rigorousintuition.ca

Toward a better understanding and quantification of methane emissions from shale gas development

Significance

We identified a significant regional flux of methane over a large area of shale gas wells in southwestern Pennsylvania in the Marcellus formation and further identified several pads with high methane emissions. These shale gas pads were identified as in the drilling process, a preproduction stage not previously associated with high methane emissions. This work emphasizes the need for top-down identification and component level and event driven measurements of methane leaks to properly inventory the combined methane emissions of natural gas extraction and combustion to better define the impacts of our nation’s increasing reliance on natural gas to meet our energy needs.

http://www.pnas.org/content/111/17/6237.full

Direct link to pdf download: http://www.pnas.org/content/111/17/6237.full.pdf+html

Mysterious Seafloor Methane Begins to Melt Off Washington State Coast
Researchers probe the oceans off the west coast and see signs of the meltdown of icy methane similar in size to the BP oil spill

December 10, 2014 |By Gayathri Vaidyanathan and ClimateWire


Warming of the Pacific Ocean off Washington state could destabilize methane deposits on the seafloor and trigger a release of the greenhouse gas to the atmosphere.
Credit: Sam Beebe via Flickr

Warming of the Pacific Ocean off Washington state could destabilize methane deposits on the seafloor and trigger a release of the greenhouse gas to the atmosphere, according to a new study published in Geophysical Research Letters.

In the worst-case scenario, if oceans warm by up to 2.4 degrees Celsius by 2100, the volume of methane release every year by 2100 would quadruple the amount by the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, the study estimates.

At issue are methane hydrates, which are complexes of methane trapped in frozen ice buried in ocean beds. The hydrates are found throughout the world's oceans and are maintained by cool water and immense pressures. But as the oceans warm, the hydrates get destabilized and methane is released.

Methane is a significant greenhouse gas, with a global warming potential 86 times as potent as CO2 on a 20-year time scale. Some scientists worry that a significant release from the oceans could exacerbate climate change.

"Methane hydrates are a very large and fragile reservoir of carbon that can be released if temperatures change," Evan Soloman, a researcher at the University of Washington, said in a statement. "I was skeptical at first, but when we looked at the amounts, it's significant."

Other studies have looked at potential methane release in the Arctic Ocean, but this is the first to study release in lower latitudes.

Gas bubbles up from the depths
The study focuses on the upper continental slope off Washington in a region of the shelf called the Cascadia margin. The ocean has been warming there, possibly due to a current carrying water from the Sea of Okhotsk that occurs between Russia and Japan. The sea has been warming over the past half-century.

Using temperatures of the ocean up to a depth of 200 meters recorded between 1970 and 2013, the scientists modeled the amount of methane that has been released historically. The preliminary estimates suggested 4.35 terragrams of methane per year may have been released along the Cascadia margin. This is equal to the release from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in 2010, the report finds.

The scientists also projected methane release in the future by assuming the ocean would warm by 0.88 C to 2.4 C by 2100. As the ocean warms, the methane release would quadruple, the study suggests.

The released methane could be ingested by bacteria, but some of it may escape into the atmosphere and accelerate climate change.

The scientists caution that their estimates are preliminary because little is known about the methane hydrate volume and density at Cascadia. Further research is needed to better understand the scope of the problem, the study states.

Warmer Pacific Ocean could release millions of tons of seafloor methane
December 9, 2014
Hannah Hickey

News and Information

Off the West Coast of the United States, methane gas is trapped in frozen layers below the seafloor. New research from the University of Washington shows that water at intermediate depths is warming enough to cause these carbon deposits to melt, releasing methane into the sediments and surrounding water.

Researchers found that water off the coast of Washington is gradually warming at a depth of 500 meters, about a third of a mile down. That is the same depth where methane transforms from a solid to a gas. The research suggests that ocean warming could be triggering the release of a powerful greenhouse gas.


Sonar image of bubbles rising from the seafloor off the Washington coast. The base of the column is 1/3 of a mile (515 meters) deep and the top of the plume is at 1/10 of a mile (180 meters) deep.Brendan Philip / UW

“We calculate that methane equivalent in volume to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill is released every year off the Washington coast,” said Evan Solomon, a UW assistant professor of oceanography. He is co-author of a paper to appear in Geophysical Research Letters.

While scientists believe that global warming will release methane from gas hydrates worldwide, most of the current focus has been on deposits in the Arctic. This paper estimates that from 1970 to 2013, some 4 million metric tons of methane has been released from hydrate decomposition off Washington. That’s an amount each year equal to the methane from natural gas released in the 2010 Deepwater Horizon blowout off the coast of Louisiana, and 500 times the rate at which methane is naturally released from the seafloor.

“Methane hydrates are a very large and fragile reservoir of carbon that can be released if temperatures change,” Solomon said. “I was skeptical at first, but when we looked at the amounts, it’s significant.”

