Potential Risks of the Injection of Natural Gas into the Castor … · 2018. 3. 15. · the coast...

Potential Risks of the Injection of Natural Gas into

the Castor Platform

ecologistasen acción29 October, 2013

2 Potential Risks of the Injection of Natural Gas into the Castor Platform

Ecologistas en AcciónMarqués de Leganés 12 - 28004 MadridTelefono: +34-91-531 27 39http://www.ecologistasenaccion.org

Madrid, (Extended 29 October, 2013)

ecologistasen acción

A report by:

Dr. Miguel de las Doblas Lavigne,of the Geosciences Institute of Madrid, IGEO, (CSIC-UCM), headquartered in the Museum of Natural Sciences, calle José Gutiérrez Abascal 2, 28006 Madrid. Email: [email protected]. Telephone: 606688545.

and

D. Antonio Jesús Galindo Jiménez, Expert in maritime navigation, Torreperogil, Jaén. Email: [email protected]. Teléfono: 626102444.

Cover photo: Fire on the Deepwater Horizon platform in the Gulf of Mexico, caused by a gas leak.

3Potential Risks of the Injection of Natural Gas into the Castor Platform

Potential Risks of the Injection of Natural Gas

into the Castor Platform

There are two kinds of risk surrounding the in-jection of natural gas into the Castor platform, which sits within a zone of potentially dange-rous geological faults

1. The risk associated with greater or smaller magnitudes of vibrations through earthquakes, which can unleash severe damages to life and property in the coastal populations, and

2. The risk of a massive gas leak from the subte-rranean gas store, as a consequence of the ear-thquakes which will fracture and crack the roof of said store, or could provoke the sinking of the entire bedrock floor in a large sector around Cas-tor as the giant karst caves of cretaceous limes-tone, which form the store, collapse. This second type of risk is one which has yet to be reported in the media.


1. Seismic Risk The seismic risk associated with Castor Platform’s operations is nothing new, since it was reported upon by Miguel de las Doblas, of the Geoscien-ces Institute of Madrid (CSIC), in November of 2012 [1].

In May 2012, Project Castor began its operations, (operated by a Spanish-Canadian consortium) off the coast of Vinaroz in Castellón. The operations involved a massive subterranean injection of na-tural gas, with the objective of converting the for-mer oil field of Amposta into the largest subterra-nean store of natural gas in Spain.[2]. It seemed that nobody knew, at that time, that the zone was a seismically active one, and apparently neither did anybody take account of a recent investiga-tion which pointed out and reported the dangers of a subterranean store of CO2 on a large scale, as regards inducing seismic activity. As the authors of this investigation point out, “There are nume-rous lines of evidence which indicate the existence of pre-existing faults which are liable to rupture in almost any place, often as a response to even the smallest increments in pressure. It is for that reason that the storage areas need to be chosen extremely carefully and the risks of seismic movements kept in mind.” [3]

According to what was published in some me-dia outlets, the company ESCAL UGS had geo-logical reports from the Geological and Mining Institute of Spain (IGME) which detected the presence of geological faults but assumed that they would not become reactivated. However, they were aware that the subterranean store was limited on one of its borders by a fault of prime order, whereas this fundamental fact was played down. The majority of the investigators consulted by the media were in agreement over the fact that to ignore the importance of the-se faults, which intersect and border the store, would be foolish [4].

José Luis Simón, a geologist from the Universi-

1 http://antonioaretxabala.blogspot.com.es/2012/11/fractura-cion-hidraulica-fracking-y.htmlhttp://brainstorminggeology.blogspot.com.es/2013/09/sismicidad-reciente-inducida-por-la.html2 http://www.escalugs.com/quienes_somos_presentacion.asp

3 Nº 39 magazine Tierra y Tecnología, pág. 3-8, 2011

4 http://sociedad.elpais.com/sociedad/2013/10/07/actualidad/1381181311_736995.htmlhttp://www.lavanguardia.com/medio-ambien-te/20131005/54390509829/riesgo-sismico-falla-desprecio.html


Figure 1ty of Zaragoza and an ex-pert on the gulf of Valencia, confirmed that the zone where they are injecting gas, the Castor Platform had “numerous active faults which were being subject to pressure,” and that there is abundant evidence of re-cent quaternary activity. He also confirmed that it was most likely that the bedrock had not been subject to a study before starting opera-tions on the Castor, and that should have been the case [5].

