www.chiefscientist.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0016/31246/130730_1046_CSE-CSG-July-report.pdfhttp://www.csg.nsw.gov.au/protections

of 19

At the time of the Interim Report there was a limited amount of published papers by scientists and

academics available internationally regarding unconventional gas mining effects, methodology, and

fugitive gas emissions. It is noteworthy the difficulty involved in being able to remain completely up-

to-date with the latest scientific knowledge.

Whats been missing since natural gas fracking began 15 years ago in the USA, is a comprehensive,

independent, and open set of measurements being taken of these kinds of drilling operations. Nor is

there a central repository of all the research, analysis, or published science papers on the subject.

Into such a vacuum, as in all similar emotionally charged and controversial environmental or

economic policy issues: A lack of hard objective data usually leads to an avalanche of unproven

biased assertions, unsubstantiated claims, and extreme opinions from all sides of a debate.

I am starting to understand how truly complex this CSG mining issue really is along with the difficulty

involved in sourcing up-to-date credible, scientifically based, and publicly accessible information on

Shale Gas and Coal Seam Gas mining and extraction.

During a short online course about Energy, the Environment, and Our Future out of Penn State

University about 40,000 people participated. The level of interest and concerns over fracking for

Coal Seam Gas and Shale Oil/Gas mining and extraction was widespread among students.

Students provided news reports, science studies, and personal anecdotes about this mining practice

from across the globe including Australia, USA, UK, Canada, New Zealand, South Africa, Poland and a

few other locations.

In the course of my own ongoing research of climate change issues I was able to locate and compile

a number of very recent scientific studies and credible reports about the topic. I realize the majority

of this information is USA based and orientated, and in that it may not be directly replicable to an

Australian CSG mining situation across the board.

However it appears self-evident that much of the existing knowledge and practices for CSG mining

here in Australia have been originally provided by Mining Companies and experts who were

substantially drawing on industry experience and norms from the USA alone. I hope it may prove

helpful.

of 19

Scientific papers and academic reports on CSG and Shale Gas Mining

Item 1

The first ever 'Science Paper' on the GHG Footprint of Unconventional Gas extraction was not published

until March, 2011.

Methane and the greenhouse-gas footprint of natural gas from shale formations

by Robert W. Howarth, Renee Santoro, Anthony Ingraffea about the USA.

This paper received a lot of criticism as it didn't actually perform direct measurements but analyzed various prior Papers

and assumptions. It was perceived by many in the industry to be biased, invalid, and incomplete. This paper was a first

step which summarized the existing but limited knowledge that was available up to 2010.

Abstract

We evaluate the greenhouse gas footprint of natural gas obtained by high volume hydraulic fracturing from shale

formations, focusing on methane emissions. Natural gas is composed largely of methane, and 3.6% to 7.9% of the

methane from shale-gas production escapes to the atmosphere in venting and leaks over the lifetime of a well.

http://www.eeb.cornell.edu/howarth/Howarth%20et%20al%20%202011.pdf

Item 2

The next scientific study was done in Australia during 2012 by a team led by Dr Isaac Santos of Southern Cross

University (SCU) COAL SEAM GAS & THE ENVIRONMENT http://scu.edu.au/coastal-biogeochemistry/index.php/20

SCU Centre for Coastal Biogeochemistry Research > Latest News >

http://scu.edu.au/coastal-biogeochemistry/index.php/69

Initially the information compiled from this study was released via SCU and the media.

November 14, 2012, Methane leaking from coal seam gas field, testing shows. Vast amounts of methane appear to be

leaking undetected from Australia's biggest coal seam gas field, according to world-first research that undercuts claims

by the gas industry. ...found some greenhouse gas levels over three times higher than nearby districts, according to the

study by researchers at Southern Cross University.

Inside the gas field, methane was measured at up to 6.89 parts per million, compared to an average background level

outside the gas field of about 2 (two) parts per million.

Carbon dioxide levels inside the gas field were measured at up to 541 parts per million, compared to 423 parts per

million outside.

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/methane-leaking-from-coal-seam-gas-field-testing-sh...

This study also received much criticism in Australia, especially from the CSG industry and government politicians,

mainly because it was not a seen as a genuine "peer-reviewed paper". The facts presented were therefore discounted

out of hand by many.

After another year of work on this study, Dr Isaac Santos and his team submitted the study for peer review and it

was published in the American Chemical Society journal.

Nov 2013 Published Science Paper:

Enrichment of Radon and Carbon Dioxide in the Open Atmosphere of an Australian Coal Seam Gas Field by Dr

Isaac Santos et al

Abstract

Atmospheric radon (222Rn) and carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations were used to gain insight into fugitive emissions

in an Australian coal seam gas (CSG) field (Surat Basin, Tara region, Queensland). 222Rn and CO2 concentrations

were observed for 24 h within and outside the gas field. Both 222Rn and CO2 concentrations followed a diurnal cycle

with night time concentrations higher than day time concentrations.
http://www.eeb.cornell.edu/howarth/Howarth%20et%20al%20%202011.pdfhttp://scu.edu.au/coastal-biogeochemistry/index.php/20http://scu.edu.au/coastal-biogeochemistry/index.php/69http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/methane-leaking-from-coal-seam-gas-field-testing-shows-20121114-29c9m.html

of 19

Average CO2 concentrations over the 24-h period ranged from 390 ppm at the control site to 467 ppm near the center

of the gas field. A 3 fold increase in maximum 222Rn concentration was observed inside the gas field compared to

outside of it. There was a significant relationship between maximum and average 222Rn concentrations and the number

of gas wells within a 3 km radius of the sampling sites (n = 5 stations; p < 0.05).

A positive trend was observed between CO2 concentrations and the number of CSG wells, but the relationship was not

statistically significant.

We hypothesize that the radon relationship was a response to enhanced emissions within the gas field related to both

point (well heads, pipelines, etc.) and diffuse soil sources. Radon may be useful in monitoring enhanced soil gas fluxes

to the atmosphere due to changes in the geological structure associated with wells and hydraulic fracturing in CSG

fields.

