Fugitive Methane Caught in the Act of Raising GHG

[GliderGuider]

Fugitive Methane Caught in the Act of Raising GHG

Until now, the average equivalent grams of CO2 emitted per kWhr produced has been calculated as 975 gCO2/kWhr from coal; 600 gCO2/kWhr from natural gas; 90 gCO2/kWhr from hydro; 55 gCO2/kWhr from solar; 15 gCO2/kWhr from wind, and 15 gCO2/kWhr from nuclear (Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology; GHG from Power Plants). However, new studies by Dr. Robert Howarth and associates at Cornell University (GHG Footprint of Natural Gas; National Climate Assessment; thanks to atomikrabbit for pointing me in this direction) provide emissions data from the entire natural gas life-cycle. Their results bump this number for gas from 600 gCO2/kWhr to over 1,200 gCO2/kWhr, making natural gas the largest emitter of GHGs in electricity generation.

Oopsy!

[NickB79]

1. Oh man, that's really, really, really bad

6C of warming by 2100 might be the best we can hope for now

[GliderGuider]

2. Everybody has been pinning their hopes on natural gas as a low-carbon alternative to coal

If natural gas produces 25% more CO2 than coal, and we're ramping up production everywhere we can, we're doubly hooped. Not even windmills will pull our asses out of this crack.

[kristopher]

9. Very few working on climate see Natgas a long term alternative to coal.

It is well known that the path relying heavily on natural gas with slow deployment of renewables is not an effective response to climate change. However, it is a type of generation that has a low capital cost (which makes it an easier investment to pay off and walk away from) and, most importantly, its ability to ramp up and shut down quickly facilitates the rapid growth of real carbon free renewable generation by renewables.

The Forbes article (and you) are mischaracterizing the actual research - the high number (1200g/kwh) is specific to fracked gas under unregulated conditions of recovery. The majority of our gas is from sources with an average footprint of about 400g/kwh.

Link to download Howarth's quoted paper: Methane and the Greenhouse-Gas Footprint of Natural Gas from Shale Formations
Robert W. Howarth1*, Renee Santoro1, and Anthony Ingraffea"
http://thehill.com/images/stories/blogs/energy/howarth.pdf

That said, the point Howarth is raising is valid and his research seems very solid. Here is his testimony to Congress reporting his work and his conclusions. As Howarth stresses, it is important to bear in mind that this is a developing area of research and policy. We are currently waiting for EPA to publish their research of fracking, which should be a far more comprehensive analysis of the overall state of what is happening.
The piece below includes a link to all the research currently available on the subject.

His remarks to Congress are in the public domain and are not subject to copyright restrictions.

Statement of Robert W. Howarth, Ph.D.
[t]before the Subcommittee on Technology, Information Policy, Intergovernmental Relations and Procurement Reform, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Congress of the United States, House of Representatives
May 31, 2012

My name is Robert Howarth. I have been a tenured faculty member at Cornell University in Ithaca, NY, since 1985, and have held an endowed faculty position, the “DavidR.AtkinsonProfessorofEcology&EnvironmentalBiology,”since1993. Iamalso the Founding Editor of the journal Biogeochemistry and an adjunct senior research scientist at the Marine Biological Laboratory in Woods Hole, MA. I have performed research and published scientific papers on environmental risk assessment and the consequences of pollution, including the effects of oil and gas development, since the mid 1970s.

I was invited to present information in this hearing on the environmental and public health consequences of hydraulic fracturing. Hydraulic fracturing is not new. The process has existed for many decades, using relatively small volumes of water, to stimulate gas and oil wells to increase production. What is new is the combination of high-precision, directional drilling with high-volume hydraulic fracturing. This new combination uses many times more water and chemical additives for the fracturing, often 5 million gallons or more per well. This is 50 to 100 times more fracturing fluid than used to stimulate conventional gas wells. The high-volume hydraulic fracturing combined with directional drilling has allowed the exploitation of gas resources not previously available, such as shale gas. This combination of technologies to obtain shale gas is very new, first used in Texas just over a decade ago. And over half of all the shale gas that has ever been developed in the world has been produced in the last 3 years.
Because the development of shale gas is so new, the science on this process and its environmental consequences is also very new. Almost all peer-reviewed scientific publications on the environmental and public health consequences of shale gas have been published in the past 14 months, since April 2011. A list of these papers and their abstracts can be found on the web site of Physicians, Scientists, and Engineers for Healthy Energy (http://www.psehealthyenergy.org/site/show_list/id/35). Today, I will briefly summarize the findings of this new, developing science.