Methane is the main component of natural gas. At cold temperatures and high ocean pressure, it combines with water into a crystal called methane hydrate. The Pacific Northwest has unusually large deposits of methane hydrates because of its biologically productive waters and strong geologic activity. But coastlines around the world hold deposits that could be similarly vulnerable to warming.

“This is one of the first studies to look at the lower-latitude margin,” Solomon said. “We’re showing that intermediate-depth warming could be enhancing methane release.”


The yellow dots show all the ocean temperature measurements off the Washington coast from 1970 to 2013. The green triangles are places where scientists and fishermen have seen columns of bubbles. The stars are where the UW researchers took more measurements to check whether the plumes are due to warming water.Una Miller / UW

Co-author Una Miller, a UW oceanography undergraduate, first collected thousands of historic temperature measurements in a region off the Washington coast as part of a separate research project in the lab of co-author Paul Johnson, a UW professor of oceanography. The data revealed the unexpected sub-surface ocean warming signal.

“Even though the data was raw and pretty messy, we could see a trend,” Miller said. “It just popped out.”

The four decades of data show deeper water has, perhaps surprisingly, been warming the most due to climate change.

“A lot of the earlier studies focused on the surface because most of the data is there,” said co-author Susan Hautala, a UW associate professor of oceanography. “This depth turns out to be a sweet spot for detecting this trend.” The reason, she added, is that it lies below water nearer the surface that is influenced by long-term atmospheric cycles.

The warming water probably comes from the Sea of Okhotsk, between Russia and Japan, where surface water becomes very dense and then spreads east across the Pacific. The Sea of Okhotsk is known to have warmed over the past 50 years, and other studies have shown that the water takes a decade or two to cross the Pacific and reach the Washington coast.

“We began the collaboration when we realized this is also the most sensitive depth for methane hydrate deposits,” Hautala said. She believes the same ocean currents could be warming intermediate-depth waters from Northern California to Alaska, where frozen methane deposits are also known to exist.


Researchers used a coring machine to gather samples of sediment off Washington’s coast to see if observations match their calculations for warming-induced methane release. The photo was taken in October aboard the UW’s Thomas G. Thompson research vessel.Robert Cannata / UW

Warming water causes the frozen edge of methane hydrate to move into deeper water. On land, as the air temperature warms on a frozen hillside, the snowline moves uphill. In a warming ocean, the boundary between frozen and gaseous methane would move deeper and farther offshore. Calculations in the paper show that since 1970 the Washington boundary has moved about 1 kilometer – a little more than a half-mile – farther offshore. By 2100, the boundary for solid methane would move another 1 to 3 kilometers out to sea.

Estimates for the future amount of gas released from hydrate dissociation this century are as high as 0.4 million metric tons per year off the Washington coast, or about quadruple the amount of methane from the Deepwater Horizon blowout each year.

Still unknown is where any released methane gas would end up. It could be consumed by bacteria in the seafloor sediment or in the water, where it could cause seawater in that area to become more acidic and oxygen-deprived. Some methane might also rise to the surface, where it would release into the atmosphere as a greenhouse gas, compounding the effects of climate change.


Evan Solomon (right) and Marta Torres (left, OSU) aboard the UW’s Thomas G. Thompson research vessel in October, with fluid samples from the seafloor that will help answer whether the columns of methane bubbles are due to ocean warming.Robert Cannata / UW

Researchers now hope to verify the calculations with new measurements. For the past few years, curious fishermen have sent UW oceanographers sonar images showing mysterious columns of bubbles. Solomon and Johnson just returned from a cruise to check out some of those sites at depths where Solomon believes they could be caused by warming water.

“Those images the fishermen sent were 100 percent accurate,” Johnson said. “Without them we would have been shooting in the dark.”

Johnson and Solomon are analyzing data from that cruise to pinpoint what’s triggering this seepage, and the fate of any released methane. The recent sightings of methane bubbles rising to the sea surface, the authors note, suggests that at least some of the seafloor gas may reach the surface and vent to the atmosphere.

The research was funded by the National Science Foundation and the U.S. Department of Energy. The other co-author is Robert Harris at Oregon State University.

Still unknown is where any released methane gas would end up. It could be consumed by bacteria in the seafloor sediment or in the water, where it could cause seawater in that area to become more acidic and oxygen-deprived. Some methane might also rise to the surface, where it would release into the atmosphere as a greenhouse gas, compounding the effects of climate change.

Methane is leaking from permafrost offshore Siberia
Date:
December 22, 2014
Source:
CAGE - Center for Arctic Gas Hydrate, Climate and Environment
Summary:
Images of craters on Yamal Peninsula, caused by collapsing permafrost, have become world famous. But did you know that this permafrost extends to the ocean floor? And it is thawing.


The magnificent images of a crater on Yamal Peninsula, caused by collapsing permafrost, have become world famous. But did you know that this permafrost extends to the ocean floor? And it is thawing.
Credit: Image courtesy of CAGE - Center for Arctic Gas Hydrate, Climate and Environment

Yamal Peninsula in Siberia has recently become world famous. Spectacular sinkholes, appeared as out of nowhere in the permafrost of the area, sparking the speculations of significant release of greenhouse gas methane into the atmosphere.

