DRILL RIG: Fracking operation in the Barnett shale.
Image: Courtesy of jermlac on Flickr
-
The Best Science Writing Online 2012
Showcasing more than fifty of the most provocative, original, and significant online essays from 2011, The Best Science Writing Online 2012 will change the way...
Read More »
Add methane emissions to the growing list of environmental risks posed by fracking.
Opposition to the hydraulic fracturing of deep shales to release natural gas rose sharply last year over worries that the large volumes of chemical-laden water used in the operations could contaminate drinking water. Then, in early January, earthquakes in Ohio were blamed on the disposal of that water in deep underground structures. Yesterday, two Cornell University professors said at a press conference that fracking releases large amounts of natural gas, which consists mostly of methane, directly into the atmosphere—much more than previously thought.
Robert Howarth, an ecologist and evolutionary biologist, and Anthony Ingraffea, a civil and environmental engineer, reported that fracked wells leak 40 to 60 percent more methane than conventional natural gas wells. When water with its chemical load is forced down a well to break the shale, it flows back up and is stored in large ponds or tanks. But volumes of methane also flow back up the well at the same time and are released into the atmosphere before they can be captured for use. This giant belch of "fugitive methane" can be seen in infrared videos taken at well sites.
Molecule for molecule, methane traps 20 to 25 times more heat in the atmosphere than does carbon dioxide. The effect dissipates faster, however: airborne methane remains in the atmosphere for about 12 years before being scrubbed out by ongoing chemical reactions, whereas CO2 lasts 30 to 95 years. Nevertheless, recent data from the two Cornell scientists and others indicate that within the next 20 years, methane will contribute 44 percent of the greenhouse gas load produced by the U.S. Of that portion, 17 percent will come from all natural gas operations.
Currently, pipeline leaks are the main culprit, but fracking is a quickly growing contributor. Ingraffea pointed out that although 25,000 high-volume shale-gas wells are already operating in the U.S., hundreds of thousands are scheduled to go into operation within 20 years, and millions will be operating worldwide, significantly expanding emissions and keeping atmospheric methane levels high despite the 12-year dissipation time.
Howarth said he is particularly concerned about fracking emissions because recent data indicates that the planet is entering a period of rapid climate change. He noted that the average global temperature compared with the early 1900s is now expected to increase by 1.5 degrees Celsius within the next 15 to 35 years, which he called "a tipping point" toward aggressive climate change. More and more fracking would speed the world to that transition or undermine efforts to reduce emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases. The notion, Ingraffea said, that shale gas is a desirable "bridge fuel" from oil to widespread renewable energy supplies several decades from now "makes no sense" in terms of climate change.
Howarth and Ingraffea spoke from Cornell, where they also released a paper (pdf) that is about to be published by the journal Climatic Change, which details their analysis. It follows up on a paper they published in April 2011 that comprehensively analyzed emissions from fracking. The gas industry disputes that paper. So does Cornell geologist Lawrence Cathles, in a commentary in Climatic Change. He estimates that fugitive emissions are only 10 percent of what Howarth and Ingraffea maintain, and that shale gas would indeed be a good replacement for home heating oil and for coal used in power plants.
Rights & Permissions
See what we're tweeting about
25 Comments
Add CommentSee this counterpoint on methane releases and shale gas. Cornell researchers don't agree.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/06/on-shale-gas-warming-and-whiplash/?scp=2&sq=fracking%20and%20methane&st=cse
Yes Mr Nico. Mark mentions the opinion of Cornell geologist Lawrence Cathles in the last paragraph of his article.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut as Howarth says in the article you linked to
"The latest EPA estimate for methane emissions from shale gas falls within the range of our estimates but not those of Cathles et al, which are substantially lower."
Please quantify the methane releases . . .else this is just another "sky is falling" article from a once-respected news source for real science.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou can easily answer your question by clicking the links to the two scientific papers this article is reporting about.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn case you are unable to find them, here they are again:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/e384226wr4160653/
http://216.250.243.12/HowarthIngraffeaarticleFINAL1.pdf
@Mr Dr T,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGoogle is your friend.