Surface water pollution: Shale gas development has already caused significant surface water pollution. The additives used in hydraulic fracturing include toxic and carcinogenic substances, such as formaldehyde, benzene, xylene, and monoethanolamine. As importantly, frac fluids extract chemical substances from shales, including toxic and carcinogenic aromatic hydrocarbons, toxic metals, and radioactive materials such as uranium, thorium, and radium. Some of these materials are released to the environment when blowouts and other accidents occur. A greater route of release and exposure comes from disposal of frac-return fluids. Approximately 20%, or 1 million gallons or so, of the material used in hydraulic fracturing flows back to the surface in the first few weeks after fracturing, with all of the added and extracted chemical substances. In Texas, where most high-volume hydraulic fracturing has occurred so far, these wastes are disposed of by injection into old, abandoned conventional gas wells. In the Marcellus formation in Pennsylvania, some waste has been injected in such disposal wells, but suitable disposal wells are rare in the northeast, and much more has been disposed of in municipal sewage treatment plants. Such treatment plants simply are not designed to handle these toxic wastes. A significant amount of the wastes flow through the plants and are released into rivers. Public drinking water supplies in the Pittsburg area have already been affected, with elevated bromides from the waste interacting with chlorination in public drinking water systems to produce highly dangerous brominated organic compounds. As a result, the PA DEP and US EPA have put a stop to using sewage plants to dispose of frac wastes, as of the summer of 2011. But suitable alternative disposal methods have yet to be developed.

Groundwater contamination: There are several reports of contamination of drinking water wells and surface aquifers by fracking fluids, particularly in Pennsylvania and in Colorado. The extent of such contamination, and the mechanisms which might lead to such contamination, remain poorly studied. Most scientists familiar with the existing, public data (note that a lot of information is not publicly available) believe the contamination is likely caused by well and cementing failures. A recently published model suggests there may also be a threat of migration of contaminated fracking fluids from depth to surface drinking water aquifers over time through fissures and cracks. The US EPA is currently pursuing a comprehensive study of groundwater contamination from hydraulic fracturing, and intends to release a preliminary report later this year and a final report in 2014.

Shale gas development also leads to contamination of drinking water wells, as indicated by a May 2011 study published by Duke University scientists in the ProceedingsoftheNationalAcademyofSciences. Methaneconcentrationswere frequently elevated in drinking water wells within 1 km of shale gas operations, sometimes at levels great enough to pose a significant risk of explosion.
Local air pollution: The development of shale gas and other unconventional forms of natural gas (from coal-bed seams and tight-sand formations) results in significant local air pollution. One concern is the release of benzene and other aromatic hydrocarbons
to the atmosphere from routine operations. State officials in Texas have reported benzene concentrations in the air near gas operations that sometimes exceed acute toxicity standards. In Pennsylvania, reported benzene concentrations are so far lower, quite likely because the rate of gas development has been much lower. Nonetheless, reported atmospheric benzene levels near some drilling operations in Pennsylvania are high enough to pose risk of cancer from chronic exposure.

Ozone pollution is also of great concern. Ozone is created in the atmosphere when nitrogen pollution and organic compounds react under strong sunlight. Current ozone pollution in the US is estimated to cause 30,000 premature deaths each year, almost the same death rate as from automobile accidents. Unconventional natural gas development from hydraulic fracturing increases ozone pollution due to leakage of organic compounds to the air. The problem has been particularly acute in Wyoming, Utah, and Colorado in recent years, with ozone concentrations in the winter due to natural gas development being higher than observed in New York City.