What is less known, is that there is a lot of greenhouse gas methane released from the seabed offshore the West Yamal Peninsula. Gas is released in an area of at least 7500 m2, with gas flares extending up to 25 meters in the water column. Anyhow, there is still a large amount of methane gas that is contained by an impermeable cap of permafrost. And this permafrost is thawing.

"The thawing of permafrost on the ocean floor is an ongoing process, likely to be exaggerated by the global warming of the world´s oceans." says PhD Alexey Portnov at Centre for Arctic Gas Hydrate, Climate and Environment (CAGE) at UiT, The Arctic University of Norway.

Portnov and his colleagues have recently published two papers about permafrost offshore West Yamal, in the Kara Sea. Papers look into the extent of permafrost on the ocean floor and how it is connected to the significant release of the greenhouse gas methane.

Permanently frozen soil

Permafrost, as the word implies, is the soil permanently frozen for two or more years. For something to stay permanently frozen, the temperature must of course stay bellow 0°C.

"Terrestrial Arctic is always frozen, average ground temperatures are low in Siberia which maintains permafrost down to 600-800 meters ground depth. But the ocean is another matter. Bottom water temperature is usually close to or above zero. Theoretically, therefore, we could never have thick permafrost under the sea," says Portnov "However, 20,000 years ago, during the last glacial maximum, the sea level dropped to minus 120 meters. It means that today´s shallow shelf area was land. It was Siberia. And Siberia was frozen. The permafrost on the ocean floor today was established in that period.

Last glacial maximum was the period in the history of the planet when ice sheets covered significant part of the Northern hemisphere. These ice sheets profoundly impacted Earth's climate, causing drought, desertification, and a dramatic drop in sea levels. Most likely the Yamal Peninsula was not covered with ice, but it was exposed to extremely cold conditions.

When the ice age ended some 12,000 years ago, and the climate warmed up, the ocean levels increased. Permafrost was submerged under the ocean water, and started it´s slow thawing. One of the reasons it has not thawed completely so far, is that bottom water temperatures are low, some -- 0,5 degrees . That could very well change.

A fragile seal that is leaking

It was previously proposed that the permafrost in the Kara Sea, and other Arctic areas, extends to water depths up to 100 meters, creating a seal that gas cannot bypass. Portnov and collegues have found that the West Yamal shelf is leaking, profoundly, at depths much shallower than that.

Significant amount of gas is leaking at depths between 20 and 50 meters. This suggests that a continuous permafrost seal is much smaller than proposed. Close to the shore the permafrost seal may be few hundred meters thick, but tapers off towards 20 meters water depth. And it is fragile.

"The permafrost is thawing from two sides. The interior of the Earth is warm and is warming the permafrost from the bottom up. It is called geothermal heat flux and it is happening all the time, regardless of human influence. " says Portnov.

Evolution of permafrost

Portnov used mathematical models to map the evolution of the permafrost, and thus calculate its degradation since the end of the last ice age. The evolution of permafrost gives indication to what may happen to it in the future.

If the bottom ocean temperature is 0,5°C, the maximal possible permafrost thickness would likely take 9000 years to thaw. But if this temperature increases, the process would go much faster, because the thawing also happens from the top down.

"If the temperature of the oceans increases by two degrees as suggested by some reports, it will accelerate the thawing to the extreme. A warming climate could lead to an explosive gas release from the shallow areas."

Permafrost keeps the free methane gas in the sediments. But it also stabilizes gas hydrates, ice-like structures that usually need high pressure and low temperature to form.

"Gas hydrates normally form in water depths over 300 meters, because they depend on high pressure. But under permafrost the gas hydrate may stay stable even where the pressure is not that high, because of the constantly low temperatures."

Gas hydrates contain huge amount of methane gas, and it is destabilization of these that is believed to have caused the craters on the Yamal Peninsula.

Story Source:

The above story is based on materials provided by CAGE - Center for Arctic Gas Hydrate, Climate and Environment. The original article was written by Maja Sojtaric. Note: Materials may be edited for content and length.

Journal References:

Alexey Portnov, Jurgen Mienert, Pavel Serov. Modeling the evolution of climate-sensitive Arctic subsea permafrost in regions of extensive gas expulsion at the West Yamal shelf. Journal of Geophysical Research: Biogeosciences, 2014; 119 (11): 2082 DOI: 10.1002/2014JG002685
Alexey Portnov, Andrew J. Smith, Jürgen Mienert, Georgy Cherkashov, Pavel Rekant, Peter Semenov, Pavel Serov, Boris Vanshtein. Offshore permafrost decay and massive seabed methane escape in water depths >20 m at the South Kara Sea shelf. Geophysical Research Letters, 2013; 40 (15): 3962 DOI: 10.1002/grl.50735

Abrupt Climate Change, Already?

by Robert Hunziker / January 30th, 2015

Is abrupt climate change already here?