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es304538g and http://epubs.scu.edu.au/esm_pubs/1693/

Those that had been vocal in their criticisms a year before were overall silent in the media. This Paper received very

little attention in Australia, unlike the earlier data release in 2012 through the media.

Item 3

SECOND USA STUDY August 19, 2013

Measurements of methane emissions at natural gas production sites in the United States by David T. Allen et al

Abstract

Engineering estimates of methane emissions from natural gas production have led to varied projections of national

emissions. This work reports direct measurements of methane emissions at 190 onshore natural gas sites in the United

States (150 production sites, 27 well completion flowbacks, 9 well unloadings, and 4 workovers).

For well completion flowbacks, which clear fractured wells of liquid to allow gas production, methane emissions ranged

from 0.01 Mg to 17 Mg (mean = 1.7 Mg; 95% confidence bounds of 0.673.3 Mg), compared with an average of 81 Mg

per event in the 2011 EPA national emission inventory from April 2013. Emission factors for pneumatic pumps and

controllers as well as equipment leaks were both comparable to and higher than estimates in the national inventory. [..]

The estimate for comparable source categories in the EPA national inventory is 1,200 Gg. Additional measurements of

unloadings and workovers are needed to produce national emission estimates for these source categories. The 957 Gg

in emissions for completion flowbacks, pneumatics, and equipment leaks, coupled with EPA national

inventory estimates for other categories, leads to an estimated 2,300 Gg of methane emissions from natural gas

production (0.42% of gross gas production).

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2013/09/10/1304880110.abstract

UT's David Allen Discusses Methane Gas Emissions in Natural Gas Production Study

This Youtube video features Cockrell School of Engineering professor and principal investigator David Allen discussing

the study's biggest takeaways and its importance to policy makers and industry. http://youtu.be/nXxMbt-pIPk

October 4, 2013 NYT Op-Ed A Fracking Rorschach Test By JOE NOCERA

"Enlisting the cooperation of nine companies that in many cases were using the best available well-completion

technology technology that will be mandated by the federal government by 2015 they concluded that the methane

leakage during the production of natural gas was a mere 0.42 percent. In some parts of the process the emissions

were lower than government estimates, but in other parts they were considerably higher."

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/05/opinion/a-fracking-rorschach-test.html

September 16, 2013 NYT Dot Earth blog review of the study

Encouraging Results Seen in First Nationwide Look at Gas Leaks from Drilling Boom By ANDREW C. REVKIN

"The analysis, led by David T. Allen and other energy and environment researchers at the University of Texas, finds that

estimates of methane escaping from gas drilling made by the Environmental Protection Agency are fairly accurate, over

all, while those from industry critics and some indirect studies of leakage (from aerial measurements, for example)

appear far too high."

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/09/16/encouraging-results-in-first-nationwide-look-at-gas-lea...
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es304538ghttp://epubs.scu.edu.au/esm_pubs/1693/http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2013/09/10/1304880110.abstracthttp://youtu.be/nXxMbt-pIPkhttp://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/05/opinion/a-fracking-rorschach-test.htmlhttp://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/09/16/encouraging-results-in-first-nationwide-look-at-gas-leaks-from-fracking-boom/

of 19

Item 4

THIRD USA STUDY October 18, 2013

Anthropogenic emissions of methane in the United States by Scot M. Miller and Steven C. Wofsy et al.

Significance

Successful regulation of greenhouse gas emissions requires knowledge of current methane emission sources. Existing

state regulations in California and Massachusetts require 15% greenhouse gas emissions reductions from current

levels by 2020. However, government estimates for total US methane emissions may be biased by 50%, and estimates

of individual source sectors are even more uncertain. This study uses atmospheric methane observations to reduce this

level of uncertainty.

We find greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture and fossil fuel extraction and processing (i.e., oil and/or natural gas)

are likely a factor of two or greater than cited in existing studies. Effective national and state greenhouse gas reduction

strategies may be difficult to develop without appropriate estimates of methane emissions from these source sectors.

Abstract

This study quantitatively estimates the spatial distribution of anthropogenic methane sources in the United States by

combining comprehensive atmospheric methane observations, extensive spatial datasets, and a high-resolution

atmospheric transport model.

Results show that current inventories from the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Emissions Database

for Global Atmospheric Research underestimate methane emissions nationally by a factor of 1.5 and 1.7,

respectively. Our study indicates that emissions due to ruminants and manure are up to twice the magnitude of existing

inventories. []

These results cast doubt on the US EPAs recent decision to downscale its estimate of national natural gas emissions

by 2530%. Overall, we conclude that methane emissions associated with both the animal husbandry and fossil fuel

industries have larger greenhouse gas impacts than indicated by existing inventories.

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2013/11/20/1314392110.abstract

November 25, 2013 NYT Dot Earth blog review and recent history

New Study Finds U.S. Has Greatly Underestimated Methane Emissions By ANDREW C. REVKIN

"Its important to note that the new study is a snapshot of conditions in 2007 and 2008, before concerns increased about

the need for tighter standards for gas and oil drilling operations. The authors say a similar analysis is under way for

more recent years. "

Most strikingly, our results are higher by a factor of 2.7 over the south-central United States, which we know is a key

region for fossil-fuel extraction and refining. It will be important to resolve that discrepancy in order to fully understand

the impact of these industries on methane emissions. notes lead author Scot M. Miller.

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/11/25/new-study-finds-u-s-has-underestimated-methane-levels-i...

November 26, 2013 National Geographic Blog Review of the Study

Natural Gas Reality Check: U.S. Methane Emissions May Exceed Estimates By 50 Percent

Posted by Marianne Lavelle

"Faced with an onslaught of criticism from the industry that it had overestimated the fugitive emissions, the EPA this

year incorporated the industrys own studies to downgrade its estimate of U.S. methane emissions by 25 to 30 percent.

