[Vision2020] See. Big oil is not so bad.

[Ted Moffett]

On the subject of "hydraulic fracturing (fracking)" for gas extraction
the following article from Realclimate.org by NASA climate scientist
Gavin Schmidt (I assume it is Gavin Schmidt, though the article is
merely signed "gavin," and why not "gavin s." at least?), posted April
16, 2011, might be of relevance:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/04/fracking-methane/#more-7390

Fracking methane

Filed under: Climate Science Climate impacts Greenhouse gases— gavin @
16 April 2011

The Howarth et al paper estimating the climatic impact of shale gas
extraction by hydraulic fracturing (fracking) has provoked a number of
responses across the media. Since the issue of natural gas vs. coal or
oil, and the specifics of fracking itself are established and growing
public issues, most commentary has served to bolster any particular
commenter’s prior position on some aspect of this. So far, so
unsurprising. However, one aspect of the Howarth study uses work that
I’ve been involved in to better estimate the indirect effects of
short-lived emissions (including methane, the dominant component of
shale gas). Seeing how this specific piece of science is being brought
into a policy debate is rather interesting.


The basic issue is that for any real economic or industrial activity
there are a variety of emissions associated with the life cycle of
that activity – from construction, transport of fuels, operating
emissions, end products etc. In deciding whether one activity is
‘better’ or ‘worse’ than an alternative, people need to have an
assessment of the cost, the carbon footprint, other impacts etc., over
that whole life cycle. There are of course different elements to this
(cost, pollution, social issues) that need to weighed up, but one
piece that is amenable to scientific analysis is the impact on climate
drivers.

Calculating the net climate impact of an activity requires tracking
many different emissions (not just CO2), and accounting for their
(time-varying) impact on radiatively active components of the
atmosphere or the properties of the affected land surface. While
straightforward in conception, this can be complex and, inevitably,
there are uncertainties in assessing all the knock-on effects. Over
the years, many of the complexities have become better acknowledged
which, in some cases, increases the total uncertainty, but the
alternative of assuming that the indirect effects have zero impact
with zero uncertainty is not tenable.

For shale gas extraction, (and indeed for most fossil fuel
extraction), a big issue is fugitive emissions. These are emissions
that arise by accident – mostly consisting of methane, but also other
volatile organic compounds – as a function of the mining, refining,
transport, or incomplete combustion. Since methane is a relatively
powerful greenhouse gas whose source is dominated by anthropogenic
activities at present, the impact of the fugitive emissions can be a
significant component of the climate forcing associated with any
activity.

The Howarth study, using admittedly poor observations (for lack of
anything better), has come up with a relatively large potential for
fugitive emissions from the fracking process itself – up to a few
percent of the extracted gas. Converting this into an equivalent CO2
amount (for comparison with the impact of the gas once it is
combusted), they have used Global Warming Potentials (GWPs) from
Shindell et al (2009) (a paper I co-authored). A GWP is a
kilo-for-kilo comparison of the radiative forcing associated with the
emission of particular substance compared to CO2, integrated over a
specific time frame. For a long-lived gas like CO2, forcing persists
over a long time, while for a shorter lived species (like methane),
the forcing goes down faster with time. Therefore the time frame for
the GWP calculation matters a lot for the relative importance of the
two gases. Methane is relatively more important for a 20 year time
frame, than it is for a 100 year time frame, by about a factor of 3.

There are indirect effects from methane emissions because it is
chemically reactive in the atmosphere. It contributes to increases in
tropospheric ozone and stratospheric water vapour (increasing the
warming impact), and by changing the oxidising capacity of the
atmosphere, affects it’s own lifetime, and that of SO2 and NOx – which
in turn affects aerosol formation, and indeed aerosol-cloud
interactions. The IPCC (2007) report had acknowledged the potential
for these indirect issues, but had not given any numbers. The Shindell
et al paper was an attempt to fill that gap. As we discussed
previously:

… we found that methane’s impacts increased even further since
increasing methane lowers OH and so slows the formation of sulphate
aerosol and, since sulphates are cooling, having less of them is an
additional warming effect. This leads to an increase in the historical
attribution to methane (by a small amount), but actually makes a much
bigger difference to the GWP of methane (which increases to about 33 –
though with large error bars).

