Natural gas may burn cleaner than other fossil fuels, but when total greenhouse gas emissions are factored in from a leading extraction method, it is far dirtier than backers suggest, according to a new study from scientists at Cornell University.
In fact, the process of obtaining natural gas through hydraulic fracturing could greatly contribute to emissions of methane and carbon dioxide, making it dirtier than oil or coal, said Robert W. Howarth, lead author of the study, a preliminary version of which was posted today.
Researchers focused on the large amounts of methane that escape into the atmosphere during hydraulic fracturing, the controversial technique in which oil companies force millions of gallons of water, sand and chemicals into a well to break open shales and other dense rock formations and release natural gas. It also looks at the indirect emissions from equipment and vehicles used to extract, develop and transport the gas.
The Energy Department predicts that by 2035 domestic production of natural gas will grow by 20 percent, with gas from shales and other unconventional rock formations accounting for 75 percent of the total.
The oil and gas industry says natural gas could be key in reducing the nation’s dependence on foreign oil while also addressing concerns about climate change. But Howarth argues that more study is needed.
Russell Jones, senior economic adviser to the American Petroleum Institute, said after reviewing Howarth’s study, “we just didn’t find it a credible analysis.”
He said Howarth makes very strong conclusions based on limited and incomplete data. He also questioned the timing of the report’s release — a day before the U.S. Senate’s Environment and Public Works Committee holds a public hearing on hydraulic fracturing.
I guess they won’t like how Shale gas compares to corn based ethanol then.
Does the Cornell study know how fertilizer is manufactured? I wonder what they would think of that GHG footprint.
They have obviously never studied a coal mine in Kentucky, North Dakota, or Wyoming. They don’t even account for methane gas emmissions released by uncovering coal seams, let alone the GHG from a equivalent BTU of coal.
The study is simply a set of mental jumping jacks to set up a straw man. There is no credibility of their assumptions, for emissions due to fracturing, nor handling. Worse, they do not even factor in the refining energy and emissions negated by natural gas.
Was there any stimulus money funding this “study?” It is curioulsy timed for release just the hydraulic frac hearings…err ransom meetings.
There comes a point when all the speculation has to stop and go for it. Natural gas needs to be used to supply a larger part of our fuel needs as we are now at the mercy of other countries to supply our needs.
Read Atlas Shrugged. The movie comes out on Friday. As long as the clowns think carbon credit trading has a chance, we’ll continue to see this sort of chicanery from Cornell, et al.
Gee whiz, we are talking “dirty” and what we point to is CO2 and natural gas (methane) itself??? When I was a boy the EPA worried about REAL toxic pollutants, such as
Nitrogen Oxides
Particulate Matter
Sulfur Dioxide
Carbon Monoxide
Mercury
And do not forget a coal burning power plant everyday releases more radioactivity than a well-running nuclear plant.
I’ve frac’d many a well and I don’t remember seeing a large release of methane into the atmosphere. As soon as the frac water is flowed back you go directly to a dehy unit.
Well, hopefully, the complications of fracturing will be examined and analysed carefully. There are problems with oil, coal, nuclear. Solar and wind electricity generation and conservation sound better as time goes by. Texas with 8% of electricity generated from the renewables is offseting the other methods and is now significant.
I have been in attendance on many (nearly 100) wells that were fractured and I can’t imagine any methane releases into the atmosphere. First of all it is sell-able, secondly it is flammable and explosive it would be irresponsible, uneconomical and stupid to let any gas go into the atmosphere. If any were “released” it would be flared.
These dudes know squat about nat gas and less about frac operations. Typical! I so like this little tidbit…”Russell Jones, senior economic adviser to the American Petroleum Institute, said after reviewing Howarth’s study, “we just didn’t find it a credible analysis.”
Idiot!, Get a horse! Where were all the GHG folks when that last volcano blew out; they could have all congregated over there and breathed in all of the CO2 and saved the planet or at least planted a new growth tree. The only study he needs is on his checking account. Get data and do some real analysis and solve a real problem, not this make believe stuff. God Bless Texas.
Henry – Good question, we have discovered the coal industry has been funding cornell. This group has also led a charge to prevent the univesity from leasing university lands even though they and the state need the money. These are academia prostiutes with a cause – but will publish anything they get paid to say.
Uh…
Even if the methane release were the size claimed there is a big problem.
The half life of methane in the atmosphere is 7 years. CO2 will remain for millenia.
A much better estimate of the losses with respect to natural gas production can be found here anyway.
http://epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/downloads11/US-GHG-Inventory-2011-Chapter-3-Energy.pdf
That paper was really loosy goosy and I would have flunked it. The EPA methodology is fine.