But the study published Monday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), based on the

relatively new data gathered from monitoring stations on tall towers and on aircraft, indicate that U.S. methane

emissions instead are actually 50 percent higher than EPA has calculated."

http://energyblog.nationalgeographic.com/2013/11/26/natural-gas-reality-check-u-s-methane-emissions-...
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2013/11/20/1314392110.abstracthttp://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/11/25/new-study-finds-u-s-has-underestimated-methane-levels-in-the-atmosphere/?_r=0http://energyblog.nationalgeographic.com/2013/11/26/natural-gas-reality-check-u-s-methane-emissions-may-exceed-estimates-by-50-percent/

of 19

Item 5

April, 2013 EPAs Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP)

Overview of Updates to the Natural Gas Sector Emissions Calculations for the Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas

Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2011

Over the last 18 months, EPA has received a significant amount of new information on the natural gas industry,

particularly related to natural gas production. Specifically, EPA received input from stakeholders through the following

mechanisms:

The formal public notice and comment process of the oil and gas NSPS to control VOCs

( http://www.epa.gov/airquality/oilandgas/ )

A stakeholder workshop on the natural gas sector emissions estimates

( http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/Sept2012stakeholderworkshop.html )

Data submitted under subpart W of EPAs Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP)

The expert review and a 30 day public comment period for the Inventory of U.S. Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2011

The updated estimates in the Inventory reflect this new information. The key changes from last years Inventory are to

two sources: liquids unloading, and completions and workovers with hydraulic fracturing. We also made additional

changes to the report to allow for more transparency.

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/Downloads/ghgemissions/fact-sheet-oil-and-gas-estimates-in-2013-inv...

Item 6

August 5, 2013 - CIRES, NOAA observe significant methane leaks in a Utah natural gas field

New measurements made on one day suggest a need for more direct data

CIRES scientists and NOAA colleagues tested out a new way to measure methane emissions from a natural gas

production field. Their results, accepted for publication in Geophysical Research Letters, constitute a proof-of-concept

that could help both researchers and regulators better determine how much of the greenhouse gas and other air

pollutants leak from oil and gas fields. The measurements show that on one February day in the Uintah Basin, the

natural gas field leaked 6 to 12 percent of the methane produced, on average, on February days. We used a mass

balance technique, which means we follow an air mass as it moves into the region and then flows out, said Colm

Sweeney, a scientist with the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences (CIRES) at the University of

Colorado Boulder, who leads the aircraft group at NOAAs Earth System Research Laboratory Global Monitoring

Division. We look at the difference in methane between those two to determine an actual emissions rate for the region.

See more at: http://cires.colorado.edu/news/press/2013/methaneleaks.html

Methane emissions estimate from airborne measurements over a western United States natural gas field

Abstract:

Methane (CH4) emissions from natural gas production are not well quantified and have the potential to offset the climate

benefits of natural gas over other fossil fuels. We use atmospheric measurements in a mass balance approach to

estimate CH4 emissions of 5515 103 kg h1 from a natural gas and oil production field in Uintah County, Utah, on 1

day: 3 February 2012. This emission rate corresponds to 6.2%11.7% (1) of average hourly natural gas production in

Uintah County in the month of February. This study demonstrates the mass balance technique as a valuable tool for

estimating emissions from oil and gas production regions and illustrates the need for further atmospheric measurements

to determine the representativeness of our single-day estimate and to better assess inventories of CH4 emissions.

Paper at: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/grl.50811/abstract
http://www.epa.gov/airquality/oilandgas/http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/Sept2012stakeholderworkshop.htmlhttp://www.epa.gov/climatechange/Downloads/ghgemissions/fact-sheet-oil-and-gas-estimates-in-2013-inventory.pdfhttp://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/grl.50811/abstracthttp://cires.colorado.edu/http://www.colorado.edu/http://www.colorado.edu/http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/http://cires.colorado.edu/news/press/2013/methaneleaks.htmlhttp://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/grl.50811/abstract

of 19

Item 7

January 2014 Methane emissions from oil & gas development

from Skeptical Science website (extracts with references on source site)

Earlier last year we posted a blog on whether the new natural gas boom, thanks to improved drilling technologies and

hydraulic fracturing or fracking, was to be considered a boon or bane to Earths climate.

We concluded that knowledge on leak rates (commonly expressed as a percentage of produced gas), especially for

newly developed wells and their infrastructure, was lacking. Some scientific estimates implied rates near or below 2%,

while others implied 5% or more. We also pointed out that, regardless of current leak rates from booming oil & gas

activities, methane leakage in general is an important issue.

Several recent scientific assessments put current fossil fuel related, Fugitive methane emissions to the atmosphere at

100 million tons per year (0.1 Gt) , roughly two thirds coming from the oil & gas industry, and the remaining third from

coal mining.

So are the emissions from the fossil fuel industry in the US increasing due to fracking, or not? Unfortunately, this

question was not answered in 2013, despite a number of new publications shining a light on the question through actual

measurements.

The way ahead - These and other questions are currently explored by various researchers. At the AGU Fall Meeting

2013, similar to 2012, several sessions addressed the topic of gas leakage, and we summarize some highlights here.

1. Leak rates are indeed highly variable 2. NOAA investigated more shale areas using the mass balance technique 3. Air pollution impacts are getting stronger recognition

Some conclusions The presented data, including both well-site and atmospheric measurements, can be expected to enter the peer-reviewed literature later in 2014. In addition, now that the scientific community has developed an arsenal of investigation techniques, more measurements are likely to be carried out in the coming years, some already announced at the AGU Fall Meeting 2013.

A continental scale estimate presented at AGU (abstract A44A-08) suggests that actual, nationwide US emissions are more likely in the 3-5% range of produced natural gas.