Furthermore, the Ebro Ob-servatory group, which in-cluded investigators from CSIC, as well as universities such as the Ramon Llull, also analysed in detail the zone and came to the conclusion that there were numerous potentially dangerous and ac-tive faults [6].

The report by ESCAL UGS on Platform Castor published by the School of Geology’s magazi-ne, Tierra and Technologia (Land and Technolo-gy), showed clearly that the zone of the subte-rranean store of gas was intersected by a large number of faults with different directions (see figures 1 and 2).

Furthermore, in a press release published by the newspaper El Pais, the oil company Shell, which exploited the oil field Amposta from 1973 to 1989, had warned that there had been seismic activity during the extraction of oil and that it wasn’t advisable to inject natural gas into the zone precisely for the existence of seismic risk. [7].

5 http://sociedad.elpais.com/sociedad/2013/09/27/actualidad/1380310248_577552.html.

6 http://sociedad.elpais.com/sociedad/2013/10/07/actualidad/1381181311_736995.html

7 http://sociedad.elpais.com/sociedad/2013/10/07/actualidad/1381181311_736995.html

So, for all of these indicators, it seems un-thinkable that there has been no warning of the danger implicit in this geometric space, with its active faults surrounding and intersec-ting the subterranean store.

All the scientists and technicians experienced in this field are in agreement that this abundant seismic activity, in the Gulf of Valencia, is the result of the forceable injection of gas into the Earth’s crust by the ESCAL UGS’ Castor Platform. In fact, the company itself, which belongs to the ACS SA group, has recognised in a press relea-se, that its activities are provoking this seismic activity, suggesting that they had already envi-saged that this kind of thing and regarded it as the “routine and part and parcel of this kind of operation.”[8].

The director of ESCAL UGS, Recaredo del Potro, assured in his press release, that it was all about

8 http://www.elperiodicomediterraneo.com/noticias/castellon/la-inyeccion-de-gas-en-castor-provoca-21-miniterremotos-submarinos-frente-a-vinaros_835224.html


Figure 2

“inoffensive micro-earthquakes” which would never risk the population, despite the fact that some of them were reaching 2.8 and 3.0 in size, and in spite of the fact that they are now exceeding magnitudes of 4. In addition, and knowing full well that their activities were cau-sing earthquakes in a zone with active faults, the company’s management were giving assurances that they were going to go full steam ahead with the injection of gas, “at least until the end of the year”. Unfortunately for them, however, (and for-tunately for the local population, in the light of the many, larger , earthquakes that are happe-ning now), the Ministry of Industry decided to put a halt to the operations of Platform Castor.

And in view of the wide media coverage given to the Castor issue, in the third week of October there were two meetings held by both groups of professionals who have been directly involved – engineers and geologists. On Monday 14 Oc-tober, the Institute of Engineering of Spain, IIE, [9], organised a meeting to defend the viability of the Platform Castor. The person responsible for the project, Recaredo del Potro, appeared at that meeting, as well as two academics of hydro-carbon engineering. On Thursday 17 October, a conference was organised on the same theme, in the faculty of Geological Sciences at the Com-plutense University, Madrid. There, the meeting was attended by the director of a hydrocarbons

9 http://www.iies.es/El-proyecto-Castor-en-espera-de-encon-trar-las-causas-y-prever-las-consecuencias_a3229.html

company and three lecturers from the centre, all specialists in structural, tectonic and seismic geology.

In the IIE meeting the author of this report was not allowed, for the first time in his entire scien-tific career, to ask a question of the conference organisers, one which he had given them notice to ask and which concerned the possible escape of gas, something which had already been rai-sed publicly by Ecologists in Action, on the same day of the conference.

