This work reports direct measurements of methane emissions at 190 onshore natural gas sites in the United States.* The measurements indicate that well completion emissions are lower than previously estimated; the data also show emissions from pneumatic controllers and equipment leaks are higher than Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) national emission projections. Estimates of total emissions are similar to the most recent EPA national inventory of methane emissions from natural gas production. These measurements will help inform policymakers, researchers, and industry, providing information about some of the sources of methane emissions from the production of natural gas, and will better inform and advance national and international scientific and policy discussions with respect to natural gas development and use.*Hydraulic fracking sites
__________________
The news is controversial but is beginning to form a broader consensus that fracking is not harmful to the planet. The amount of emitted methane, 0.42% of total production, is close to the EPA's estimate of 0.47% but far below the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration's estimates of 6-12%. The levels estimated by the latter would cause significant climate effects while the latest results and the EPA's own results say no.
57 comments:
This is also the first peer reviewed study.
Oh come on! Like you needed a peer reviewed study to conclude that!
The part I can't wait for is the peer reviewed study of the composition of chemicals they're pumping into the groundwater. I mean, we could get that info from the companies themselves, but that would ruin the special sekrit. Knowing what causes the tap to blow up and smell funny would ruin the surprise.
CL, do you feel deprived that they're not pumping that stuff into your own tap in CA? Just curious.
My own alliteration of the day is to say that if the future of fracking is a less flammable one, then it won't be as fun.
Bonus points if you can modify that to include the word "farts".
A couple of tanks of gas, a good supply of protein bars, and a few days driving through Pennsylvania would be enough scientific proof for any reasonable soul.
Ethane, Unwanted "Wet" Gas Production "Off The Sharts" Producers Say
@Ritmo: I just wonder how NOAA got things so wrong...self interest?
Oh come on! Like you needed a peer reviewed study to conclude that!
Nice to have one's beliefs confirmed empirically, though.
Nice to have one's beliefs confirmed empirically, though.
Thanks Revved-Up. That was the (sarcastic) point I was trying to make. In fact, it's so nice, that some of us prefer to go off the empiric evidence we do know before reaching a motivation in the first place, let alone a belief.
CL: It's important to get an idea of your end goal on all this "pro-fracking" stuff. Studies come out all the time. The methane or other GGs to come out of fracking are a concern in that they take us in the wrong direction generally (although not compared to oil), but I'd still like an answer to how it is that they feel they've made the wells durable enough to prevent leaking into the groundwater. More importantly, I'd like to know what those chemicals are. And even more importantly than that, I'd like to know why they've done all they can to keep that information secret. It sure would shut up all those obnoxious hippies (i.e. "residents") doing their own research quiet if they were to find that all the organic solvents bubbling out of the nearby ground had nothing in common with the sekrit formula of the benevolent and completely objective fracking industry.
FInally, since government agencies are so evil - (even when their mission is simply to inform or enforce transparency, evil stuff that) - I want to know why the lesser evil is a company with a vested interest in using solvents and no interest in informing a nearby community of anything that would be detrimental to them, provided the company can use that concealment to quiet down any controversies that any such information might cause.
ritmo said...More importantly, I'd like to know what those chemicals are.
They must be cheap if they are shooting bazillions of gallons of them down there. And they can't have too many carbons. Why would you inject a molecule having multiple carbons down a hole just to get one having a single carbon in return? I just doesn't make economic sense to me. They must be losing tons of money or be heavily subsidized. So I agree with you--fracking must be stopped. And I don't like North Dakota either. They're probably more homophobic than Wyoming.
All those square states are squares and don't deserve to become wealthy.
Fracking is like a Koch-fueled frenzy.
Must.Be.Halted
In fact, it's so nice, that some of us prefer to go off the empiric evidence we do know before reaching a motivation in the first place, let alone a belief.
Well, sure. Your normal schtick of "see what the people here say and then violently disagree" wouldn't work if you didn't wait to see empirical evidence of their opinions first. :)
If the Kochs can make money off of fracking why can't Al Gore get rich off carbon too? It's only fair.
So the identity, let alone the toxicity profile of the solvents, let alone the fact that the industry has no way of sealing the wells securely enough to prevent them from reaching the groundwater, doesn't concern you. Only the homophobia of square states does.
