By Huligan0 [CC BY-SA 3.0 or GFDL], from Wikimedia Commons
And it is apparently not alone. According to the Environment Agency, “many” existing conventional oil-producing sites in England are also venting gases produced during extraction.
The Environment Agency has estimated that the Dorset well, operated by Perenco from the cliff-top at Kimmeridge Bay, released nearly 300 tonnes of methane in 2017.
Over its life, the well could have emitted the equivalent of more than a million tonnes of carbon dioxide.
This appears to contradict assurances that the onshore industry takes great care to avoid venting gases and it raises questions about the strength of UK oil and gas regulations.
“Venting by design”
The Kimmeridge well has an old-fashioned nodding-donkey style beam pump and has been operating since the 1960s.
The site is in the Jurassic Coast World Heritage Site and the Dorset Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.
Perenco, the operator, also runs the nearby Wytch Farm oil field, the largest onshore oil field in western Europe. Wytch Farm is regularly used by the industry as an illustration of how oil production can successfully co-exist with beautiful places and high house prices.
Methane venting at Kimmeridge has been investigated by Stuart Lane, a campaigner and researcher in Dorset, following a tip-off. He said:
“I was told by a reliable source that the Kimmeridge well was cold venting methane.
“After some back and forth with the Environment Agency, it became clear that not only was the well cold venting methane, it was doing so by design.
“Unlike accounts that I was aware of in the United States and Australia, where methane is leaking from poorly managed fracking wells, the Kimmeridge well is not leaking. It isn’t attempting to capture the gas that accompanies the oil upon extraction. Neither does the site combust it and flare it off as carbon dioxide.”
Information request
DrillOrDrop made a Freedom of Information request to the Environment Agency (EA) about the emissions from the Kimmeridge well. Methane is one of the most potent greenhouse gases, trapping much more heat over 100 years than carbon dioxide.
The EA confirmed to us what it had told Mr Lane.
- The Kimmeridge well has a permitted release point for methane
- The volume of methane released to the atmosphere in 2017 was 284 tonnes
- This is an estimate based on the production level of crude oil.
The EA told us:
“The crude oil production is measured, and then a gas-to-oil ratio is applied to estimate emissions. The gas within the oil is periodically measured to confirm the accuracy of the estimation.”
The EA told Mr Lane that the well produced 3,179 tonnes of crude oil in 2017 and that this volume was used to calculate the level of methane.
“Many sites are venting gases to atmosphere”
Under environmental permitting regulations, a site operator must minimise emissions. We asked the EA how Perenco, the operator of the Kimmeridge well, could comply with the regulations when it was releasing this much methane.
In its reply, the EA suggested that the Kimmeridge well was not alone.
“We are aware that many of the existing conventional oil producing well sites are currently venting ‘associated gases’ to atmosphere as a point source emission.”
A “point source emission” is the term used for the release of emissions from a particular location at an oil or gas site.
The EA said these sites, like Kimmeridge, were operating under old-style environmental permits. DrillOrDrop has previously reported that these permits have not required onshore oil and gas sites to carry out groundwater monitoring or submit records of water reinjection, formation stimulation or the use of acid.
The EA said operators of oil production sites were expected to submit proposals to use the best available technique for handling what are known as “associated gases” produced alongside the oil. But at Kimmeridge the EA said:
“Other abatement methods have been trialled, but at present all methane is released through the permitted release point.”
We asked whether methane emissions were monitored using optical imaging cameras. The EA replied:
“Optical Imaging cameras are in the process of being trialled but have not been used to date at Kimmeridge.”
We asked what techniques had been used to try to abate methane releases at the well. The EA replied:
“Over the years a number of methods have been technically assessed. A significant investment was also made to install a micro turbine to convert the gas to electricity. It was found that the flow of gas was neither consistent, or sufficient enough to support the turbine and this approach has been abandoned. The operator is required to review new technologies on an annual basis.”
“How could a regulatory system allow this to happen?”
Researcher Stuart Lane said:
“I am concerned how the regulatory system allowed this to happen. I am also concerned with how Perenco could allow this, given that it trades upon a reputation for safety and best practice. Perenco certainly doesn’t lack the funds. The company’s operations are very lucrative, they are currently offering £1.7 million for environmental projects in the area near its core operations at Wytch Farm, just across the hills from the Kimmeridge well.
“It isn’t a recent problem that is an unfortunate blip. The well has been operating since 1961.
“What is more, there are other wells out there also regulated under the same type of permit.”
The Environment Agency told DrillOrDrop earlier this year that 38 onshore oil and gas sites were still operating under the old-style permits. We have asked which of these sites are also allowed to vent methane.
Calculating the carbon footprint of Kimmeridge
Mr Lane wanted to get an idea of the level of methane emitted by the Kimmeridge well over its lifetime. Using publicly-available data , he estimated that the carbon footprint, expressed as carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e), is well over a million tonnes (see The calculation).
To put that in perspective, he said the carbon footprint for a UK citizen is about 10 tonnes a year. Based on these figures, the Kimmeridge well, over its life, has produced as much CO2e as 112,500 people do in a year. The population of Poole, the closest large town to the well, is about 150,000 people.