How long would it take a cow to release the same amount of methane (flatulence) as this belch sometimes seen in the fracking process?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHere is the problem Phil. The well is releasing sequestered methane that has been in place for millions of years. The cow is simply digesting and combining carbon products with hydrogen from water. The those products were already present on the surface and part of the carbon cycle.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe aforementioned study from Cornell looks at the diesel exhaust emitted by drilling and fracking equipment during the production process. It postulates that a month of diesel engines running makes natural gas as dirty as coal or traditional fossil fuels.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat it doesn't take into account is the fact that coal requires the input of energy into the mining, cracking and transportation of every pound of coal produced while natural gas only requires such input during the initial drilling of the well and subsequent fracking. Natural gas is transported around the country through a network of pipes and does not require transportation by rail, truck or barge as does coal.
Other fossil fuels also require transportation by truck, train or boat and so it seems the previous Cornell study either deliberately overlooked these very important factors in reaching the conclusion that it did.
When natural gas is released from a well during the production process it is flared (burned) into CO2 and H2O vapor, it isn't released as methane.
@Mike Johnson,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDid you read the article? I ask because if you had then you would know that they used IR cameras to track the methane leaks; their is even a link to the video.
Mike, the factor you are ignoring is the fact that NG doesn't just flow thru the pipeline system and magically emerge a thousand miles away where it is needed. The tens of thousands of miles of pipeline in the North American delivery system require compressor stations every 150km or so along their length to re-pressurize the NG and overcome friction losses. On a major line each station will have as many as five gas turbines the size of 747 airplane engines running 24/7. Smaller trunk lines will often be diesel powered.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBottom line is that the NG distribution system burns up to 10% of the energy content present at the wellhead to deliver it to the end user. And all of that energy is exhausted as waste heat and CO2 emissions.
My associates and I studied ways to capture and use this waste heat source, but the current economics of NG mean that it is cheaper to throw it away into the atmosphere than to utilize it. Why pay today for something you can shove into the future when you've already received your corporate profitability bonus?
Most of this methane is released because of flaring, and flaring is done to clean the fracking fluid from the gas stream; The solution is gelled propane fracking or LPG fracking, with gelled propane flaring is very minimal (under 24 hours) compared to possibly weeks with water fracking; the gelled propane rises back as gas, a gelled propane fracked well can be quickly connected to the pipleine; Gasfrac has already done over a 1000 fracks with gelled propane, another benefit is no water is used with the process, and no toxic water is produced and to top it all Oil and Gas production is increased with this type of fracking, it is a win for the industry and a win for the environment.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHey guys, give the article a break. 14 molecules of methane per century vs. 10 molecules is still a 40% rise.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHere's the real problem Trent1492. The Eco-corporations have seized upon another issue that the public knows little about and are inventing a campaign to shape the debate to their own ends. Highly sophisticated PR involved in this one; this is no homegrown movement. Millions are being poured into the campaign. Stop and think from where and why?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat do the eco-corporations hope to accomplish by all this? Simple. Professional PR firms are shaping the debate so that they can force congress into backing businesses that they already have vested interests in.
Unless of course you don't believe that the eco-corporations are lobbying congress. Or that their lobbying will create economic winners and losers. They could all be investing all these billion$$$ and the time and effort out of the goodness of their own hearts. Yeah right.
What's it like being the dupe of capitalism? The funny part is you and your eco-cadre are so naive you can't even tell when you're being played.
Maybe you should occupy Greenpeace, the WWF, the IPCC or the Sierra Club. They're the ones that are playing you, like a violin.
Trent1492:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHere are some simple observations to make, since you are obviously plugged into the Eco-corporations (whether you realize it or not):
1. Have you noticed that suddenly meetings have gotten a lot more organized?
2. That some of the ditzier old guard of the movement has been pushed out?
3. That new slicker guys are showing up?
4. That there are suddenly free iphones, or new websites, new computers, upgraded infrastructure showing up out of nowhere?