In this conference, the director of the Castor Pla-tform, from USCAL UGS, came to corroborate what we already knew from a geological point of view, that the gas natural store and old Am-posta site, (oil extraction) located in Cretaceous limestone karst, is limited on its NW edge by a prime order fault with an extensional slip direc-tion of NW and a shelf of up to 1,000 metres in height, whose activity has been constant from the Miocene epoch up until now.

He neglected to mention the fact that the fault is still active nowadays, although it could be seen in the figures that the marine sediments recently deposited were clearly cut by this fault.

The gas store is an assymetrical “horst”, an ele-vated block from a plinth which is bordered by extensional faults on both sides, of 5km by 3km, which slips to the south east and that is elonga-ted and conditioned in a north east-south west


direction parallel to the fault.

All the geophysical and geological profiles which the director of Castor showed in his pre-sentation showed the presence of a multitude of active faults which border and intersect this supposedly safe and leak-free store. This fact seems extremely serious to us, since it shows without a doubt that the store is in no way per-fectly hermetic (to a possible gas leak).

The director of Castor also spoke of the ear-thquakes, recognising that, “for reasons diffi-cult to explain”, the quakes seemed to coincide in space and time with the injections of natural gas made in the platform, although underpla-yed any responsibility on the part of his com-pany by assuring that the biggest earthquakes (those superior to 4 on the RS) happened ten days after the injections stopped. It seems, the-refore, that the highest authority in Castor is ignorant of the fact that the seismic activity induced always has a delayed reaction in res-pect to the initial injection, or extraction, ac-tivities .

Finally he assured everybody that 35 days after the initiation and cessation thereof, mid-month, of the injections , it looked like the seismic activi-ty was falling, a hopeful sign. He went on to show a series of the focal mechanisms of some of the more major earthquakes and spoke of possible movements of strike-slip faults and faults which are difficult to locate. These focal mechanisms indicate that two sets of faults have reactivated: a) the principal, which generates the majority of the earthquake clusters aligned along the tecto-nic trend NW-SE of the Ebro (or Iberian Range) which corresponds to a dextral tear (which the authors of this report consider is the main cause of the earthquakes) and, b) the NE-SW extensio-nal which correspondes to the so-called “Am-posta trend” – that which most specialists (from the National Geographic Institute, the National Institute of Geology and Mines and the Faculty of Geology, etc) consider to be the cause.

The geologist Martínez-Díaz confirmed these fo-cal mechanisms, stating that at the moment it was impossible to know which of the two sys-tems was responsible for the activity.

The intervention of one of the geologists who has collaborated actively, since 1998, with ESCAL UGS in geological studies for Castor, involved emphasising the supposedly positive aspects of this platform and its secure store. But what was missing, in our opinion, was the independence of judgment which ought to be present in the kind of scientific study which elucidates the real causes of phenomena. He recognised the abun-dance of karst cave with their accompanying problems of breach and collapse, although of especial concern to us was the fact that he sta-ted that there was a great deal of geophysical information on the large miocine deposits but that, however, there was little information about the rock of the store which comprises the Am-posta site (cretaceous karst carbonates). In the light of this, we find ourselves puzzling on how it is possible to be sure of the parameters that govern this rock, and therefore of the certainty that there is no possibility of a leak.

He also confirmed that the Amposta/Castor pro-gramme had consulted, or commissioned, in its long history, some 200 seismic surveys and 165 sounding tests. The director of the platform also asserted that it had been necessary to pursue up to 42 different official authorisations, plus numerous reports and geotechnical studies bet-ween 1998 and 2011 in order to go ahead with the project.

With this in mind, we insist that all the compa-nies involved in the exploitation of Amposta/Castor should urgently provide the adequate documentation they have within their posses-sion so that the authorities may correctly eva-luate their activities, from 1973 up until now, in order to take appropriate decisions when deci-ding upon the future of this platform.