At these leak rate levels, natural gas still holds a greenhouse gas advantage over coal combustion for electricity production in the long run. However, such leak rates are higher than claimed by the industry, and co-emitted or flared hydrocarbons produce locally and regionally recognized air pollution that needs to be addressed. While methane leaks may not have been on everybody's radar in the past, they have always mattered. Or as one AGU abstract (A53A-0138) elegantly summarized: "There is increasing recognition that minimising methane emissions from the oil and gas sector is a key step in reducing global greenhouse gas emissions in the near term. Atmospheric monitoring techniques are likely to play an important future role in measuring the extent of existing emissions and verifying emission reductions."

http://climatestate.com/2014/01/13/methane-emissions-from-oil-gas-development/

Item 8

Dec 2013 Estrogen and Androgen Receptor Activities of Hydraulic Fracturing Chemicals

and Surface and Ground Water in a Drilling-Dense Region by Christopher D. Kassotis et al

Abstract

The rapid rise in natural gas extraction utilizing hydraulic fracturing increases the potential for contamination of surface

and ground water from chemicals used throughout the process. Hundreds of products containing more than 750

chemicals and components are potentially used throughout the extraction process, including over one hundred known

or suspected endocrine disrupting chemicals.
http://climatestate.com/2014/01/13/methane-emissions-from-oil-gas-development/

of 19

We hypothesized that a selected subset of chemicals used in natural gas drilling operations and also surface and

ground water samples collected in a drilling-dense region of Garfield County, CO would exhibit estrogen and androgen

receptor activities. Water samples were collected, solid-phase extracted, and measured for estrogen and androgen

receptor activities using reporter gene assays in human cell lines. Of the 39 unique water samples, 89%, 41%, 12%,

and 46% exhibited estrogenic, anti-estrogenic, androgenic, and anti-androgenic activities, respectively.

Testing of a subset of natural gas drilling chemicals revealed novel anti-estrogenic, novel anti-androgenic, and limited

estrogenic activities.

The Colorado River, the drainage basin for this region, exhibited moderate levels of estrogenic, anti-estrogenic, and

anti-androgenic activities, suggesting that higher localized activity at sites with known natural gas related spills

surrounding the river might be contributing to the multiple receptor activities observed in this water source. The majority

of water samples collected from sites in a drilling-dense region of Colorado exhibited more estrogenic, anti-estrogenic,

or anti-androgenic activities than reference sites with limited nearby drilling operations. Our data suggest that natural

gas drilling operations may result in elevated EDC activity in surface and ground water.

http://press.endocrine.org/doi/abs/10.1210/en.2013-1697

Item 9

May 2013 Risks to biodiversity from hydraulic fracturing for natural gas in the Marcellus and Utica shales

by Erik Kiviat et al

Abstract

Keywords: Appalachian Basin; biodiversity; forest fragmentation; hydraulic fracturing; salinization; shale gas

High-volume horizontal hydraulic fracturing (HVHHF) for mining natural gas from the Marcellus and Utica shales is

widespread in Pennsylvania and potentially throughout approximately 280,000 km2 of the Appalachian Basin. Physical

and chemical impacts of HVHHF include pollution by toxic synthetic chemicals, salt, and radionuclides, landscape

fragmentation by wellpads, pipelines, and roads, alteration of stream and wetland hydrology, and increased truck traffic.

Despite concerns about human health, there has been little study of the impacts on habitats and biota. Taxa and guilds

potentially sensitive to HVHHF impacts include freshwater organisms (e.g., brook trout, freshwater mussels),

fragmentation-sensitive biota (e.g., forest-interior breeding birds, forest orchids), and species with restricted geographic

ranges (e.g., Wehrle's salamander, tongue-tied minnow). Impacts are potentially serious due to the rapid development

of HVHHF over a large region.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/nyas.12146/abstract

Item 10

17 July 2013 Can fracking cause bigger, more frequent earthquakes?

By Dougal Jerram Professor II at CEED at University of Oslo

Three reports have been published this month in the journal Science that add to our limited but growing data on the

causal link between fluid injections and earthquakes.

"The most striking indication of human-induced earthquakes is provided by the graph below, which shows the

cumulative number of earthquakes in the central and eastern US that were greater than or equal to magnitude 3.0 on

Richter scale. The clear increase from 2005 coincides with the rapid increase of shale gas wells and associated

increased deep waste-water injection. Between 2005 and 2012, the shale gas industry in the US grew by 45% each

year."

https://c479107.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/files/27476/width668/zmqnbq8c-1373883663.jpg

Injection-Induced Earthquakes by William L. Ellsworth

In the first report, a review article, William Ellsworth of the US Geological Survey points out that earthquakes are

occurring in unusual locations in North America and Europe. He looks at activities where injecting fluids into the ground

may cause earthquakes such as mining for minerals and coal, oil and gas exploration/production, as well as the

building of reservoirs and large waste-water disposal sites. Ellsworth examines three case studies of deep injection,

which are particularly convincing.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/341/6142/1225942
http://press.endocrine.org/doi/abs/10.1210/en.2013-1697http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/nyas.12146/abstracthttps://c479107.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/files/27476/width668/zmqnbq8c-1373883663.jpghttp://www.sciencemag.org/content/341/6142/1225942

of 19

Anthropogenic Seismicity Rates and Operational Parameters at the Salton Sea Geothermal Field

By Emily E. Brodsky, Lia J. Lajoie

In the second report, Emily Brodsky and Lia Lajoie of the University of California at Santa Cruz, look at the Salton Sea

Geothermal Field in California. They track the total volume of fluid injected and extracted to extract heat from earths

core, and find it correlates to the number and magnitude of earthquakes. So its not just injection, but also extraction

needs to be paid attention to.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/341/6145/543

Enhanced Remote Earthquake Triggering at Fluid-Injection Sites in the Midwestern United States

By Nicholas J. van der Elst et al

The last report is by Nicholas van der Elst of Cornell University and his colleagues. This study tracked induced

earthquakes that are triggered by much larger natural earthquakes that occur far away. Injection of water in the deep

ground elevates pore pressures and makes the faults and fracture networks in the rocks more vulnerable, so that a

distant event can push the system over the edge and to cause earthquakes around the injection sites.