Methane and global warming: Methane is released to the atmosphere during development, transport, storage, and use of natural gas. Methane is an incredibly powerful greenhouse gas, and as a result of methane emissions, both shale gas and conventional natural gas have larger greenhouse gas footprints than other fossil fuels such as oil and coal (when viewed over an integrated 20-year time frame after emission). Recent climate models point to the urgency in reducing methane emissions: without immediate global reductions in methane pollution, these models indicate that the Earth will warm to 1.5 degrees C above the long-term average within 15 years or so, and to 2 degrees C within 35 to 40 years. This is a dangerous level of warming, a level that greatly increases the likelihood of positive feedbacks in the climate system, leading to an acceleration of further warming. Reducing emissions of methane and other short- lived radiatively active materials such as black carbon is the best way to reduce this dangerous warming. Currently, almost 40% of all atmospheric methane released by human activity in the US comes from the natural gas industry. Most studies indicate that shale gas development releases 40% to 60% more methane than does conventional natural gas. To address the huge threat posed by global warming, I believe it is essential to move as quickly as possible away from natural gas towards renewable energy resources, and to not further develop shale gas unless major (and expensive) steps are taken to greatly reduce methane emissions.

Radon in natural gas supplies: Radon gas is a carcinogen, and exposure to radon is the largest source of public exposure to ionizing radiation in the US. Currently, radon in homes in the US results in an estimated 20,000 deaths per year. Natural gas contains radon, and using natural gas for home cooking is one route of home exposure. Shale gas from the Marcellus formation, and perhaps from other formations as well, has much greater levels of radon than does conventional natural gas. This is because the Marcellus shale is particularly rich in uranium and thorium, and radon is formed from the decay of these radioactive materials. Radon has a half life of 3.8 days, so with sufficiently long storage, the radon decays away and poses less public health risk. However, the rapid movement of natural gas from the Marcellus shale to northeastern cities would seem to pose a major public health risk, one that certainly deserves much greater study and scrutiny.

The role of federal regulation: I believe federal agencies should have a central role in regulating oil and gas development, and particularly with the development of unconventional oil and gas by high-volume hydraulic fracturing. The issues involved are complex, the technologies are new and continually evolving, the scientific issues are difficult. From my experience with interacting with both federal and state regulatory agencies over the past 35 years, I believe most states lack the science capacity to adequately develop and enforce regulations for unconventional oil and gas.

Finally, I note that the pollution from unconventional oil and gas development moves across state lines in surface waters, in the air, and in gas pipelines (in the case of radon). This inter-state pollution clearly calls for federal oversight of environmental and public health regulation.

I thank the committee for the opportunity to testify today, and I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have.
Robert Howarth, Ph.D.
May 29, 2012

Robert Howarth
Curriculum Vitae -- May 31, 2012
Robert Howarth is a biogeochemist and ecosystem biologist. He earned a BA in Biology from Amherst College in 1974 and a Ph.D. jointly from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in 1979. In 1979, he was the Noyes Postdoctoral Fellow at the Ecosystems Center of the Marine Biological Laboratory in Woods Hole, and from 1980 to 1985 was a staff scientist at the Center. Howarth joined the faculty at Cornell University in 1985 and was appointed the David R. Atkinson Professor of Ecology & Environmental Biology in 1993. For the past 35 years he has run an active research program focusing on how human activity affects the environment, with emphases on global change and on coastal ocean water quality. Much of his research focuses on human alteration of the nitrogen cycle at scales from local to regional to global, including both sources of pollution and their consequences. He also works on greenhouse gas emissions (particularly methane and nitrous oxide) and the ecological consequences of oil and gas development. Following the Exxon Valdez oil spill, Howarth was the lead advisor to the Attorney General of the State of Alaska on the effects of the spill.