Various geologists who intervened afterwards were in agreement in that the Castor region is seismically active, that current information on the clusters of epicentres (which mark a clear NW-SE trend) identified in this zone are unrelia-ble due to insufficient numbers of seismographs in the area and that this measuring equipment needs to be redistributed by the National Geo-graphic Institute to optimise measurement in relation to the zone’s geodynamic context, and


that maximum magnitudes of 6 or 7 could in-deed be expected in the reactivated faults.

At these magnitudes, a tsunami is certain to take place, something which is surely cause for concern for those living on the Vinaroz coast!

The geologist Álvarez-Gómez explained the pos-sible risk of a tsunami could be the consequence of the recent seismic activity, which has induced slippage of the surface marine sediments found in the undersea cliffs. He showed that there was a wide area around the Castor platform which showed abundant signs of paleo-slippage of unconsolidated sediments as a result of the re-curring paleo-seismic activity in the zone from thousands of years ago, and warned that a tsunami provoked by an earthquake of mag-nitude 7 could prove a considerable catastro-phe for the coastal populations of Castellón, Tarragona and the Balearics. As we have al-ready mentioned, this magnitude is consi-dered a possibility in this zone by specialists from both the Complutense University (Ma-drid) and the Spanish Institute of Enginee-ring.

Meanwhile, in answer to our insistence over the undeniable risk of massive escapes of gas from the Castor store, we have only met with defen-sive postures and reassurances that everything is “under control” while we are labelled as alar-mists. But we wonder if everything is indeed un-der control when calculations that the company made were unable to predict that there could be magnitudes of earthquake greater than 4.

Finally, Luis González de Vallejo, professor of geological engineering at Madrid’s Complu-tense, condemned the fact that the Castor operations did not include previous rigorous geological studies (such as tension analysis tests) which should be compulsory in such a situation, with a lack of such study represen-ting a severe recklessness and negligence on the part of the exploration company.

The National Geographic Institute released a communication ((in September)) after the oc-currence of the earthquakes east of Vinaroz (11)

which stated: “We are unaware of the injection of gas in this zone...” But we ask, how can that be when everybody had heard of it, since it had been widely repor-ted in the media? Is it not the duty of the NGI to be up to date with activities which may genera-te earthquakes, their being the highest authori-ty on such issues in Spain?

The communication also stated “... we can con-firm that it’s about a TECTONIC EARTHQUAKE, similar to those that we are detecting in other parts of the Peninsula...” and also, “it is a pheno-menon that can be produced by any small fault, although it is true that we are talking about a zone with little seismic activity and where this kind of phenomenon is rare to encounter,”. This is surprising, given that even the company injec-ting gas acknowledged that the earthquakes are being provoked by its own invasive activities.

If, in fact, it is not usually a seismically active zone, this shows that it has been reactivated, with a cause such as the massive injection of gas in the Earth’s crust as a consequence of the operations of the Castor platform. “On the coast of Vinaroz there is no great structure of faults which can generate earthquakes of a large magnitude and not even a medium intensity,” the communica-tion continued.

The NGI itself reported that the clusters of ear-thquake are clearly aligned along a NW-SE gui-deline typical of the Iberian Peninsula and that all the tectonic maps of the area also represent the famous NE-SW Amposta guideline as being seismogenic .

And their conclusion? That “the 31 earthquakes in Vinaroz do not pose any risk.” This is evi-dently untrue, given the fact that there are earthquakes of magnitude 4, which are cau-sing alarm to the population”.

In another press release in relation to this seis-mic activity, old school scientists once more in-sisted that these earthquakes were produced by the “tensions between the African and Eura-sian plates”. It seems that for those academics, any recipe will work for any of the earthquakes which occur on the Peninsula, (Jaén, Lorca, Na-


varra, etc.) [10], old school scientists once more insisted that these earthquakes were produced by the “tensions between the African and Eura-sian plates”. It seems that for those academics, any recipe will work for any of the earthquakes which occur on the Peninsula, (Jaén, Lorca, Na-varra, etc).