There are some serious scientists who believe it is already here. If their analysis is correct, the world could turn nearly uninhabitable within current lifetimes.

In that regard, the American public is overly, dangerously casual about the prospects/risks of abrupt climate change. This is found in numerous studies and polls; e.g., according to a Pew Research Global Attitudes Project, in an international survey of 39 countries, Americans were among the least concerned about climate change threatening the country. Global warming also ranked near the bottom of Americans’ priorities.

As it goes, the American public may be caught off guard, unprepared, and ill equipped to press its political establishment for appropriate action because abrupt climate change has a history of happening very, very quickly, within decades, not over hundreds of years.

Assuming these scientists are correct, by the time the U.S. Congress gets serious about climate change, they’ll be wearing waders.

As for the risks associated with abrupt climate change, according to Paul Beckwith, Laboratory for Paleoclimatology and Climatology, University of Ottawa, in the past:

The temperature of the planet has increased by 5C or 6C within one decade or two decades… not within a hundred years but within one or two decades… during the ice age period between 70,000 and 40,000 years ago, the temperature rose over Greenland 5-6C in a decade or two… and 55 million years ago… the temperature rose globally by 5C in 13 years, as shown in sediment samples. (COP20: Global Arctic Methane Emergency)

Based upon historic records, once abrupt climate change commences, and when viewed on a geological-time basis, it has the potential to take off like a house on fire. According to Paul Beckwith, unfortunately: “We’re undergoing the early stages of abrupt climate change,” already, right now! As such, a rapid self-fulfilling temperature rise of 5C or 6C would be devastating for life as we know it.

This risk of further rapid abrupt climate change, as, for example, temperatures zooming upwards, depends upon the integrity of the ice of the Arctic, among other considerations. As emphasized by Beckwith, when analyzing the climate system, it is important to understand that metrics can be misleading. For example, the consensus opinion talks about 2C as a cap for rising temperatures; however, in point of fact, “What is important is the temperature distribution on the planet on a latitudinal basis.”

Beckwith: “The Arctic is absorbing a lot more solar energy, and by itself at a much greater rate, than anywhere else on the planet. In fact, on average, in the last number of decades, the Arctic temperature has risen 1.0C per decade whereas the global average temperature rise has been about 0.15C per decade. So that ratio is 6 or 7 times more.”

Therefore, the most immediate risk of further abrupt climate change hinges on how well the Arctic withstands global warming. As the Arctic loses ice mass, it releases more, and more, methane (CH4), which is much more powerful at entrapping heat than is carbon dioxide (CO2), and because massive quantities of CH4 are embedded within the ice, only a small fraction may cause the planet to heat up rapidly, going into deadly overdrive, resulting in numerous outgrowths negatively impacting life. As, for example, rapid increase in sea levels, flooding coastal cities, embedded droughts, diminishing agricultural production, severe storm activity, and horrific heat throughout the mid latitudes, resulting in panic, illness, and sudden death. It is likely the world turns chaotic.

Scientists are radically divided on the issue of abrupt climate change and few predict an upsurge any time soon. Nevertheless, it’s the scientists who base their opinion on first hand knowledge, “boots on the ground,” who are screaming the loudest. They do not let the “ computer models” override what they personally experience. In contrast, they see and feel the reality “in the field.” They are like scientific pioneers in the field, in the marsh, below and above the ice, on expeditions into the wilderness where nobody cares to tread. It’s hard work.

Those scientific pioneers, like John Nissen, Chairman of the Arctic Methane Emergency Group (AMEG), are deeply concerned about the rate of melt of the Arctic, and the attendant enormous plumes of methane, already observed in the Arctic seas, especially in the East Siberian Ice Shelf where waters are shallow and easily warmed, threatening to release gigatons of methane. Expeditions above, below, and on the surface have convinced these scientists that we’ve got a huge problem coming up, maybe soon, maybe too soon.

According to John Nissen: “Sea ice could disappear at the end of summer as soon as next September. At that point, further warming of the Arctic, sea level rise, methane release, in that time bomb, and abrupt climate change, could become unstoppable. The fuse will have been lit and will be going off very quickly. We consider it an absolute scandal that IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] says nothing about the greatest threat to humanity since civilization began.”

In turn, these pioneering scientists listen to other scientists who also favor “boots on the ground” analysis over scientific modeling, people like Dr. Natalia Shakhova, who leads the Russia-U.S. Methane Study at the International Arctic Research Center, at the University Alaska Fairbanks and the Pacific Oceanological Institute, Far Eastern Branch of Russian Academy of Sciences. Dr. Shakhova’s expeditions to the Arctic convince her that only a tiny percentage of the vast amounts of methane buried in Arctic ice is necessary to double current atmospheric CH4. Worse yet, she suspects an outburst of 50 gigatons could happen at any time. In many respects, this would be a disaster beyond repair.