Howarth is the Founding Editor of the journal Biogeochemistry and was Editor-in-Chief of the journal from 1983 to 2004. He chaired the National Academy of Sciences Committee on Causes and Consequences of Coastal Marine Eutrophication from 1998-2000, and has served on 10 other panels and committees of the National Academy, including one on oil pollution and one on trace gases and global change. Howarth co-chaired the International SCOPE Nitrogen Project from 1992 to 2002 (International Council of Science), directed the North American Nitrogen Center of the International Nitrogen Initiative from 2003-2006, and has been chair of the International SCOPE Biofuels Project on environmental effects of biofuels since 2007. He is a consultant to the United Nations Environment Program on sustainable resource use. From 2007 to 2009, Howarth served as president of the Coastal & Estuarine Research Federation. From 2008 to 2010, he was on the board of directors of the Council of Scientific Society Presidents, an umbrella organization representing almost 1.5 million professional scientists in over 100 different disciplines; Howarth co-chaired the Committee on Energy & Environment for this organization from 2008 through 2011. He also represents the State of New York on the Technical and Science Advisory Committee of the Chesapeake Bay Program, and directs the USDA-funded Agriculture, Energy & Environment Program at Cornell University. Howarth is a member of the Board of Directors of Physicians, Scientists, and Engineers for Healthy Energy.

In 2011, Howarth published the first comprehensive analysis of the greenhouse gas footprint of shale gas in the peer-reviewed journal Climatic Change Letters and an invited commentary on shale gas in Nature. For this, he was named by Time magazine as “one of the people who matter” for 2011. In the first few months of 2012, Howarth published a follow-up paper on this research in Climatic Change and was the lead author of a background paper for the National Climate Assessment on the role of methane from the natural gas industry on global change.
Howarth has published over 200 scientific papers, reports, and book chapters. An expanded CV with complete list of publications is available at http://www.eeb.cornell.edu/howarth/


Howarth, Robert: Federal grants and contracts since October 1, 2009 (all awards made to Cornell University)
National Science Foundation “Nonlinear Feedbacks in Coupled Element Cycles During Eutrophication of Shallow Coastal Ecosystems” $1,699,977; 8/15/04 to 7/31/10
National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (Subcontract from Univ. of Michigan) “CHRP 2005: Watershed-Estuary-Species Nutrient Susceptibility” $948,000; 8/1/05 to 7/31/12
US Department of Agriculture (Hatch) “Atmospheric Deposition of NH3 Gas: Relation to Water Quality in the Susquehanna River Basin and to Inputs to Agricultural Systems” $60,000; 10/1/07 to 9/30/10
US Department of Agriculture “Agricultural Ecology Program: Understanding Sources and Sinks of Nutrients and Sediment in the Upper Susquehanna River Basin” $256,499; 8/15/08 through 8/14/10
US Department of Interior (though the NY State Water Resources Institute) “Silica Dynamics and Nutrient Retention Modeling in the Hudson River Watershed” $20,000; 3/1/09 to 2/28/10
US Department of Agriculture “Environmental Research Special Grant: Understanding Sources and Sinks of Nutrients and Sediment in the Upper Susquehanna River Basin” $240,530; 9/1/09 to 8/31/11
US Department of Agriculture “Environmental Research Special Grant: Agriculture, energy, and Environment Program at Cornell University” $240,112; 9/1/10 to 8/31/12
US Department of Agriculture (Hatch) “Watersheds and Nitrogen Pollution: The NANI tool and Trend Analysis” $100,000; 10/1/10 to 9/30/12

http://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/5-31-12-Tech-IP-Howarth.pdf

[GliderGuider]

13. No, but lots of people working on making money do.

Thanks for the TL;DNR on Howarth.

[kristopher]

14. Remaining ignorant is better than reading 10 paragraphs?

That's the GG we've all come to know and expect.

[GliderGuider]

15. Four and a link is more accessible.

However, all snark aside, I did read it - thanks for posting it. I also read the two papers linked from the original article. Howarth does good work, and it looks like it's important research too.

[Nihil]

3. "Oops" and a little bit more.

Still, no doubt the natural gas defenders will be on their way soon to point out that
this wasn't a study of which they approve and so it can be dismissed outright.
Anyone subsequently mentioning it will be labelled "a supporter of the nuclear industry"
so that the natural gas industry will not be tarnished in any way by such mere facts.

[Ghost Dog]

4. Economic incentives needed.

Fugitive losses include loss of methane from the well-head during flow-back return of the fluids, during drill-out following fracturing and during well-venting, plus losses from equipment leaks, losses during transport, storage, and distribution, processing losses and losses during liquid unloading.