For comparison, the GWP in IPCC (2007) was 25 – this is for a 100 year
time frame. For shorter periods like 20 years, the relative increase
in our numbers was somewhat higher (about 50%) over that given by in
AR4.

Thus a combination of high fugitive emissions, and larger updated
numbers for the impact of methane are the main components the Howarth
conclusion, relating the impact of shale gas to coal. However, for an
apples-to-apples life cycle comparison, one would need to also update
the impacts of coal and oil to include their fugitive emissions, their
impact on other short-lived components (black carbon, CO, etc). Thus,
it’s not clear that the Howarth comparisons are exactly on a level
playing field. Regardless, the uncertainties in some of these
estimates are such that very clear conclusions are going to be elusive
for some time to come.

A few further points are worth making. The estimates for fugitive
emissions are uncertain because they are not being reported, either
voluntarily by the industry or through regulation from the states. It
is also worth stating that there is nothing inevitable about fugitive
emissions. Better management (and/or regulation) can reduce these
losses substantially (up to 90% in some situations) in very
cost-effective ways (since lost methane is lost product in many
cases).

Which brings me to the responses to this story. The industry website
Energy in Depth was quick off the mark with a response that feigned
surprise and shock that the emission estimates were uncertain
(somewhat hypocritically since it is the same industry that has
resisted almost any improvement in reporting standards). They also try
to imply that the Shindell et al study was somehow suspect because it
was different to the earlier IPCC GWP numbers, without any apparent
interest or knowledge of why that was. Again, the industry would be
better advised to deal with fugitive emissions (which also impact air
pollution) rather than attacking inconvenient science. (Funnier still
are the contrarian responses, for instance from “Bishop Hill” who
completely agrees with the industry (again without any actual
knowledge of the issues), and who can’t resist using their criticism
of Howarth to condemn a whole University (and by proxy, the whole
scientific enterprise). I mean, why bother with independent scientists
when the industry can tell you exactly what you are supposed to
think?).

Another frequent framing is the false dichotomy. Apparently, natural
gas must either be perfect solve-all or worse than useless (see for
instance, Keith Kloor’s take). One would think that the overwhelming
consensus that there are no panaceas for decarbonising our energy
supply might have at least started to make a little impact on the
media. Any real policy initiative will have complex effects, and while
scientists can certainly help quantify them, nothing at the scale we
require is going to be completely neutral in all particulars – and the
media should stop expecting it to be so. Since there will always be
people who can be portrayed as having taken a black/white position on
some issue, it is all too easy to frame any new result as undermining
some over-optimistic idealist, which unfortunately buries the
conversation related to the nuances of real issues.

Howarth et al is unlikely to be the last word on this subject, but it
does highlight the need for more of this kind of research, and for
further quantification of these emissions and their effects. For
anyone interested in the larger issues of time-scales and the
implications of combining emissions of short-lived and long-lived
species in assessing impacts, I recommend reading the latest UNEP
report on Black Carbon and Tropospheric Ozone mitigation (at least the
summary). Another relevant read is the post by Ray Pierrehumbert on
the same issue. This is not just an issue for fracking, but rather
something that is far more general and affects almost all emitting
activities.
------------------------------------------
Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett

