Methane Leaks Higher than Previous Estimates

Part of compressor station in Bradford County, PA

A new study finds that methane leaks from the production and transportation of gas could be 50 percent higher than EPA estimates. It also warns that switching vehicles from traditional gasoline and diesel to natural gas will do nothing to slow climate change.

“Methane Leaks from North American Natural Gas Systems” is a policy paper - a collaborative effort by sixteen academics who reviewed and synthesized data from 200 papers published in the past two decades.

The lead author is Adam Brandt, an assistant professor of energy resources engineering at Stanford University. In comments to the press, he explained that official agencies such as the EPA are underestimating leakage of natural gas into the atmosphere. Brandt reminded people that leaked methane is a greenhouse gas, just like carbon dioxide, but 30 times more potent. He also noted that although converting fleets from diesel to natural gas sounds like a good idea – burning gas puts less carbon into the atmosphere than burning diesel – any potential climate benefits would be negated by the leaked emissions from gas drilling and production.

Those gas leaks come from emissions at well pads, storage tanks, old and abandoned wells, abandoned infrastructure, and holes in pipelines. Brandt estimates there are at least 400,000 gas wells – a low estimate given that the US Energy Information Administration tallied up more than 510,000 back in 2010. As for pipelines, “there are millions of miles,” he said in a video press release last week. Brandt characterizes gas as “abundant, cheap and domestic” and seems to approve of using it to replace coal in power production. But the gas industry needs to plug the leaks. It’s in the industry’s best interest, he says. Those emissions represent lost money and if the country hopes to use gas as a fuel “then we need to get leakage under control.”

Tony Ingraffea agrees that there is more methane escaping into the atmosphere than is accounted for by EPA studies. But he criticizes Brandt et al for not going far enough in their review. Ingraffea, a professor at Cornell’s School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, co-authored an earlier study warning that extracting natural gas could do more to aggravate global warming than mining coal.

The problem with Brandt’s study, says Ingraffea, is that it ignores some important data. In particular, the authors eliminated data that seemed “too high” – even though they were actual measurements. Several recent studies have used airplanes and towers to measure methane in the air and found emissions to be much higher than EPA estimates, with some as much as 75 percent higher.

Brandt and his colleagues determined that those measurements were too high, or came from production areas that weren’t representative of the country as a whole, so they dismissed the data. But you don’t get to toss out data you don’t like unless you have very good reason, says Ingraffea.

Another problem, says Ingraffea,  is that the authors simply assert that the 3 million or so abandoned oil and gas wells scattered across the nation are properly plugged and therefore probably not leaking. “The problem with that,” he says, “is that they don’t know where all those abandoned wells are, so they can’t really measure whether they’re leaking or not.”

Ingraffea also takes issue with the study’s claim that, if industry could plug up the leaks, burning gas in power plants would be better for the climate instead of burning coal. In order to make that claim they stretch out their timeframe to 100 years.

“That’s totally arbitrary,” says Ingraffea, “and not based on science.” The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) gives us about 20 to 30 years before we approach a tipping point, Ingraffea explains. “We can’t wait that long to start decreasing the carbon emissions from fossil fuel.” He adds that using a hundred-year timeframe is a policy decision that is “…perhaps based on faulty scientific understanding of the climate change situation in which we find ourselves or perhaps political wishful thinking.”

Now is a good time to be reexamining and summarizing previous studies, says Ingraffea. But it’s premature to draw conclusions, because every year there are new studies by scientists collecting actual measurements in the air and on the ground. And the data from these new studies continue to show methane emissions at rates much higher than previously thought.

Looking at the big picture, Ingraffea believes the study asks the wrong question. Instead of trying to pin down an average emission rate of methane, they should be asking how much risk we are willing to take. “Risk is the key issue of any policy decision,” says Ingraffea. Sometimes there are bad things that can happen, but they have little consequence so we live with them – even if they happen frequently.

“But this is one thing with a major consequence, so we have to be conservative in our risk taking,” says Ingraffea. Using the average value of methane emissions is inadequate, he says. Policy makers need to peg emission allowances closer to the lower end – and even then acknowledge the uncertainties surrounding that level.

“In the meantime, many of those crucial next 20 years are going by,” Ingraffea warns, “and we should have already started to reduce all fossil fuel use, not increase it as this study proposes.” 

This article first published in Tompkins Weekly, February 24, 2014.

Fracking's Contribution to Greenhouse Gases Worse than Estimated

The argument for burning gas instead of coal goes something like this: burning gas is “cleaner” because it emits less carbon dioxide than oil or coal – even though methane is a much more potent greenhouse gas.

So if you can keep the gas you drill from escaping before it is burned as fuel, you might have an advantage. The problem is that gas escapes – from wells, pipelines, compressors. A couple years ago the federal Environmental Protection Agency had estimated that 0.8 percent to 1.6 percent of natural gas production escapes, on a national average.