In an interview, Shakhova says, “We do not like what we see… absolutely do not like it.”

In the end, too much carbon dioxide emitted by burning too much gas, oil & coal, blankets the atmosphere enough to heat up the Arctic far above and way beyond past centuries, causing torrential weather patterns throughout the Northern Hemisphere, and shaking lose too much methane for human comfort.

Could civilization withstand a 50-gigaton release? Professor Wadhams’ response is: “No, I don’t think it can.”

Is there a solution?

Yes, there may be solutions but according to these scientists, a sense of urgency matters more than anything at this late hour.

Paul Beckwith is one of the scientific pioneers, an advocate, a researcher, and member of AMEG, co-founded by Peter Wadhams, professor of Ocean Physics, University of Cambridge.

Beckwith: “We have to slash emissions there’s no question, slash the CO2 emissions and quickly, but that’s not sufficient. We also have to cool the Arctic, and we also have to try to remove CO2 from the atmosphere.”

The technology is there, solar radiation management, reflecting incoming solar, and sea salt spraying, as well as employing concerted efforts to increase vegetation to absorb CO2, and carbon capture, and biochar.

However, there’s risk because nobody has proven these geoengineering techniques effective on a planetary scale. On that basis, they are experimental. There is no consensus in the world community to test geoengineering, which is very provocative subject matter amongst scientists, some favor, some oppose. And, those opposed adamantly oppose because of potential harmful feedback loops. It may be a risky venture.

But, what if these early-warning scientists are wrong? What if they are absolutely correct about the outcome of global warming/climate change but too optimistic about the timing? This, therefore, is all the more reason for governments to initiate conversions now from fossil fuels to renewables, hopefully rescuing future generations from the potential of a global warming nightmare.

If we lose the ice caps, civilization starves and the world’s coastal cities drown. It’s really as simple, and complex, as that. Already, CO2 levels are at an historic high.

Throughout geological history, “Every time we have hit high CO2, we’ve lost the ice caps,” Peter Ward, professor, Dept. of Earth & Space Sciences, University of Washington, Our Future in a World without Ice Caps, 2013 lecture series.

As for the risks associated with abrupt climate change, according to Paul Beckwith, Laboratory for Paleoclimatology and Climatology, University of Ottawa, in the past:

Paul Beckwith wrote:The temperature of the planet has increased by 5C or 6C within one decade or two decades… not within a hundred years but within one or two decades… during the ice age period between 70,000 and 40,000 years ago, the temperature rose over Greenland 5-6C in a decade or two… and 55 million years ago… the temperature rose globally by 5C in 13 years, as shown in sediment samples. (COP20: Global Arctic Methane Emergency)

[...]

If we lose the ice caps, civilization starves and the world’s coastal cities drown. It’s really as simple, and complex, as that. Already, CO2 levels are at an historic high.

Throughout geological history, “Every time we have hit high CO2, we’ve lost the ice caps,” Peter Ward, professor, Dept. of Earth & Space Sciences, University of Washington, Our Future in a World without Ice Caps, 2013 lecture series.

Siberian Permafrost Methane Shows Growing Eruption: Number of Global Warming-Induced Craters Now Estimated at 20-30


(Siberian methane crater locations. In total, 7 methane blow holes with features similar to the Yamal Crater have now been discovered. Unofficial reports from observers on the ground have local scientists placing the likely count now at between 20-30 original craters with many more secondary craters. Image source: The Daily Mail.)

The ground smoked for hours. Then, with a great flash and an enormous boom, the land exploded. When the smoke cleared, all that was left was a great, black hole. Ejected earth lay scattered around it — sheer sides plunging into the permafrost like some gigantic, gaping gun barrel.

This was the scene last summer in Yamal, Siberia — a region of extreme northern Russia.

Mysterious Holes Emitting Methane Gas

Speculation about the cause of this mysterious hole became rampant. It looked like a sink hole, except for the ejected material surrounding it. Some said it was a pingo. But pingos weren’t known to form due to explosions.

Teams of scientists rapidly descended upon the hole. And there they found high readings of methane at the hole’s base — in the range of 10% concentration, which is a very explosive level for the gas. At the base of the hole they also found evidence of hydrate. A form of frozen water-methane that is quite unstable unless kept under high pressure and low temperature.

The initial conclusion of the Russian scientists was that relic hydrate sealed beneath the previously flooded Siberian permafrost had been destabilized. Eventually reaching an explosive concentration, it then erupted from the ground.

Discovery of this methane crater spurred a sweep of the area. Almost immediately, two other craters with similar features were discovered. And throughout fall and winter, both ground searches and satellite reconnaissance identified still more.


(Newly discovered methane blow-hole found by satellite observation. In the top frame we see tundra absent the newly formed hole. In the bottom frame, we find the hole forming a lake [B2] surrounded by 20 or more ‘baby craters.’ Image source: The Siberian Times.)