Details of peer-reviewed paper: Gluyas, J. G., Evans, I. J. and Richards, D., 2003. The Kimmeridge Bay Oilfield, Dorset, UK Onshore [Periodical]. GEOLOGICAL SOCIETY, LONDON
“The regulatory system appears to be permitting gross levels of pollution that fly in that face of legally binding climate change commitments including the 2008 Climate Change Act.
“It is clear the mitigation options have been investigated but the most obvious and simplest approach in my opinion would be to close any well that is not designed to avoid methane emissions.
“This one small well appears to have done enormous damage and exposes wider concerns. We have a regulatory system that is prepared to approve massive levels of pollution and an industry that will seemingly operate to the minimum standards that regulations impose, however low. The Kimmeridge well raises questions about the regulation and operation of other well sites around the country.
“This also raises serious questions about the “Gold Standard” regulatory system that is being promoted as the impenetrable firewall to defend us and our environmental from any additional dangers posed by fracking.
“At a time when the government is seeking unprecedented levels of trust and centralisation regarding the process to approve new wells, this example demonstrates that local people with concerns about local installations are important in the planning process. Sometimes they are the ones that ask the overlooked questions and hold institutions to account.”
Mr Lane has launched a petition to close onshore wells that are cold venting methane. Link here
Company response
DrillOrDrop invited Perenco to comment on emissions from the Kimmeridge well. We also asked if the company’s Wytch Farm had a permitted release point for methane.
Its public relations company replied:
“I have just spoken to the team and Perenco would like to decline to comment please.”
Updating regulations
The Environment Agency is currently updating permits issued before October 2013 for onshore oil and gas sites.
Under a new-style permit, operators would be required to produce a plan for using or disposing of associated gases.
The EA said:
“The plan must contain detailed consideration of all available options for the beneficial utilisation of all of the available gas from their activities.
“Where such utilisation is not feasible, the plan must consider in detail all available options, both combustion and non-combustion based, for the disposal or abatement/mitigation of waste gas so as to minimise its environmental impacts as far as available techniques allow.”
The re-permitting programme began in 2016 and is still underway. At Kimmeridge, the EA said the application was made on 11 July 2017. It added:
“the permit application is currently in the process of being determined and we expect to have a decision late 2018.”
Categories: investigation
DRILL OR DROP? 
Just 1.5-2° point of no return and we are just skipping along over that cliff.
Absolutely disgraceful. And we, the public, are supposed to accept the 50 years safe operating claims and gold standard regulations as made by industry and government? I am continually flabbergasted by the claims about our so called gold standard regulations. Just a quick search of the internet uncovers a university study from 2000 where oil and gas workers testify how senior managers have applied pressure following incidents to manipulate health and safety records, numerous reports of leaks and spills, only one in thirty offshore rigs being in good condition and a serious lack of maintenance repeatedly cited. Plus of course the Piper Alpha disaster was 30 years ago, well inside the 50 year claim. There seem to have been many incidents with some reported only a couple of years ago, such as Brae Alpha.
And now we learn that green house gas emissions are not monitored appropriately and cold venting is actually permitted. One has to question how many more antiquated oil and gas paraphernalia is legally, or possibly illegally, emitting significant amounts of green house gasses and how much equipment is in poor condition and inadequately maintained?
http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents/00001394.htm
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-43910845
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-35917530
https://royaldutchshellplc.com/2011/08/23/shells-north-sea-reputation-sunk-by-severe-corrosion/
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/oilandgas/8284455/BP-shuts-UK-field-after-oil-leak.html
https://unearthed.greenpeace.org/2014/11/14/energy-files-uk-oil-spills-carbon-monoxide-leaks-2/
Kat
It has been mentioned on DOD before that certain wells are permitted to vent. Onshore venting is dwarfed by the cold venting allowed in the Southern North Sea ( where the bulk of English gas comes from ).
That does not make it a good thing, but I do not think that cold venting is a discovery any more than discovering a tenner in your wallet.
But it makes for good breathless headlines.
Maybe someone can do the calculations for offshore venting? Those so keen to kill off coal and not bother looking into offshore venting until it is more convenient?
Plus, venting is an environmental issue, not venting in the correct manner can be a safety issue.
Offshore platforms typically collect all their vent points to a common header but gas fired power stations do not always do this ( if ever ).
8MW wind turbines don’t constantly emit methane.Like all energy sources they do have a carbon footprint but that is tiny compared to fossil fuels.
With no viable commercial carbon capture in sight any new fossil fuel industry is heading down a road to nowhere.