Our interpretation of the seismicity generated by gas injections in Castor is quite simple. It is enough only to have a look to the distribution of the earthquakes’ hives of the Valencia gulf to see they have a clear lining up regarding one of the most famous plates directrix on the Ibe-rian Peninsula (see Figure 3, base taken of the Spanish plates’ map): NO-SE or directrix of the Iberian mountain ranges. Figure 4 (base taken of the Iberian seism-tectonic map) shows how this tectonic directrix is also parallel to the lining up of river Ebro, and also that the maritime area reactivated around Castor appears as one of the least seism-genetic areas (“in natural condi-tions”).

This tectonic directrix, supposedly “turned off” , has been reactivated because of the forced gas injection in a unstable crust area: a clear case of induced seismicity, admitted by the same ope-rator company. This directrix contributed to the opening of Valencia gulf at the end of the Oli-gocen and beginning of the Miocen, acting as a “transfer fault” inside a extensional tectonic of low angle detachments NE-SO dipping the SE (Doblas & Oyarzun, 1990, Marine Geology, 94, 155-163). Our interpretation is radically different from that suggested by IGME, IGN and some pro-fessors from the UCN previously mentioned, that insist in talking about “Amposta faults system” with a NE-SO direction (figure 5) perpendicular to the one shown in the Vinaroz hives, which in our opinion has not been activated yet.

According to the geologist Martinez-Diez from the UCM, the interpretation of the hives provi-ded by the IGN must be done carefully becau-se, as it is common when there are few seismic measure stations, there is a need to wait for the correct relocalization of the epicentres to draw

10 http://www.levante-emv.com/sucesos/2011/03/12/ten-siones-placas-provocan-microseismos-c-valenciana/789889.html.

Figure 3

Figure 4


valid conclusions. In any case, in the Valencia gulf, we can undoubtedly talk about this direc-tional hive, which is conditioned by a subsoil fault, in contrast to the almost 3000 earthquakes in Loma de Úbeda, that formed a subcircular hive related to an adirectional hidro-seismicity mechanism, result of the intense rains and of the massive water extractions from profound aqui-fers (figure 6), as we have been stating in several media and publications [11].

11 http://brainstorminggeology.blogspot.com.es/2013/09/sismicidad-reciente-inducida-por-la.html

Figure 5

Figure 6


2. Risk of natural gas massive leak

As we have previously mentioned, all the infor-mation is currently focused on the seismic risk for the population, but anybody seems to address the other risk, which we denounced from Ecolo-gistas en Acción in front of the media on Octo-ber the 4th: the possible breakage of the natural gas store ’s roof (basically consisting in methane) by any additional earthquake and its leak to the atmosphere, crossing 60 metres of sea (with the subsequent damage for this ecosystem). Sum-marizing some of the news about Ecologistas en Acción declarations’ in several media like La Vanguardia [12], it can be read that:

“Counsulted experts warn that the main dange-rousness comes from the possibility of a gas leak through the geologic stratum; if the leak has place in the exploration well or next to the platform, it can be noticed quickly and easily fixed. Neverthe-less, if the gas leak goes through the main fault, key for the watertightness/air tightness of the controversial storage , the situation would be cri-tical, since pressure made by the gas towards the fault, could explain the succession of earthquakes. Technically, we do not dismiss that the leak can be intermittent”.

After these statements, the promoter/exploiter company of Castor, insists that they did alert the investors about the possibility of gas leak of the subterranean storage. The argument used by ESCAL UGS is just the opposite we are denoun-cing. According to the company “there is no gas leak, so it cannot be the origin of the seismicity caused in the area” as some researchers have po-inted out.

ESCAL UGS has even affirmed that “not even a molecule of gas has escaped through the su-pposedly active faults”. We consider that it is impossible to make an statement like that, be-cause there is always some leak due to the crust not being an hermetic store. They also assure that they perfectly studied the fault that seals the store, and that they spent 30 milion Euros in analyzing the geology of the area. So it is to say, they happen to know that the store is sealed by a fault, and they installed it just there. The issue of investment in previous geological and geophy-

12 http://www.lavanguardia.com/vida/20131009/54390731580/proyecto-castor-inversores-ries-go-fuga-gas.html#ixzz2hDuxXK5C


sical studies will have to be demonstrated, given that state authorities and many scientists have affirmed in various means of communication that these previous relevant reports were not undertaken [13]. In contradiction to the declara-tions of Recaredo del Potro in a recent press re-lease, it remains to be seen whether ACS and its partners knew of the potential gas leaks in the surface of Castor [14].