Now, according to recent reports in the Siberian Times, a total of seven craters with features similar to the Yamal eruption have been pinpointed by observers. Just one of these craters (shown above) hosted about 20 smaller ‘baby craters’ surrounding it. In this instance, a large methane store below the permafrost is thought to have explosively displaced a shot-gun pattern of frozen soil sections before filling with water.

Most of the craters, like the one above, were observed to rapidly fill with water even as they continued to emit methane. In many instances, the methane emission was visible as bubbles on the newly formed lake surface.


(Bubbles from suspected methane crater lake as seen by an observation aircraft. Image source: The Siberian Times.)

Additional reports from reindeer herders have led these same scientists to believe that in the range of 20-30 of these methane eruption holes are likely to exist in this region of Northwestern Siberia.

A Problem of Relic Hydrates Facing Rapid Warming

The fact that reindeer herders keep discovering new holes and that the first Yamal craters discovered earlier this year were recent events have led local scientists to believe that the eruptions are a new phenomena for Siberia. There, temperatures have warmed by a stunning 2 degrees Celsius within the mere span of 14 years. A very rapid rate of warming that is putting severe stress on the geophysical stability of this Arctic region.

Last night, as polar amplification again ramped up, we saw an example of this very rapid warming with locations in Yamal, Russia experiencing -3.1 C temperatures as of 1 AM Eastern Standard Time. A very warm measure for this region during winter time — representing an anomaly at least 20 degrees Celsius above average. For reference, North Texas, an area far south of the Arctic Circle, experienced similar readings (-3.4 C) at the same time:


(Side-by-side frames showing 1 AM EST temperatures in Yamal Russia [left frame] and North Texas, US [right frame]. Location in the frames is indicated by the small green circle. Temperature, wind speed and direction, and grid location are given in the lower left hand corner. Image source: Earth Nullschool. Data Source: Global Forecast Systems Model.)

In other words, it was colder in North Texas last night than it was in Yamal, Siberia near the 70 degree North Latitude line beside the Arctic Ocean.

This extremely rapid warming is thought by Russian scientists to have destabilized zones of relic hydrate trapped beneath the permafrost. There, the methane gas bonded with water to form a kind of methane ice.

Sandwiched beneath frozen permafrost, the hydrate remains stable so long as temperatures and pressures are relatively constant. Any increase in warmth — either through geological processes working below the hydrate, or from changes at the surface causing permafrost to melt and warmer, liquid water to contact the hydrate — would result in increased hydrate instability.


(The Yamal Crater as seen by Russian Scientists who investigated the scene last summer. The crater’s structure and surrounding ejecta was indicative of an explosive outburst. Image source: The Siberian Times.)

In some cases, the gas would very rapidly liberate from its frozen traps forming increasingly high pressure pockets beneath the permafrost. If these pockets reach 10 percent methane concentration, they become very explosive and can be ignited when in contact with a catalyst or ignition source. The result, either due to very high pressure or ignition, is plugs of permafrost exploding from the ground as the gas erupts to the surface.

Conditions in Context

It is important to note that the amount of methane liberated by these initial eruption events is likely rather small — when considered on the global scale. However, what we see in Siberia now may be part of a growing and ominous trend.

First, we do not know the size of the potential methane store that could be liberated in such an explosive fashion. And the question must be asked — if we are looking at such rapid warming of methane hydrates in shallow sea and former shallow sea regions, what scale eruptions could we potentially experience in the future? Could very large sections of hydrate go critical? Areas possibly covering hundreds or thousands of square meters or more?

The Russian scientists seem very concerned. And, ironically, it is for the future safety of their oil and gas infrastructure, which sits atop what is potentially a rapidly destabilizing zone. A zone that could see explosive eruptions of the ground beneath pipes, equipment and extraction fields. (One would think that the Russians would also begin questioning the continued exploration and production of oil and gas considering its contribution to the dangers they are now identifying. But that level of wisdom appears absent in the recent assessments.)

Second, it appears that these methane eruptions provide pathways for ongoing release. Not all of the gas in the relic hydrate is initially liberated. And the structures that remain apparently release methane gas for some time — as is evidenced by continued high methane concentrations found at crater sites and by observed emissions from crater lake surfaces.

In essence, if this is a growing trend, then it is a rather unsettling one. Especially when one considers that it is just a single instance of many possible amplifying carbon feedbacks set off by a very rapid human warming. Particularly, the explosive land and ocean floor-altering nature of this specific carbon feedback makes it especially troubling. For it encompasses the very nature of a catastrophic upheaval.

In the end, the question must be asked — is Siberia sitting atop a methane volcano that is being prodded to rapid wakening by high-velocity human warming?

The Siberian crater saga is more widespread — and scarier — than anyone thought

By Terrence McCoy February 26


A member of an expedition group at the edge of a newly formed crater on the Yamal Peninsula in northern Siberia on Nov. 9, 2014. (Vladimir Pushkarev/Russian Centre of Arctic Exploration via Reuters)

In the middle of last summer came news of a bizarre occurrence no one could explain. Seemingly out of nowhere, a massive crater appeared in one of the planet’s most inhospitable lands. Early estimates said the crater, nestled in a land called “the ends of the Earth” where temperatures can sink far below zero, yawned nearly 100 feet in diameter.