Everything has an effect. I predict in a few years time the spotlight will fall upon wind turbines. In one way, or another, they are extracting energy from the wind. A look at these page in 50 to 100 years time will probably see learned comments to the effect that wind farms are extracting energy and causing an unbalance resulting in hurricanes and tornados and expanding icecaps elsewhere in the world. Anything done on a global scale, has a global effect. Often not recognised at the offset. The real problem with the world is created by an ever increasing population which puts an increasing demand upon resources and how they are used.I feel it is in curtailing population increase that the environment friendly is the direction which ought to be addressed by them
Lets get methane in context. It is one of the most prevalent gases around in the atmosphere. It comes to the surface of bogs and marshy places all over the world. It is belched by cattle and all other animals, ants nests etc.. and from human sewers It has no odour Humans, themselves, including the more rabid from these pages, each produce about 2 litres per day X the number of people and animals on earth. We burn it in cooking and as a propellent in motor engines. Probably the major producer of methane is human (because of the vast populations of them) So if the ill informed contributors wish to really save the planet from methane, the answer is to fart less !
Better close the beach, as gas has been leaking into the atmosphere for decades. You can conduct a little science test and set the “rocks” alight on that beach or when snorkelling observe the gas bubbles rising to the surface of the sea. Mind you, getting to the beach is a bit of a problem these days as the only road is choked with vehicles fuelled largely by fossil fuels. And of course, you have to avoid the days when the tanks are belching out their emissions on the firing ranges next door.
Between them, 9 dairy cows produce 1 ton of methane per year.
DEFRA fogures show there are slightly more than 1.9 million dairy cows in the UK.
Then there’s beef cattle….2015 figures show just under 10 million in the UK that year.
And the more than 33 million sheep…
And 68 million people…
And then the rest of the world…
Great response R8 LMX .You forgot to include how much Gas (fake news ) Ruth Hayward produces on her private webpage drillordrop .Including her side kick Mr paul seaman l Don,t see them protesting about how many cattle sheep people other animals live in Uk producing huge amounts of methane gas .Ruth try protesting to farmer see how you get on with that
Who is Ruth Hayward ? You obviously cant read . Funny how all the pro fossil fools get so rude when they are going to lose this argument very soon 🙂 Have a great day,
You have to wonder-actually you don’t-how anyone can be so totally blinkered!
Sorry, DOD posted for me, before I had finished.
I was going to say-
Now we are within the hurricane, typhoon season it would appear some have missed some key elements. Like:
The power cables are down, rescuers are desperate to get the diesel fuelled diggers and rescue vehicles into the stricken areas, chain saws desperately need fuel to clear fallen trees, generators equally desperately need their fuel to generate electricity for such things as babies incubators. And here we have the zealots thinking that axes, shovels and a few batteries will be okay, as that is what is needed to support their views. They really are a caring bunch-not.
And to save time-there has always been a hurricane, typhoon season, and there always will be.
1 cow produces 110 kg of methane gas per year 1.9 million cattle in the uk .Protest to the farmers Ruth Hayhurst .See how far you get with that one
I think the point is that although we are currently relying on oil and gas for transport and heating, etc, that the oil and gas industry is still allowed to get away with old regulations and not update their production sites to deal with new regulations that all other industries have to comply with, no matter their age.
Just because venting of methane was an acceptable process many years ago, doesn’t make it acceptable now, just as running a local power plant on coal that kicks out soot over the local community that used to be ‘the norm’ isn’t acceptable now, is it because methane is an invisible by-product that it’s more acceptable even though it’s just as harmful as coal emissions?
Rotting vegetation produces a decent amount worldwide as well. Thought the swampies wanted to keep the swamps?
Should we concrete over the Amazon Basin?
Seriously, there will be some sites where it is easy to generate electricity and plug that into the infrastructure. That is already happening. Other sites not quite so easy, but I suspect they will find a way. This particular site has been nodding away for a long time so it may be that it is coming towards the end of it’s natural life and that has been an influence upon utilising the methane. Not very exciting but probably the reality.
Like to note .Angus energy is to run generations at there sites to produce electricity for the grid from there gas releases .Thats good for the environment yes .To run your electric car
What are generations ? Do you mean generators ? [edited by moderator] There is a difference between There & their because they have different uses , please , just smarten up a bit if you want to be taken seriously, there’s a good chap. Angus also said that they had all permissions to drill BRx4z and that the company would be self funding from the oil at Lidsey so maybe don’t take what they say as gospel .
Well it mitigates the damage to a degree. But then electricity generation from fossil fuels requires those fuels to be ignited, which results in chemical reactions, that lead to the creation of the kind of nasty particulates that are an extreme worry in cities. And now it appears that the countryside is to be exposed to the same particulates in increasing numbers. As the vehicles servicing the site trundle through Balcombe, they will inevitably lead to an increase in toxic pollutants. All these vehicles take the same route each way and pass our primary school, which is separated from the road by a narrow pavement.It is known that both the young and old are at greater risk from these pollutants. So all the youngsters in Balcombe will be receiving higher doses of these particulates. They have also been found in placentas and it is likely that they could therefore migrate into fetuses, leading to life long health problems and a future burden on an already stretched NHS. And that doesn’t even take into account any problems from the site itself. I wonder how many commuters on the London to Brighton railway line are aware that there’s a significant new hazard about 50 yards away from the track.So many thanks to a morally bankrupt government supporting a morally bankrupt industry that simply doesn’t care about local people, which they both simply call ‘receptors’.