5. That they're now providing lunch at the meetings?
The grassroots have left the building and the suits have taken over. As the old rock song goes "Meet the new boss; same as the old boss."
Replace your blanket "Eco-corporations" label with "Dirty Energy Corporations" and your rant almost makes sense! Funny things, these facts are...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have looked at the video and it does not show that methane was being released. It could have been the exhaust from the frac fleet. No operator would intentionally release methane like that. That is called a blow out and it is dangerous to all. It is also easily prevented. This report is typical of the chicklittle frac haters who dont care what the facts are they just want to scare the public for thier political goals.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisShoshin,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou are giving the appearance of having gone off the deep end here. Really. In a world where the Fifth Fleet is permanently stationed in Bahrain and a 100,000 U.S servicemen are scattered around the Persian Gulf. Where there is a gas station on every block and mining companies routinely excavate whole mountain sides in search of coal seams regardless of the damage it does to the local environment you are worried about phantom "Eco-corporations" get a grip.
The amount of fracking has increased tremendously over the last 20 years yet global methane levels are flat. Fracking and the emissions you describe will only occur a few times at most over the decades long life of a producing well.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMore US energy gluttony.....we should leave the shale and oil gas deposits for future generations, by which time we may have developed adequate alternative technologies.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs far as I can see the eco-corporations will shoulder much the blame of a shooting war in Iran. By causing ever more ridiculous and scientifically unsound practices on the energy industry the eco-corporations restrict energy choices and force the developed to become increasingly dependent on radicals for our energy supply.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPerform this thought experiment: If the Keystone pipeline was able to haul enough oil to supply the entire U.S. do you think the carrier groups would be parked in the Straits of Hormuz? I doubt it.
So your solution would be what? Do you or your eco-corporate employers have one other than to force the world back to a 18th century lifetstyle which would cause the deaths of billions through starvation?
I didn't think so. Eco-corporations are every bit as cut-throat, driven and committed to their goals as any other corporation. Maybe even more as they do not have the public scrutiny of their internal workings that public corporations must endure. Acheiving their goals is how the eco-corporations make $$$ and how their executives earn their bonuses. Alpha dogs run every corporation; eco-corporations are no different.
Except in this case, the eco-alpha dogs are off the leash.
"Phantom eco-corporations"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYeah right Greenpeace, the WWF, Sierra Club, the IPCC, legions of highly paid Washington lobbying firms,... you're right, none of these exist.
And who is the denier here Trent1492?
Shoshin Says: Y..
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTrent Says: Are all nonprofit organizations that have no stockholders. Perhaps you should tutor yourself about what a corporation is. I just want to say here that your economic illiteracy is stunning.
Shoshin Says: ...the IPCC
Trent Says: Is a intergovernmental organization. Your ignorance is stunning.
Shoshin Says: ...legions of highly paid Washington lobbying firms,...
Trent Says: I say let us compare and contrasts. Since you made the assertion it is your job to provide the evidence. So how about you compare the total annual revenue of these organizations with say Exxon-Mobil.
Go get busy Shoshin.
It is good that there can be debate but too often we fail to look at the bigpicture. Arguing over silly points. Get this wrong and what do we do to fix it! It being fresh water contaminated.Planet temperatures rise. Planet core temperatures rise. People die. This debate is not whether or not we buy a Big Mac, this is whether or not we and our children survive!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFor those making money where ya gonna spend it? But who am I to speak, I'm just a resident of the planet.
Dear Horizon star, I like your approach in trying to net coal to gas, but since we are trying to export natural gas into other countries where it fetches a higher price, we are also making more pollution doing that via the barges and their low grade, highly polluting fuel. Pickens recently commented that....US at $3mcf verses $15 overseas, still nets $5 if sold overseas, so the math in sending our LNG overseas has a $7mcf cost PLUS the environmental costs in barge pollution.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNatural gas is a bridge to nowhere. For a brief, useful summary of the science on fracking, see: http://clmtr.lt/cb/rDc0XD
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this