So noted.
Don't complain to me when you get labelled a poisoner.
Even Tianle Li cared to know about the chemicals she was using.
Al Gore gets rich off of shorting carbon.
If the Kochs can make money off of fracking why can't Al Gore get rich off carbon too? It's only fair.
Gore's taken the best approach. Collect money preaching against oil, then collect oil money. That's what I call a win/win scenario.
Don't complain to me when you get labelled a poisoner.
What if it's DDT?
So the identity, let alone the toxicity profile of the solvents, let alone the fact that the industry has no way of sealing the wells securely enough to prevent them from reaching the groundwater, doesn't concern you.
Wow, in 16 minutes you went from not knowing how the wells are sealed or what the chemicals are to knowing "the fact" that the wells will pollute groundwater and are potentially toxic.
That empirical evidence you like to wait on before forming opinions must have arrived just in time!
Oh I know Revved-Up-Innint. I'm so violent. I get just plain medieval on all those opinions that the folks here traffic in in the hopes that they'll one day receive empiric validation for them. One day! We can always hope!
Chicken: Some things about human nature you just don't seem to understand very well. Wyoming's got great scenery, IMO, and even So. Dakota - in an odd way. But these are way far north, they get cold, There are no major bodies of water nearby that allowed for historical development - They're bound to never be huge population centers. Period. Finish. End of Story. Such is life. It's the same way in Mongolia. Or Siberia. These are just not places that people want to be in, and as such, their development potential is limited by nature. Economic development requires a certain amount of population or population growth, but if you prefer to hold to dreams of a Taj Mahal with a "Shell" sign above it in the middle of the upper Midwest, I guess there's no stopping the power of your belief. Except of course, reality. But that's never stopped you before.
Apparently Revved-Up-Innint thinks people go into these discussions evidence-free! and can only receive their information from the discussion threads, themselves.
Well, I guess that would explain his own approach.
@Ritmo: Crookes named thallium, from the green line in its spectrum by which he detected it.
I knew about Θαλλώ, goddess of spring shoots and buds, but forgot it was Crookes.
Hm, decent attempt at a backpedal. I'll give it a 7.2.
That's cool how you used Greek orthography. It really is pretty and spices things up. I love how it's a spelling system that always looks italicized, regardless of font style.
Which is a way of saying that this all makes for nice, pleasant and interesting conversation about anything having to do with the fact that the stuff is still poisonous and illustrates my discomfort with chemists who take the topic of toxicity cavalierly. Or simply refuse to entertain it at all.
Don't complain to me when you get labelled a poisoner
Ritmo cheered the exit of the chemical industry from the US.
He will live long enough to witness the same people drive out biotech.
Ritmo cheered the exit of the chemical industry from the US. He will live long enough to witness the same people drive out biotech.
The concern trolling over us being labeled "poisoners" is kind of cute, though. Especially since that's probably the nicest thing he's called any of us. :)
Rev: The moment you actually mention a fact about the science of fracking (and bonus points for citing it) is the moment that I'll agree that you have any purpose here other than backpedaling.
The most recent evidence is that the industry is still waiting to figure out how to safely seal the wells - the same ones that they're in the process of constructing by the thousands. I'm not a bad person for asking CL, even rhetorically, if he knows something more reassuring that I don't about that. And I'm an even better person for hoping that maybe he might.
But alas, he seems to not care at all. Being an anti-social suspected toxin-peddler seems to be a role that he relishes for the sheer thrill of the villainy of it. But he can't then complain when politicians treat his livelihood like shit because of it. The burden's on him (or you) to prove that you're doing something worthwhile and not dangerous to society, assuming you want to make a living off of doing or defending it.
If you weren't a disingenuous person you would understand all this.
@Ritmo: I'm reminded of our days-long conversation about Times Beach, MO and how scare tactics were used and how the Reagan Administration bought into that.
Maureen Dowd (yes that Maureen Dowd) did most of the legwork on that story, back when she was real reporter.