Economic incentives need to be in place to encourage investment in ways to limit and/or sequester these outgasings.

[NickB79]

7. It's a catch-22 there though

Countries are rushing to build out their nat. gas power plants because fracking has made gas very cheap, so much so that there are no economic incentives to capture any fugitive methane from the wells because the recovered gas isn't worth the investments. If you pushed up the price of gas high enough to make it cost-effective to stop the leaks, you'd push countries back towards cheaper fuels like coal that are still really bad for the climate.

The only way to make this work is via a carbon tax that takes into account things like fugitive methane escape. And in today's political environment, that stands a snowball's chance in hell of passing in any major nations.

[kristopher]

10. Not really.

The best policy approach here would be to mandate methods of extraction that prevent release of the the methane; financial carrots are better suited to stimulating innovation in emerging technology. We know the problem and the ways to address it, we therefore need to prescribe the methods and ensure monitoring/enforcement are accomplished.

It should, of course, also go along with strong policies to deploy all renewables and upgrade the grid.

[NickB79]

11. "mandate methods of extraction that prevent release of the the methane"

And this has as much chance of being approved in the US as a carbon tax, ie slim to none.

[kristopher]

12. Again, not true.

If they produce findings that show harm they have a great deal of existing authority under the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts. Obama staked out a position for this approach in his speech in Ohio today.

[hatrack]

5. Oops!

Hey, how 'bout those Dodgers, uh, Bears, uh, Bulls?!?!

[GliderGuider]

6. The world is full of Artful Dodgers on this issue. nt

[NickB79]

8. And switching from coal to gas means less sulfur in the air

Which is actually a BAD thing from a global warming perspective, because that sulfur helps reflect sunlight back into space, creating a cooling effect that offsets some of the carbon emissions.

We're so fucked.

[AdHocSolver]

16. K and R. nt

[GliderGuider]

17. Uncomfortable conclusions

Last edited Tue Jul 17, 2012, 11:33 AM - Edit history (2)

This research reinforces the view that continued fossil fuel use is a clear and present danger to human existence.

As far as I can tell there are three voluntary paths we might follow as a result of this awareness:

1. We could reduce the use of fossil fuels by reducing economic activity, through the introduction of steep carbon taxes.
   
2. We could reduce fossil fuel use while maintaining economic activity, through rapid substitution with non-fuel energy sources. This is the preferred path of the "green economy" advocates.
   
3. We could continue muddling along on our current path.

There is zero political appetite for path #1, so it is vanishingly unlikely.

To move to path #2, a reasonable target would be to replace 75% of the world's fossil fuel energy with renewables within 20 years. This might not stop global warming, but might slow it down. The problem is that this approach depends at the moment entirely on market forces and minor policy tweaks, to drive the substitution of fossil fuels by renewables through price competition. There is no political appetite anywhere for effective policies that attack the growth of fossil fuel use directly.

Market forces have so far failed to deliver the goods. Over the last twenty years, the contribution of fossil fuels to the world's global primary energy mix has declined by only 0.6% (from 87.7% to 87.1%), while the contribution of renewables has risen by only 1.5%, from 6.5% to 8%. The growth of renewables has mainly served to offset the loss of nuclear power over the same period. Unfortunately the world's primary energy consumption has grown by 50% in that time, with over 87% of the growth being met by fossil fuels. This speed of shift will not get us to significant CO2 reductions before catastrophic global warming becomes a reality.

It's always possible that the speed of replacement of fossil fuels with renewables will overtake the growth in global energy demand, but there is no evidence yet that the nascent renewable revolution will succeed that dramatically.

That leaves path #3. Following this "path of least resistance" will get us to 450 ppm CO2 by 2040 or so, with further increases baked in the cake. This is the +6C path, and it's the one we have shown no inclination to leave, despite the growing body of scientific evidence.

There's always the possibility that anything might happen in the future, but experience has shown that we humans, being optimists at heart, are much more likely to change in response to a crisis than in anticipation of one. That tendency ensures that the main part of our response to the crisis will be involuntary, in which we adapt as best we can to our deteriorating biophysical and economic circumstances.