Summary article https://theconversation.com/can-fracking-cause-bigger-more-frequent-earthquakes-16056

Item 11

1 April 2013 GAS LEAK! ABC Australia Four Corners program

The latest research that suggests the coal seam gas industry might be a much bigger greenhouse gas emitter than

previously thought. But why weren't these problems picked up in the development approval process? The answer is

simple: according to one insider, the approval process is significantly flawed.

Four Corners reveals what really happened when two major companies applied to develop thousands of square

kilometres of southern Queensland for coal seam gas. Using hundreds of pages of confidential documents, the program

reveals that the companies didn't supply enough basic information for an informed decision to be made about

environmental impacts. Despite this, various government agencies permitted the developments to go ahead, allowing

the companies to submit key information at a later date.

http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/2013/04/01/3725150.htm

VIDEO: Interview with Simone Marsh, Senior environmental specialist with the Queensland State Government by Four

Corners Gas Leak! (No base-line studies = no risk assessments = no scientific rigor = no real checks and balances)

http://mpegmedia.abc.net.au/news/fourcorners/video/20130401_4c_marsh_288p.mp4

Item 12

8 January 2014, Shale oil: the boom heard around the world (Pro-energy economics)

By Scott L. Montgomery, Professor, Jackson School of International Studies at University of Washington

So what are the chances of a shale boom or bang outside the US? At this moment, they seem moderate to good.

Opposition to fracking, however, could prove a wildcard factor.

The technology has been overlain with much fear and anecdotal ugliness. France and parts of Britain have banned it

outright. The fact of one million fracked wells since the 1970s, however, plus some recent studies, confirm that fears

have been overblown, though illegal disposal of waste water and poorly completed wells, leading to some aquifer

contamination, has occurred.

Other new data show that claims about methane leaks from fracked wells being large enough to negate any carbon

savings by switching from coal to gas are unsupported. (see Item 3 above)
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/341/6145/543https://theconversation.com/can-fracking-cause-bigger-more-frequent-earthquakes-16056http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/2013/04/01/3725150.htmhttp://mpegmedia.abc.net.au/news/fourcorners/video/20130401_4c_marsh_288p.mp4

of 19

"The biggest problem for fracking, besides its high water demands and possibility of re-activating geologic faults, is its

reality as a massive industrial process. This makes it not only liable to occasional flaws and failures if not closely

monitored, but decidedly ill-suited to well-populated areas and problematic in places unused to oil or gas activity."

https://theconversation.com/shale-oil-the-boom-heard-around-the-world-19202

Item 13

Hydraulic Fracturing Fluids Likely Harmed Threatened Kentucky Fish Species Released: 8/28/2013

This took from 2007 until 2013 to obtain a definitive public science based answer about a fracking chemical release?

Hydraulic fracturing fluids are believed to be the cause of the widespread death or distress of aquatic species in

Kentuckys Acorn Fork, after spilling from nearby natural gas well sites. These findings are the result of a joint study by

the U.S. Geological Survey and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

The Acorn Fork, a small Appalachian creek, is habitat for the federally threatened Blackside dace, a small colorful

minnow. The Acorn Fork is designated by Kentucky as an Outstanding State Resource Waters.

Our study is a precautionary tale of how entire populations could be put at risk even with small-scale fluid spills, said

USGS scientist Diana Papoulias, the studys lead author. This is especially the case if the species is threatened or is

only found in limited areas, like the Blackside dace is in the Cumberland.

Hydraulic fracturing is the most common method for natural gas well-development in Kentucky.

The report is entitled Histopathological Analysis of Fish from Acorn Fork Creek, Kentucky Exposed to Hydraulic

Fracturing Fluid Releases, and is published in the scientific journal Southeastern Naturalist, in a special edition devoted

to the Blackside dace.

http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=3677#.UtXriyPrVYg

Item 14

16 April 2013, Coal Seam Gas Monitoring in Australia - Discussion Paper

Coal Seam Gas: Enhanced Estimation and Reporting of Fugitive Greenhouse Gas Emissions under the National

Greenhouse and Energy Reporting (Measurement) Determination

http://www.climatechange.gov.au/sites/climatechange/files/files/consultations/2013-16-04-CSG-Discuss...

Item 15

Mar 8, 2013, Post Carbon Institute Canada - New Shale Gas Report: Drill Baby Drill

by Professor David Hughes http://www.postcarbon.org/drill-baby-drill/

"A provocative new analysis of so-called unconventional fuel reserves in the United States concludes that the exuberant

forecasts are simply unwarranted based on the facts of geology. In short, the hype around shale gas is just that. Hype.

We speak with the author of the Drill Baby Drill study. David Hughes is a fellow at the Post Carbon Institute."

Interview by CBC Radio Canada

http://youtu.be/6r_UjRE1HvU

Key claim by Hughes is the promised Nth American shale gas production levels are unsustainable and not achievable.
https://theconversation.com/shale-oil-the-boom-heard-around-the-world-19202http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=3677#.UtXriyPrVYghttp://www.climatechange.gov.au/sites/climatechange/files/files/consultations/2013-16-04-CSG-Discussion-Paper-PDF.pdfhttp://www.postcarbon.org/drill-baby-drill/http://youtu.be/6r_UjRE1HvU

of 19

Item 16

DRINKING WATER Contamination Studies

Increased stray gas abundance in a subset of drinking water wells near Marcellus shale gas extraction by Robert B.

Jackson et al ~ Edited by Susan E. Trumbore, Max Planck Institute for Biogeochemistry, Jena, Germany, and approved

June 3, 2013

ABSTRACT

Horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing are transforming energy production, but their potential environmental effects

remain controversial. We analyzed 141 drinking water wells across the Appalachian Plateaus physiographic province of

northeastern Pennsylvania, examining natural gas concentrations and isotopic signatures with proximity to shale gas

wells.