Now we also know that insurance policy offered by the company Generali does not cover any possible potential gas leak from the warehouse [15]. Does this have anything to do with the fact that USCAL UGS and its partners reiterate denials that any kind of gas leak from the warehouse is possible? More than likely it is the possibility of not receiving the significant pay out that they claim.

Our hypothesis about the possible leak of natural gas from the Castor warehouse is based, partly, on the thesis of American authors previously ci-ted (Zoback & Gorelick, 2012, v. 109, nº26, Pro-ceedings of the National Academy of Science. USA, p. 10164-10168) that argues that the ear-thquakes can fracture and end up breaking part of the roof of the gas warehouse and therefore, as a consequence, lead to the gas escaping in a violent manner. The work of these investigators from the University of Stanford argues that “the injection on a grand scale of CO2 could provoke earthquakes on an unforeseeable magnitude on interior continental zones as the increase of pres-sure could awaken previously sleeping faults.” The authors document other series of cases in which the manipulation of fluid underground changs the condition of the crust and have un-controlled seismic movements. Although these effects have been documented on a small scale, the authors note that “the situation would much more problematic if earthquakes of a similar size were connected to depositis of Co2 which had lain dormant for hundreds of thousands of years. In summary, the authors argue that the condi-

13 http://www.diaridetarragona.com/noticia.php?id=10457

14 http://www.elconfidencial.com/empresas/2013-10-15/acs-y-sus-socios-sabian-que-podia-haber-fugas-de-gas-en-el-subsuelo-de-castor_41648/

15 http://www.elconfidencial.com/empresas/2013-10-19/gen-erali-aseguro-el-polemico-proyecto-castor-sin-cubrir-riesgos-de-fuga-de-gas_43441/

tions of the air-tightness of these deep ware-houses of gas and easily be altered by seismic disturbances, and that the fractures and breaks in the warehouses due to said earthquakes can lead to the massive leaks of gas through such faults, fractures and breaks.

It is within this case that we denounce the Castor underground warehouse of natural gas, where it is known that a failure of the first order has put the warehoue on the brink, furthermore a string of secondary failures has led to its closure. We must take into account what the American inves-tigators have analyed rearding the warehousing of C02 gas, that it is heavier than oxygen and should, in theory, not escape with such ease, whereas natural gas (mainly methane) that is in-jected into Castor is much more lighter than air and will have the tendency to escape violently towards the surface. The natural escaping of methane in zones featuring maitime platforms are known to create catastrophic structures on gushing out of the sea, giving way to specta-cular “volcanos of mud.” underwater landslides on a grand scale, tsunamis etc, and are related directly to climate change by the accumulation under the ice in Antractica and the Artic.

The old Amposta storage deposit of hydrocar-bons que exploited in its day by the company Shell, es the one that is being used to refill the pouros rock (emptied by the extractions of Shell) with natural gas. It is very important to take into account that the earth’s crust does not behave as a malleable material (as if it were a balloon that inflates and defaltes at will)) and in all likelihood that the underground warehouse has been da-maged by fracturas and cracks by the repeating alternating processes of contraction and expan-sion: 1. The emptying of hydrocarbons by the company SHells ( contraction); 2. The refilling of the warehouse with seawater. (expansion); 3. Emptying of the seawater to be able to begin the injection of gas (contraction); 4. Injection of compressed natural gas (ESCAL UGS)

It seems as if nobody has taken into account the fact that these violent actions are not suitable for the earths’s crust which has taken millions of years evolving at the pace that nature dictates.