Then last year the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) published a paper finding that as long as escaping methane was less than 3.2 percent of lifetime production, natural gas would be better than coal for electrical production.  According to EDF, 3.2 percent is the “threshold”;  methane emissions above that level would eliminate the justification for using gas as a “transition fuel” to replace coal for electricity generation.

Now, new research shows that more – much more – methane is escaping from gas production than thought. Studies by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in Utah’s Uintah Basin showed that up to 12 percent of the gas produced could be going into the atmosphere instead of the pipeline. The basin serves about 6,000 wells and accounts for about one percent of the nation’s gas production.

A research team from the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences (CIRES) flew over the basin at about 1,000 feet, gathering air samples and taking readings over a period of several weeks. They used a “mass balance” technique which follows an air mass at it moves into a region and then flows out of that area. During their Feb. 3 testing they found that the area leaked 60 tons of gas an hour. Some days it was far greater.

It’s not just the wells that are leaking; methane could potentially be leaking from processing plants, pipelines, and compressors. The problem with all this leaky methane is that it contributes to smog – and Utah has smog levels that rival Los Angeles on its worst days. An EPA report concluded that the oil and gas industry was responsible for about 99 percent of the volatile organic compounds found in the basin which, when mixed with sunlight, creates ground level ozone. The smog was so bad at times that the Salt Lake City airport has had to divert flights.

Add up the studies and you get a picture that shows drilling pollutes the air people breathe, creates smog, and adds a higher-than-predicted burden of greenhouse gases to our atmosphere. Now US Fish and Wildlife Service say drilling is contributing to the loss of two plant species. The agency is asking for federal protection for two rare plant species, Graham’s beardtongue and White River beardtongue and is asking for them to be listed under the Endangered Species Act.

According to US Fish & Wildlife, both plants are endemic to the Uintah Basin and over the past few years their range has been reduced by oil and gas development, invasive species and grazing. The plants grow where oil shale deposits that are rich in calcium carbonate touch the surface.

You Can't Frack Your Way out of Global Warming

In his State of the Union address, President Obama said a lot of things - some outright contradictory, including: we need to take steps to address climate change, followed later by exhorting us to exploit US oil and gas.

We can't have it both ways. Yes, yes, burning gas creates fewer climate impacts than burning coal or oil. We've heard it over and over and over and over.... and it's not correct. Because getting that gas out of the ground, shattering it out of the rock, extracting if from tarry sands - those things put more emissions into the air. And all those leaky pipelines and compressor stations - they're emitting methane which is a potent greenhouse gas. Flaring alone produces 400 million tons of greenhouse gases. It's not just affecting our climate, it's harming our health.

Despite the hundreds of articles in newspapers and magazines, despite the thousands of letters to state and local officials, despite stockholder resolutions ... no one seems to be listening. Well, at least until this week. On Thursday Senators Bernie Sanders (Senate energy committee) and Barbara Boxer (chair of Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works) submitted the Climate Protection Act that, they hope, will reverse climate change.  (It's short - only 25 pages)

Introducing this act, Bernie Sanders said:

I fear very much that our children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren are going to look back on this period in history and ask a very simple question: Where were they? Why didn’t the United States of America, the most powerful nation on earth, lead the international community in cutting greenhouse gas emissions and preventing the devastating damage that the scientific community was sure would come?

Tomorrow thousands of citizens will march from the Washington Monument to the White House in a huge climate rally. They're sincerely hoping that the president, who promised climate action earlier this week, is listening.

In case you have forgotten why it's important to reduce our carbon footprint:

Climate Change hits Drillers (and others) with Water Woes

Fresh water impoundment, Bradford County, PA (photo by SRBC)

It takes a lot of water to frack a shalegas (or shale oil) well - millions of gallons. Even people who live in the relatively damp region of Marcellus shale have raised concerns over the millions of gallons drillers use for each well.

Some companies have been recycling their flowback fluids. Others have proposed using minewaste water and water from sewage treatment plants. But that's still millions of gallons of water going downhole that can never be used again. It's gone; out of the water cycle.

And this year, those recycling/re-use efforts simply aren't enough given the drought. Even water-rich NY and PA have seen the driest July on record, forcing the Susquehanna River Basin Commission to halt water withdrawals. Oil and gas drillers in the midwest are so desperate for water that it's becoming a struggle to see whether crops will be irrigated or wells drilled.

Check out this recent article from CNN Money: "Oil companies desperately seek water amid Kansas drought".

Oil and gas companies aren't the only energy companies feeling the heat from climate change. This past Sunday the nuclear power plant in Connecticut shut down one of its two units because the sea water used for cooling was too warm.

The Next Generation says Don't Frack Us!

The Boulder Earth Guardians speak eloquently - we should listen!