Methane was detected in 82% of drinking water samples

with average concentrations six times higher for homes

of 19

Item 18

5 November 2013 Project Asks Whats in the Water After Fracking at Depth

By American Geophysical Union. Eos, Vol. 94, No. 45, PAGES 409411

Eight years ago, drilling for natural gas in the Marcellus Shale region began to include new hydraulic fracturing

techniques, and one observation stands out: Data that can be used to assess water quality where drilling is taking place

are hard to find. A group of faculty, researchers, and citizen scientists is trying to remedy that by building a

publicly accessible and scientifically rigorous database that can be used to track and analyze information on water

quality.

Called the Shale Network, the initiative was started in 2011 with the aim of getting as many groups as possible to share

and analyze water quality information and address the questions of what consequences, if any, hydraulic fracturing may

have on the regions waterways.

Fig. 1. Map showing locations of all methane concentrations in groundwater for New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania,

Maryland, and West Virginia that are publicly available and published with geographic coordinates. Compared to New

York and West Virginia, few data for methane concentrations in groundwater and locations have been published in

Pennsylvania

Paper: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2013EO450002/pdf

The Shale Network is a project funded by the National Science Foundation to help scientists and citizens store data for

water resources that may be affected by gas exploitation in shale. Our primary focus currently is the Marcellus shale

and other shales in the northeastern U.S.A. We want to enable the generation of knowledge from water chemistry and

flow data collected in areas of extraction of natural gas. The Shale Network is working with the Consortium of

Universities for the Advancement of Hydrologic Sciences, Inc. (CUAHSI) to create this database. Our goal is to find,

organize, and upload data for water resources for online publication and your data can help.

http://www.shalenetwork.org/
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2013EO450002/pdfhttp://www.shalenetwork.org/

of 19

Item 19

January 13, 2014 Fracking study finds combustible levels of methane in water after EPA gave the all clear

Steve Lipsky, a resident of Fort Worth, Texas, complained to the Environmental Protection Agency that his familys

water seemed to be bubbling in a way that made it appear similar to a glass of champagne. The EPA issued an

emergency order and immediately began investigating in December of 2010, warning at least two families that their

water supply may be contaminated with flammable methane.

The EPA dropped its investigation, rescinding its emergency order, and then refused to explain its reasoning.

Documents later obtained by the Associated Press revealed that the EPA did indeed have evidence against Range

Resources, which operated a drill near Lipskys home, but decided to drop its investigation when company executives

threatened to pull Range Resources out of a national study into hydraulic fracking.

Documents further indicate that the EPA ignored analysis that the contamination was the result of drilling and relied on

tests conducted by Range Resources, which found no evidence of contamination.

http://rt.com/usa/epa-energy-fracking-investigation-545/

The natural gas boom is happening all across the country. Gas constitutes about 25 percent of total energy

consumption. Pennsylvania saw natural gas production increase by 69 percent in 2012.

But this boom has also created many issues: earthquakes, water contamination and scarcity, and leakage. 65 percent

of Americans already say more regulations of fracking are needed, despite only a few studies having been conducted

on the topic of possible water contamination. This makes the recent Duke study a significant contribution to the ongoing

fracking debate.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/06/26/2222591/bombshell-study-finds-drinking-water-near-fracking-wells-

contaminated-with-methane/

Item 20

July 22, 2013 Forest fragmentation caused by drilling infrastructure is measurable, may alter bird communities

Grad researcher studies impacts of Marcellus Shale development on wildlife By David Pacchioli

Pennsylvania, a.k.a. Penn's Woods, is roughly 60 percent forest, with the largest unbroken block of trees spanning the

state's north central region. "This region is one of Pennsylvania's greatest resources," says Penn State graduate

student Lillie Langlois. "Since the logging era it has re-established itself to contiguous mature forest. A lot of wildlife

depend on that habitat for breeding."

Within the past six years, however, the rapid expansion of Marcellus Shale drilling has been breaking up the block.

According to the state Department of Environmental Protection, as of 2012, there were more than 8,000 well permits

issued and 6,000 wells drilled across the state, with the north-central region being one of the hot spots. Drilling for

natural gas requires plenty of infrastructure, and that infrastructure leaves a sizeable footprint. [...]

Unlike many private landowners, Langlois says, the state Department of Conservation and Natural Resources "has

done a lot of mitigation effort in the Tiadaghton, working directly with gas companies on consolidating infrastructure.

They try to put roads and pipelines along pre-existing features, instead of cutting new swaths through the forest. They

also site more wells per pad -- about four, compared to the state average of 2.2."

Even so, Langlois says, her GIS data shows an average loss greater than 4 percent of core forest in the southern

Tiadaghton in less than four years with some management units losing up to 10 percent. "That doesn't mean 10 percent

of the forest is being lost," she stresses. "It's maybe three to four percent in this case. But what's happening is it is no

longer core forest because it is now near a road or pipeline."

This summer she is examining the impacts of these changes on birds. In addition to gathering new data, "I'm still

analyzing my data from last field season," Langlois says. "Right now, general trends are that the forest interior species

are avoiding the pipelines. It may be many years before we see how responses by individual species add up to changes

in the bird community. My study is establishing some baseline data."

http://news.psu.edu/story/282350/2013/07/22/research/grad-researcher-studies-impacts-marcellus-shale-development
http://rt.com/usa/epa-energy-fracking-investigation-545/http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-04-01/more-evidence-that-fracking-causes-earthquakeshttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/asit-biswas/fracking-water_b_2837779.htmlhttp://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/06/15/2163531/fracking-is-already-straining-us-water-supplies/http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/jun/04/methane-leaks-negate-climate-benefits-gashttp://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/06/26/2222591/bombshell-study-finds-drinking-water-near-fracking-wells-contaminated-with-methane/http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/06/26/2222591/bombshell-study-finds-drinking-water-near-fracking-wells-contaminated-with-methane/http://news.psu.edu/story/282350/2013/07/22/research/grad-researcher-studies-impacts-marcellus-shale-development

of 19

Item 21 (possibly hyperbole news media reporting here more research required)

By ASSOCIATED PRESS PUBLISHED 6 January 2014

Water in at least three U.S. states is polluted from FRACKING hundreds of complaints are reported across the country