Also it is worth considering how and where the water contaminated by hydrocarbons from the previous deposit at Amposta ended up: the most probable outcome was that the water en-tered the sea without anyone realising. In this context, Isaac Álvarez (in his talk at the IIE) proposed his theory that the roofs of the ware-houses at previous deposits could have cracked and fractured as a result of the long history of rock exploitation, according to him, 20 or 30 cy-clical processes of filling and emptying the de-posit with different fluids (oil, gas, seawater etc): this deposit was exploitted by Shell between 1973 to 1989, and after 23 years of interruption, USCAL UGS started to inject natural from 2012 onwards. In this subject there exist certain gra-ve discprepancies that show the preoccupation of the hydrocarbon companies that do not want what actually happened to be known by the wi-der public. We believe that it is essential for the complete exisiting documentation relating to the complete history of exploitation in this zone (both from Shell and USCAL UGS) to be put at the disposition of the committee of experts that will analyse the subject of Castor.

In his intervention before the IIE, Isaac Álvarez, Professor of the School of Mining Engineers (Oviedo), proposed an alternative interpreta-tion to explain the destabilization of the surface beneath the Castor platform16. The new hypo-thesis suggests that in the zone of Castor, the numerous and gigantic karst caves of carbona-ted rock were collapsing, thereby inducing the compacting of the surface, which would entail the collapse of the karst cave itself and there-fore put an end to the whole deposit (5km by 3km). His hypothesis points to the grave possi-bility that certifies the risk of the leak of natural gas that we have denounced, pointing not only to the series of cracks, fractures but also to the potential collapse of the warehouse roof itself; which in this case, would not only result in the escape of all the natural gas in violent manner, but that the platform Castor could collapse.

In the following report we include a conceptua-lized diagram which we have designed which points out in a simple and didactic manner, the

16 http://www.iies.es/El-proyecto-Castor-en-espera-de-encon-trar-las-causas-y-prever-las-consecuencias_a3229.html

way in the which the potential for a massive methane gas leak that could occur as a result of the seismicity in the area of the Castor platform (figure 7). In principal, the coastal populations should not suffer directly the consequences of the leak of methane gas, give that the platform is significantly far away from the coast and me-thane ascends quickly towards the outer layers of the atmosphere, but the dumping of this toxic gas would produce a disaster for the marino ecosystem. There exists two different scenarios for the catastrophic leak of methane:

1) Rupture of the roof: as a result of the conto-nied injections and extractions that have been produced during the long history of exploita-tions of this deposit (Amposta/Castor) the roof of the warehouse is weakened and cracked and the earthquakes generated as a result of the in-jection of natural gas could constitute the ‘straw that breaks the camel’s back’ and break the roof. This would entail a massive gas leak and could ignite the platform.

2) Collapse of the Karst cave. The white creta-ceous limestone which constitutes the ware-house of hydrocarbons extracted and the natu-ral gas injected are are intenseley karsified and create enormous cavities which then disolve and colapse little by little due to the repetitive cycle of injection/extraction of fluids performed by humans. In Figure 7 we present the potential surrender and most catastrofic final outcome in terms of the collapse of the surface, with the fo-llowing massive methane gas leak and the collap-se of the platform. This type of ‘mega-sinkholes or giant holes of the collapse of the surface are very common in karstic zones e.g. The famous “ Sótano Golondrinas in Mexico” (over half a kilo-metre deep, figure 8). The numerous sinkholes refilled by water that are famous in certain parts of China or the gigant hole that was produced in Guatemala city etc.

If the roof of the warehouse broke as a conse-quence of a tremor, the escaping fo methane gas that would be produced could be compared to that of the violent explosion of a balloon fi-lled with compressed gas. We would see in the surface of the sea a “giant bubble” of gas (simi-lar to what happened during the subteranean


Figure 7


eruption of the island of Hierro (Grand Canaria), although in Castellón it is not related to volca-noes. This eruption would come accompanies by a strong smell of “rotten eggs” (in fact methane does not smell, a substance is added to it to so it can be easily detected). Probably what would happen would be the appearance of a large swath of dead marine animals, and it is not ne-cessary to repeat what would happen if this gas came into contact with fire. It is without doubt that the Castor platform is in the riskiest zone in this sense, given that any spark incend it or send it into the sky. It appears to be a lie that the au-throties have not taken this risk into account. We are sure that the exploitation company know perfectly well the risks but prudently choose to remain quiet and not raise the alarm.