The saga deepened. The Siberian crater wasn’t alone. There were two more, ratcheting up the tension in a drama that hit its climax as a probable explanation surfaced. Global warming had thawed the permafrost, which had caused methane trapped inside the icy ground to explode. “Gas pressure increased until it was high enough to push away the overlaying layers in a powerful injection, forming the crater,” one German scientist said at the time.

[Scientists may have cracked the giant Siberian crater mystery — and the news isn’t good]

Now, however, researchers fear there are more craters than anyone knew — and the repercussions could be huge. Russian scientists have now spotted a total of seven craters, five of which are in the Yamal Peninsula. Two of those holes have since turned into lakes. And one giant crater is rimmed by a ring of at least 20 mini-craters, the Siberian Times reported. Dozens more Siberian craters are likely still out there, said Moscow scientist Vasily Bogoyavlensky of the Oil and Gas Research Institute, calling for an “urgent” investigation.

He fears that if temperatures continue to rise — and they were five degrees higher than average in 2012 and 2013 — more craters will emerge in an area awash in gas fields vital to the national economy. “It is important not to scare people, but to understand that it is a very serious problem and we must research this,” he told the Siberian Times. “… We must research this phenomenon urgently, to prevent possible disasters.”

One potential disaster relates to the explosions themselves. No one has been hurt in any of the blasts, but given the size of some of the craters, it’s fair to say the methane bursts are huge. Researchers are nervous about even studying them. Who knows when a methane geyser will shoot off again?

“These objects need to be studied, but it is rather dangerous for the researchers,” Bogoyavlensky told the Siberian Times. “We know that there can occur a series of gas emissions over an extended period of time, but we do not know exactly when they might happen. … It is very risky, because no one can guarantee there would not be new emissions.”

Making matters worse, the gas is extremely flammable. One of the methane bursts has already caught fire. Nearby residents in a town called Antipayuta say they recently saw a bright flash in the distance. “Probably the gas ignited,” Bogoyavlensky said. “… This shows us that such [an] explosion could be rather dangerous and destructive. Years of experience has shown that gas emissions can cause serious damage to drilling rigs, oil and gas fields and offshore pipelines.”

Of particular interest is the Siberian crater B2. Since its emergence, only six miles away from Bovanenkovo, a major Gazprom gas field, it has turned into a lake. But even now, photographs show, there are wisps of methane. The crater, covered by water, is still leaking gas. “This haze that you see on the surface show that gas seeps that go from the bottom of the lake to the surface,” Bogoyavlensky told the Siberian Times. “We call this process ‘degassing.’”

So, to recap: Siberia is warming. Permafrost thaws and spews methane, and blasts out a burst of highly flammable gas. Who could have guessed global warming would do all of that?

“No one knows what is happening in these craters at the moment,” Bogoyavlensky said. “We plan a new expedition.”

Why you shouldn’t freak out about those mysterious Siberian craters

By Chris Mooney March 2

Siberian craters are back in the news — apparently thanks to a Siberian Times report, full of stunning pictures, claiming that “Dozens of new craters suspected in northern Russia.”

This tends to freak us out, and not surprisingly. After all, one leading idea about the source of the mysterious craters is that these might represent explosions of methane gas into the atmosphere — liberated by melting Arctic permafrost, which is, of course, destabilizing because of global warming.

“What I think is happening here is, the permafrost has been acting as a cap or seal on the ground, through which gas can’t permeate,” says Paul Overduin, a senior scientist at the Alfred Wegener Institute in Germany who studies permafrost, of the craters. “And it reaches a particular temperature where there’s not enough ice in it to act that way anymore. And then gas can rush out.”

Here’s why this is scary: If large amounts of methane vent from the Arctic into the atmosphere, that could lead to a positive climate change feedback — still more warming, still more methane release, and so on and so on and so on. That’s because methane is not only a greenhouse gas, but a potent one at that — pound for pound, it causes much more global warming than carbon dioxide does (though, fortunately, it does not last nearly as long in the atmosphere).

However, it all really depends on how much methane is venting — and, so far, it’s not clear that it’s very much.
Reasons for not worrying

First of all, there’s the scale of the craters. When news of them first emerged, the climate researcher David Archer of the University of Chicago took a look at their size — one of the craters, he wrote, was “about 80 meters in diameter and 60-100 meters deep” — and did some quick calculations. And he concluded that “it would take about 20,000,000 such eruptions within a few years to generate the standard Arctic Methane Apocalypse that people have been talking about.”