- Pollution has been confirmed in Pennsylvania, Ohio and West Virginia

- Pennsylvania has confirmed at least 106 contamination cases since 2005

- New data casts doubt on industry suggestions that problems rarely occur

- Highlights major differences in the way contamination is reported by states

- Also reveals lack of detail in reports, fuelling public confusion and mistrust

- Fracking generates hundreds of billions of dollars in revenue for industry

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2534508/Water-three-U-S-states-Pennsylvania-Ohio-West-Virginia-polluted-

FRACKING.html or http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/06/water-pollution-drilling_n_4548561.html

Item 22

New Zealand Extend Fracking

This is a 39 page technical report commissioned by the New Zealand Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment,

produced by Power Projects Limited of Wellington. The report has been requested by the government as New Zealand

are looking to increase their oil and gas production, to satisfy domestic demand and generate export revenue, as

offshore oil and gas exploration is disappointing in producing desired discoveries, and interest is growing in the fracking

technique by a few oil and gas developers.

New Zealand have been using hydraulic fracturing for around 20 years in the Taranaki district without major incident

and are now considering extending to a wider area. The report gives a good technical overview of the process and

highlights the significant economic benefits in GDP terms and jobs, it also goes briefly into some of the risks.

http://www.nzpam.govt.nz/cms/pdf-library/iwi-and-communities/john-huckerby-report-13-december-2012-hydraulic-

fracturing-final.pdf

Item 23

US EPA is conducting a study on the "Potential Impacts of Hydraulic Fracturing on Drinking Water Resources."

In its 2012 progress report, the EPA detailed the research methods and progress to date of the study being done. The

study will focus on 5 stages of the hydraulic fracturing cycle:

Water acquisition

Chemical mixing

Well injection

Flowback and produced water

Wastewater treatment and waste disposal

There are 18 research projects being performed to examine the cycle, using 5 types of research activities: analysis of

existing data, scenario evaluations, laboratory studies, toxicity assessments and case studies.

A draft review of the results of the study is expected to be released this year for public comment and peer review. The

final report will further inform the policy debate over this practice and can be expected to influence regulation of the

natural gas industry. http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/documents/hf-report20121214.pdf

Item 24

Source Watch Shale Gas Fracking in Pennsylvania

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Pennsylvania_and_fracking
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2534508/Water-three-U-S-states-Pennsylvania-Ohio-West-Virginia-polluted-FRACKING.htmlhttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2534508/Water-three-U-S-states-Pennsylvania-Ohio-West-Virginia-polluted-FRACKING.htmlhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/06/water-pollution-drilling_n_4548561.htmlhttp://www.nzpam.govt.nz/cms/pdf-library/iwi-and-communities/john-huckerby-report-13-december-2012-hydraulic-fracturing-final.pdfhttp://www.nzpam.govt.nz/cms/pdf-library/iwi-and-communities/john-huckerby-report-13-december-2012-hydraulic-fracturing-final.pdfhttp://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/documents/hf-report20121214.pdfhttp://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Pennsylvania_and_fracking

of 19

Item 25

JISEA News: Study on Methane Emissions from Natural Gas Systems Indicates New Priorities

February 18, 2014 Study findings published in Policy Forum of Journal Science

A new study published in the journal Science says that the total impact of switching to natural gas

depends heavily on leakage of methane (CH4) during the natural gas life cycle, and suggests that

more can be done to reduce methane emissions and to improve measurement tools which help

inform policy choices.

Published in the February 14 issue of Science, the study, Methane Leaks from North American

Natural Gas Systems, presents a first effort to systematically compare North American emissions

estimates at scales ranging from device-level to continental atmospheric studies. Because natural

gas emits less carbon dioxide during combustion than other fossil fuels, it has been looked to as a

bridge fuel to a lower carbon energy system.

With this study and our larger body of work focusing on natural gas and our transforming energy

economy, we offer policymakers and investors a solid analytical foundation for decision making,

said Doug Arent, executive director of the Joint Institute for Strategic Energy Analysis (JISEA) and a

co-author to the study. While we found that official inventories tend to under-estimate total

methane leakage, leakage rates are unlikely to be high enough to undermine the climate benefits of

gas versus coal.

http://www.nrel.gov/news/press/2014/8304.html

Stanford Report, February 13, 2014

America's natural gas system is leaky and in need of a fix, new study finds

A review of more than 200 earlier studies confirms that U.S. emissions of methane are considerably

higher than official estimates. Leaks from the nation's natural gas system are an important part of

the problem. This finding has important implications for natural gas as a possible replacement fuel

for coal.

The first thorough comparison of evidence for natural gas system leaks confirms that organizations

including the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have underestimated U.S. methane emissions

generally, as well as those from the natural gas industry specifically.

http://news.stanford.edu/news/2014/february/methane-leaky-gas-021314.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=R7dLFx3ewrE

Paper: Methane Leaks from North American Natural Gas Systems by A. R. Brandt et al

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/343/6172/733.summary
http://www.nrel.gov/news/press/2014/8304.htmlhttp://news.stanford.edu/news/2014/february/methane-leaky-gas-021314.htmlhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=R7dLFx3ewrEhttp://www.sciencemag.org/content/343/6172/733.summary

of 19

Item 26

By The Time Natural Gas Has a , The Climate Ruined

BY JOE ROMM February 19, 2014

The evidence is mounting that natural gas has no net climate benefit in any timescale that matters to

humanity. In the real world, natural gas is not a bridge fuel to a carbon-free economy for two key

reasons.

First, natural gas is mostly methane, (CH4), a super-potent greenhouse gas, which traps 86 times as

much heat as CO2 over a 20-year period. So even small leaks in the natural gas production and

delivery system can have a large climate impact enough to gut the entire benefit of switching

from coal-fired power to gas.

Sadly as a comprehensive new Stanford study reconfirms, Americas natural gas system is leaky.