Certain defendors of these injection projects of natural gas intent to defend the ‘innocence’ of the Castor platform and the seismic incidents, alluding to other similar platofrms in Spain have never generated problems: the big difference between these types of injection in the earth and in the sea is that in the case of the Castor platforms exists a heavy column of water above (60 metres) that will amplify beneath Castor the possibility of gas leak expelling the force of the gas within the warehouse. We note thhat me-thane gas, being much lighter than the air we breathe, and its tendency will be to escape ra-pidly and shoot towards the outer layers of the atmosphere. The gas warehouses on the Earth’s surface do not have this enormous weight of water above them and any potential gas leak would be much more progressive in form and could be controlled. In the sea there is no mar-gin to control this.

Despite this, it is constantly emphasised that other platforms that inject gas in Spain (Gavio-ta, Serrablos y Marismas) have never generated seismic activity nor gas leaks and it is highlighted that the Gaviota plarform in the Cantabrian is su-tuated in a more complicated seismic zone than Castor and that this demonstrates the innocuity of Castor. It is cetain that the Castor platform has induced sesimicity after starting to inject gas, in a zone of the gulf of Valencia that is one of the least sesimically active in the Iberian peninsula, of which all experts consulted are in agreement

(even the company itself recognises its responsi-bility and the obvious connection between both phenomena.

The main difference between the other active platofrms in Spain is that all passed through the extraction of hydrocarbons to the injection pha-se without incident, whereas in the case of Castor almost 25 years passed between both comme-rical operations and the behaviour of the crust with its million of years of natural responses is not related to a man-made warehouse adapted to our short term needs. The frenetic activity of exploitation has the sole purpose of genera-ting as much income as possible in the shortest amount of time, without taking into account the possible environmental repurcussions.

In light of the evidence of the risk of the massive escaping of natural gas as a result of the massi-ve earthwauke that would represents ‘the straw the breaks the camel’s back” the most logical response would be to take urgent measures to minimise thi riks, for example

1. Dismantle the Castor platform, remove all per-sonnel and paralyze all activity, therefore redu-cing the risk of a spark that could explode the platform in the same way that happened at Dee-pwater Horizon platform in the Gulf of Mexico.

2. Identify a prohibition zone to control the cir-culation of all maritime and low flying airline tra-ffic

Figure 8


3. Establish constant surveilance to monitor any potential outcomes (gas leak, collapse, bubbling of gas on the sea’s surface, large collections of dead fish)

4. Alert and inform the authroties and coastal populations regarding the possile measure nee-ded to be taken in the face of a massive gas leak in the zone.

5. Constantly monitor the atmospheric condi-tions (above all the direction of the wind) in light of a potential escape of natural gas.

One has to remember the enormous repurcus-sions of all types (ecological, poltical, economi-cal) of the explosion on the Deepwater platform in April 2010 in the Gulf of Mexico which casued a major catastrophe in the zone [17] (caused by a methan gas leak). Other discharges of methane in the Gulf of Mexico relating to the extraction of hydrocarbons have left their terrible marks on the eco-systems of the region. The Spanish au-thorities must take into account the obvious risk

17 http://www.elmundo.es/america/2010/04/22/estados_unidos/1271966549.htmlhttp://es.sott.net/article/15542-Gas-metano-nueva-amenaza-en-el-golfo-de-Mexico

and take urgent measures to prevent a potential catastrophe.

Figure 9

Potential Risks of the Injection of Natural Gas into the Castor … · 2018. 3. 15. · the coast...

Documents

Transcript of Potential Risks of the Injection of Natural Gas into the Castor … · 2018. 3. 15. · the coast...