There’s also the fact that if the Arctic was really becoming a methane bomb, we would presumably be able to measure that. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration takes atmospheric measurements of greenhouse gases, including methane, explains the agency’s Ed Dlugokencky, who monitors these global greenhouse gas emissions for the agency. When it comes to measuring methane release in the Arctic and whether it is increasing, NOAA does so through two methods: combining actual measurements of methane in the air with a “model of atmospheric chemistry and transport” and examining whether there are “spatial patterns in measurements over time,” Dlugokencky says.

“So far, neither of these approaches suggests a detectable increase in emissions from the Arctic,” he says.

Granted, methane in the atmosphere is increasing, and has been since 2007 — it’s just that NOAA doesn’t have evidence of an Arctic uptick in particular. And it’s important to emphasize that NOAA’s data are pretty up to date. The measurements are taken on a roughly weekly basis — and “for most high northern latitude sites, we have data to near the end of 2014,” says Dlugokencky.

Still, the craters could still be seen as an ominous harbinger. “I see this as a new phenomenon, pointing to the warming of permafrost. So it’s not just warming up, it’s also erupting,” Overduin says. But he notes that there’s no way to know right now how significant the eruptions are, in a climatic sense.
So what about methane beneath the ocean surface?

The Siberian craters story also needs to be understood alongside another Arctic methane story that has been popping in and out of the news and people’s consciousness for several years. It’s kind of the oceanic version of the craters: The idea that frozen permafrost beneath the sea surface just offshore in Arctic regions also may explosively release methane that is currently stored in “gas hydrates,” or icy deposits beneath the seafloor.

This prospect, too, has been depicted as very alarming.

But a number of scientists have said that, with respect to methane emissions from sub-sea permafrost, we should chill out. Like all Arctic matters — where we have a vast area that’s changing rapidly but few researchers able to even reach most parts of it — this is another realm that’s rife with scientific uncertainty. But it remains questionable at this point that any Arctic methane catastrophe is underway.

Globally, it is estimated that a very large amount of methane — though estimates vary widely — is trapped beneath the seafloor in the form of “methane hydrates,” frozen combinations of ice and gas. Warming ocean waters could melt these hydrates, but most of them are thought to be in very deep waters, where warmth probably wouldn’t reach, at least not anytime soon. Moreover, if methane gets released from the seafloor in deep ocean water, much of the gas would probably dissolve in the water column without necessarily reaching the surface.

So the key issue here would seem to be how much methane hydrate exists in shallow waters of continental shelves, which could be destabilized in close proximity to the atmosphere. And one recent study found that that’s probably about 1 percent of all global methane that’s stored in gas hydrates. “There’s probably less permafrost associated gas hydrate than some of the assumptions that are made,” explains its author Carolyn Ruppel, a gas hydrate researcher with the U.S. Geological Survey.

Granted, at least one team of researchers would appear to disagree. Natalia Shakhova of the University of Alaska Fairbanks and her colleagues published a study in Nature Geoscience last year suggesting that “significant quantities of methane are escaping the East Siberian Shelf as a result of the degradation of submarine permafrost over thousands of years.” Ruppel doesn’t question the research but says that “we go to other places in high latitudes and we try to measure methane fluxes, and we don’t get numbers that are anywhere near as high.”

The National Academy of Sciences, when it looked at risks of “abrupt” climate change in 2013, similarly rated the risk of an Arctic methane bomb quite low. On the subject of sub-sea permafrost releasing methane, the report said this was unlikely to lead to abrupt climate change in this century. As for land-based permafrost, the report had a similar message. “Arctic carbon stores are poised to play a significant amplifying role in the century-scale buildup of carbon dioxide and methane in the atmosphere, but are unlikely to do so abruptly, i.e., on a timescale of one or a few decades,” it found.

So, at a minimum, we would have to say that a risk from sub-sea Arctic methane is, at this point, contested.

The Arctic is changing very rapidly indeed, and there is every reason to expect that as permafrost melts, we will see more carbon dioxide and more methane vent into the atmosphere. And that is not a good thing. However, that doesn’t mean that a methane catastrophe is coming anytime soon. We should be cautious and worried about what’s happening to the Arctic — but not, yet, alarmist.

That’s because methane is not only a greenhouse gas, but a potent one at that — pound for pound, it causes much more global warming than carbon dioxide does (though, fortunately, it does not last nearly as long in the atmosphere).

David Archer of the University of Chicago took a look at their size — one of the craters, he wrote, was “about 80 meters in diameter and 60-100 meters deep” — and did some quick calculations. And he concluded that “it would take about 20,000,000 such eruptions within a few years to generate the standard Arctic Methane Apocalypse that people have been talking about.”

When it comes to measuring methane release in the Arctic and whether it is increasing, NOAA does so through two methods: combining actual measurements of methane in the air with a “model of atmospheric chemistry and transport” and examining whether there are “spatial patterns in measurements over time,” Dlugokencky says.

The earth was first observed to smoke. This continued for some time and then a bright flash followed by a loud bang exploded above the tundra. After the mists and smoke cleared, a large hole surrounded by mounds of ejected soil was visible. The hole tunneled like a cone more than 200 feet down. Its walls were frozen permafrost.