(An analysis of Item 25 by Joe Romm of Climate Progress)

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/02/19/3296831/natural-gas-climate-benefit/

Item 27

The Shale Gas Scam Goes Public

06/30/2011-06-30 by Dave Cohen

It is always gratifying when the New York Times catches up to what some of us have been saying for

years now. I was pleased to see their recent three-part series Insiders Sound an Alarm Amid a

Natural Gas Rush (June 25), Behind Veneer, Doubt on Future of Natural Gas (June 26) and S.E.C. Shift

Leads to Worries of Overestimation of Reserves (June 27).

The NYTimes had access to all sorts of internal e-mails and documents which were not available to

me when I wrote those articles.

Natural gas companies have been placing enormous bets on the wells they are drilling, saying they

will deliver big profits and provide a vast new source of energy for the United States.

But the gas may not be as easy and cheap to extract from shale formations deep underground as the

companies are saying, according to hundreds of industry e-mails and internal documents and an

analysis of data from thousands of wells.

In the e-mails, energy executives, industry lawyers, state geologists and market analysts voice

skepticism about lofty forecasts and question whether companies are intentionally, and even

illegally, overstating the productivity of their wells and the size of their reserves.

Many of these e-mails also suggest a view that is in stark contrast to more bullish public comments

made by the industry, in much the same way that insiders have raised doubts about previous

financial bubbles.
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/02/19/3296831/natural-gas-climate-benefit/

of 19

Money is pouring in from investors even though shale gas is inherently unprofitable, an analyst

from PNC Wealth Management, an investment company, wrote to a contractor in a February e-mail.

Reminds you of dot-coms.

Here's a few choice quotes from those anonymous inside sources.

"The word in the world of independents is that the shale gas plays are just giant ponzi schemes and

the economics do not work"

This August 2009 e-mail is in response to an article in an industry publication questioning shale

gas economics. The official is from IHS Drilling Data, a research company that specializes in energy

issues.

See more from this article and others on the Decline of Empire blog site link below.

http://www.declineoftheempire.com/2011/06/the-shale-gas-scam-goes-public.html

This concludes the information summary. Thank you.

Last Updated: 2014-03-09

Prepared by SDA for the Lock the Gate Alliance & the NSW Government on 2014-01-13

Doc URL on SCRIBD.com http://www.scribd.com/doc/203619501/Scientific-Studies-on-Hydraulic-Fracking-of-Shale-Gas-Coal-Seam-Gas
http://www.declineoftheempire.com/2011/06/the-shale-gas-scam-goes-public.htmlhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/203619501/Scientific-Studies-on-Hydraulic-Fracking-of-Shale-Gas-Coal-Seam-Gas

of 19

For the Climate Change Science information, mainly HQ Videos of News, Lectures, latest Papers and

Documentaries go to www.climatestate.com

Excellent climate science resource is the Responding to Climate Change http://www.rtcc.org

Academic based news reports, papers and analysis https://theconversation.com/au/environment

Other very good climate change related sites and blogs include:

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/issue/

http://climatechangepsychology.blogspot.com.au

http://environment.yale.edu/climate-communication/

http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/

http://www.skepticalscience.com/

http://guymcpherson.com/

http://climatecrocks.com/

http://www.easterbrook.ca/steve/

http://robertscribbler.wordpress.com/

http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/Mann/news/news.php

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-james-hansen/

http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0081648

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/?module=BlogMain&action=Click&region=Header&pgtype=Blogs

&version=Blog%20Post&contentCollection=Opinion

http://co2now.org/

http://350.org/

http://www.declineoftheempire.com/

http://nextgenclimate.org/

https://www.sciencenews.org/

http://www.project-syndicate.org/columnist/jeffrey-d--sachs

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/current/

http://climatechangenationalforum.org/
http://www.climatestate.com/http://www.rtcc.org/https://theconversation.com/au/environmenthttp://thinkprogress.org/climate/issue/http://climatechangepsychology.blogspot.com.au/http://environment.yale.edu/climate-communication/http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/http://www.skepticalscience.com/http://guymcpherson.com/http://climatecrocks.com/http://www.easterbrook.ca/steve/http://robertscribbler.wordpress.com/http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/Mann/news/news.phphttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-james-hansen/http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0081648http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/?module=BlogMain&action=Click&region=Header&pgtype=Blogs&version=Blog%20Post&contentCollection=Opinionhttp://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/?module=BlogMain&action=Click&region=Header&pgtype=Blogs&version=Blog%20Post&contentCollection=Opinionhttp://co2now.org/http://350.org/http://www.declineoftheempire.com/http://nextgenclimate.org/https://www.sciencenews.org/http://www.project-syndicate.org/columnist/jeffrey-d--sachshttp://www.bom.gov.au/climate/current/http://climatechangenationalforum.org/

of 19

Misc Science Blog Lists

http://www.environmentalsciencedegree.com/climate-change/

http://www.onlineuniversities-weblog.com/50226711/top-100-science-professor-blogs.php

http://www.forensicsciencetechnician.org/100-blogs-every-science-student-should-subscribe-to/

Whats Up With Real Climate?

An irreverent look at the anal retentive Ivory Tower stiffs and Resident Trolls on RealClimate. We explore barriers to effective public communication of Climate Change using humor, irony, word plays, wit, satire, science, and straight talking common sense! All Very Boring. Noisy. Tedious. Wordy. Not Substantive. But only when one is disconnected from Reality.

http://whatsupwithrealclimate.blogspot.com.au/

Created and Produced by

http://www.scribd.com/santimvah

Copyright License Information

Creative Commons

Attribution Non-commercial

This license lets others remix, tweak, and build upon your work non-commercially, and although their new works must also acknowledge you and be non-commercial, they dont have to license their derivative works on the same terms. Learn more about this license.
http://www.environmentalsciencedegree.com/climate-change/http://www.onlineuniversities-weblog.com/50226711/top-100-science-professor-blogs.phphttp://www.forensicsciencetechnician.org/100-blogs-every-science-student-should-subscribe-to/http://whatsupwithrealclimate.blogspot.com.au/http://www.scribd.com/santimvahhttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/