And NO shale gas wells will not release more methane than conventional wells… they have MUCH LESS PERMEABILITY.
I think New York State, which does nothing but mindlessly consume resources, be forced to generated their own energy.
I find it amazing that these so called “Experts” can find a thousand reasons to stop drilling and fracing for oil and gas in North America. Although, you never hear about these same “experts” citing their scientific theory on foreign oil and gas production and I have yet to hear of one foreign country that thinks they should shut down their production for the sake of the planet. With all of the ecological regulations and engineering processes in place to protect the environment in North America you do not hear of any of this in foreign oil fields. It is almost like the Administration wants to shut down the North American Oil and Gas Industry.
Didn’t take long for some group to come out and shout “wolf” after the recent favorable publicity natural gas has been received as a good alternate fuel vs coal or oil.
And yes, the timing is really suspect.
“Russell Jones, senior economic adviser to the American Petroleum Institute, said after reviewing Howarth’s study, ‘we just didn’t find it a credible analysis.’”
—————–
I’m shocked — shocked! — that the API would find a study that argues against API’s interests as lacking credibility.
As Upton Sinclair put it, :It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it.”
tomfrommatagorda:
Got a link?
BTW, my daughter’s class was the last ditch effort to try to stop the White Stallion plant down that way. What is going on with all of these proposed coal plants for Texas with all of this Haynesville production?
I generate my electricity with solar and the rest (cooking, etc.) comes from natural gas in my house and am proud to work producing n
Maybe this is an indelicate question but wouldn’t we be able to harvest methane from an easily renewable source if we redesigned our sewage treatment plants? Methane is a natural gas. (you don’t get much more “natural”)
Over-population could be a part of the problem.
@K2 Never heard of sewage, but many landfills have gas wells on them.
Oh and by the way. That is not well casing in the picture. That’s drill pipe.
I point out Chron.com’s penchant for anti oil and gas, and my comments are censored. Did I hit too close to home?
Ross:
No, the reason we didn’t post that last comment was because you were using a swear/curse. Even with asterix’s etc. we generally don’t run those, or posts that call for the assassination of elected officials.
I find it hard to believe that Haynesville wells vent 240 MMCF of gas during flowback development–this voleum seems ridculously large and if not wouldn’t they be flaring that volume of gas? The author’s estimate is referenced to Eckhardt et al (2009) in Table 1 and no where else in the paper. The link to that reference goes to some sort of blog posting. Does this garbage pass for peer review at Cornell these days? This whole things smells of anti-Marcellus develpment activities coming out of central NY. I believe that API review of this paper has already dismissed the work as speculative and I can see why.
This is API’s response and I agree:
“This study lacks credibility and is full of contradictions,” Jones said. “The main author is an evolutionary biologist and an anti-natural gas activist who is not credentialed to do this kind of chemical analysis. In supporting documents, the authors admit that the data used was of very low quality. This study is really an exercise in selective data and manipulated methodologies used to reach conclusions that deliberately contradict mainstream science.”
These so called academics are basing their careers on the new religion of environmental activism and there are zombie hoards of wide eyed students that have bought into this ethos of bad science as a the end justifies the means of stopping natural gas development.
The only area where this paper differentiates between shale wells and “conventional gas wells” is in their estimate of methane emissions during fracing and flow-back. They cite five figures for that, and these are to my mind the heart of the paper. Of these, two just reference the “EPA”, so can’t be checked. Two more refer to short PowerPoints done by Anadarko employees, one of whom has already emailed me to say that the data used was incorrect. The most important figure, however, the one with by far the largest claimed emissions, is for methane emissions from the Haynesville Shale, where the “reference” appears to be just a scout report listing nothing but assorted initial production figures for wells completed in early 2009. It’s not relevant to the number they’re using, which thus appears to be unsupported.
There’s no direct correlation between reported production and any volumes of gas that may have been produced during a short “flow-back” period. But more importantly, there is absolutely no correlation between the initial production figures cited in the scout report the paper refers to, and what an operator does with their gas. So you can’t use initial production figures to estimate methane emissions, since those depend entirely on an operator’s actions, not the well’s productivity. Given the value of the gas involved, it’s not surprising that its almost always sold commercially, not vented or flared. Hence actual methane emissions are no higher for shale wells than for conventional gas wells.
Consequently this paper is essentially pointless, if not downright fraudulent. They have no stated source for their data on the paper’s key point. Check the reference and you’ll see – it’s available online at http://www.gecionline.com/2009-prt-7-final-reviews Good luck finding methane emissions data for Haynesville shale gas wells during the flow-back period given – there’s nothing there. The number they are using appears to have come out of thin air.