On 4/17/11, Art Deco <deco at moscow.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> April 16, 2011
> Chemicals Were Injected Into Wells, Report Says
> By IAN URBINA
> WASHINGTON - Oil and gas companies injected hundreds of millions of gallons
> of hazardous or carcinogenic chemicals into wells in more than 13 states
> from 2005 to 2009, according to an investigation by Congressional Democrats.
>
> The chemicals were used by companies during a drilling process known as
> hydraulic fracturing, or hydrofracking, which involves the high-pressure
> injection of a mixture of water, sand and chemical additives into rock
> formations deep underground. The process, which is being used to tap into
> large reserves of natural gas around the country, opens fissures in the rock
> to stimulate the release of oil and gas.
>
> Hydrofracking has attracted increased scrutiny from lawmakers and
> environmentalists in part because of fears that the chemicals used during
> the process can contaminate underground sources of drinking water.
>
> "Questions about the safety of hydraulic fracturing persist, which are
> compounded by the secrecy surrounding the chemicals used in hydraulic
> fracturing fluids," said the report, which was written by Representatives
> Henry A. Waxman of California, Edward J. Markey of Massachusetts and Diana
> DeGette of Colorado.
>
> The report, released late Saturday, also faulted companies for at times
> "injecting fluids containing chemicals that they themselves cannot
> identify."
>
> The inquiry over hydrofracking, which was initiated by the House Energy and
> Commerce Committee when Mr. Waxman led it last year, also found that 14 of
> the nation's most active hydraulic fracturing companies used 866 million
> gallons of hydraulic fracturing products - not including water. More than
> 650 of these products contained chemicals that are known or possible human
> carcinogens, regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act, or are listed as
> hazardous air pollutants, the report said.
>
> A request for comment from the American Petroleum Institute about the report
> received no reply.
>
> Matt Armstrong, an energy attorney from Bracewell & Giuliani that represents
> several companies involved in natural gas drilling, faulted the methodology
> of the congressional report released Saturday and an earlier report by the
> same lawmakers.
>
> "This report uses the same sleight of hand deployed in the last report on
> diesel use -- it compiles overall product volumes, not the volumes of the
> hazardous chemicals contained within those products," he said. "This
> generates big numbers but provides no context for the use of these chemicals
> over the many thousands of frac jobs that were conducted within the
> timeframe of the report."
>
> Some ingredients mixed into the hydraulic fracturing fluids were common and
> generally harmless, like salt and citric acid. Others were unexpected, like
> instant coffee and walnut hulls, the report said. Many ingredients were
> "extremely toxic," including benzene, a known human carcinogen, and lead.
>
> Companies injected large amounts of other hazardous chemicals, including
> 11.4 million gallons of fluids containing at least one of the toxic or
> carcinogenic B.T.E.X. chemicals - benzene, toluene, xylene and ethylbenzene.
> The companies used the highest volume of fluids containing one or more
> carcinogens in Colorado, Oklahoma and Texas.
>
> The report comes two and a half months after an initial report by the same
> three lawmakers that found that 32.2 millions of gallons of fluids
> containing diesel, considered an especially hazardous pollutant because it
> contains benzene, were injected into the ground during hydrofracking by a
> dozen companies from 2005 to 2009, in possible violation of the drinking
> water act.
>
> A 2010 report by Environmental Working Group, a research and advocacy
> organization, found that benzene levels in other hydrofracking ingredients
> were as much as 93 times higher than those found in diesel.
>
> The use of these chemicals has been a source of concern to regulators and
> environmentalists who worry that some of them could find their way out of a
> well bore - because of above-ground spills, underground failures of well
> casing or migration through layers of rock - and into nearby sources of
> drinking water.
>
> These contaminants also remain in the fluid that returns to the surface
> after a well is hydrofracked. A recent investigation by The New York Times
> found high levels of contaminants, including benzene and radioactive
> materials, in wastewater that is being sent to treatment plants not designed
> to fully treat the waste before it is discharged into rivers. At one plant
> in Pennsylvania, documents from the Environmental Protection Agency revealed
> levels of benzene roughly 28 times the federal drinking water standard in
> wastewater as it was discharged, after treatment, into the Allegheny River
> in May 2008.
>
> The E.P.A. is conducting a national study on the drinking water risks
> associated with hydrofracking, but assessing these risks has been made more
> difficult by companies' unwillingness to publicly disclose which chemicals
> and in what concentrations they are used, according to internal e-mails and
> draft notes of the study plan.
>
> Some companies are moving toward more disclosure, and the industry will soon
> start a public database of these chemicals. But the Congressional report
> said that reporting to this database is strictly voluntary, that disclosure
> will not include the chemical identity of products labeled as proprietary,
> and that there is no way to determine if companies are accurately reporting
> information for all wells. In Pennsylvania, the lack of disclosure of
> drilling ingredients has also incited a heated debate among E.P.A. lawyers
> about the threat and legality of treatment plants accepting the wastewater
> and discharging it into rivers.
>
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________________
> Wayne A. Fox
> 1009 Karen Lane
> PO Box 9421
> Moscow, ID  83843
>
> waf at moscow.com
> 208 882-7975
>