Oh, I see. Bubble conversation again. CL lies another assertion about me, Rev responds to it, and they're happy with their self-contained arguments and beliefs. No need to address criticism - So sayeth the crowd that complains that not enough criticism is made of Obama.
You can be reminded of whatever you want to. The pertinent fact is anyone with a brain who's not a sociopath wants to know how the wells are being sealed and what the solvents are composed of. Stop promoting self-destructive ignorance and believing that anyone with a brain will take that as an answer.
So asking a simple question about the identity of the solvents and how the wells seal them away from the water table is a "scare tactic". One that you can't, after 29 comments, even answer. Not even an, "I'll get back to you on that."
I see.
Dowd has fallen though. Just today she confused chlorine and chloride.
It's chemically significant but pedantic to point these things out.
Not only that, but still a way of refusing to address the question.
Good thing you live in CA. If it were elsewhere, where there is fracking and enough people to care about growndwater contamination, you'd be hounded out of town for that sort of crap.
People with ADHD don't tend to make good hires. Just saying.
One that you can't, after 29 comments, even answer.
The main chemical used in hydraulic fracking is oxidane.
Good night, Tianle.
I concluded the guy must weigh some 500 LBS that's a lot of moralistic unloading. The unweighting must make one feel light. It takes post after post after post after post after post after post saying all the same thing, I'm morally more ethically advanced than you and here's why.
Get in the kitchen and make me a sandwich, souffle guy!
I'm sure if anyone knows about 500 lb male companions, it's you.
BTW, Into Darkness was 87% fresh on Rotten Tomatoes.
Not being ignorant doesn't make one ethically advanced, but it can help. Ignorance is certainly no ethical advantage.
BTW, your half-open mouth in the avatar doesn't make you look intelligent. Perhaps it might look cute in a children's Gap ad, but adults who go around like that provoke worry that drool might fall out of their faces.
I got back in the thread just to tell you all that, Chippie.
;-)
And, oh yeah - a 1980s children's Gap ad! Update your damn wardrobe, for chrissake, Mr. Huxtable!
ritmo: It looks like groundwater contamination with deadly methane has been confirmed in PA and may shut down fracking: link
High five?
Well, I certainly saw where this discussion was going when there were only two comments.
It's just our "Tom And Jerry" routine, synova.
@ritmo: See p. 15 of the linked pdf for a fracking recipe:link
Economic development requires a certain amount of population or population growth, but if you prefer to hold to dreams of a Taj Mahal with a "Shell" sign above it in the middle of the upper Midwest, I guess there's no stopping the power of your belief. Except of course, reality. But that's never stopped you before.
Personally, I'm happy with square states each having two votes in Senate. I think it was a stroke of genius on the part of the founders. Let me know how that chafes your east coast sensibilities.
I just want them (or any industry) to be responsible. Thanks for the links.
What's an "east coast sensibility" about recognizing that large population centers (and major economies) almost always develop around major bodies of water? Even cold cities that have significant populations conform to this: Minneapolis, Moscow, Montreal and even Calgary, for crying out loud!
I mean, just because people don't grow in test tubes (usually) or conform simply to ball and stick models doesn't mean they're completely unpredictable.
From zero to 45. I'll pass, as I know exactly how this comment thread has gone without reading it.
Rev: The moment you actually mention a fact about the science of fracking (and bonus points for citing it) is the moment that I'll agree that you have any purpose here other than backpedaling.
Chutzpah, thy name is Ritmo.
But have you ever showered in methane, Ice-y? That's what the science teachers want to know.
In related news, Fukushima's looking for a new safety inspector. I gave them your resume, and attached to it a clip of Homer Simpson sleeping at the controls with a donut crumbling out of his mouth, in the hopes that they'd be persuaded to make the right decision.
And proud, persistent ignorance is thine, Rev.
You do realize you're saying it's beneath you to provide any actual facts or scientific data to a discussion on the impact of the chemicals used or emitted in a new energy utility, and in spite of the fact the bulk of the entire post you're commenting on was a quote from The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, don't you?
Hm, bored now.
If you had any interest in science, you probably wouldn't be. The coolest thing about Chickie's links is that the SciAm pages have a lot of interesting other stories. Here's one about working mechanical gears that were just discovered in an insect to help it synchronize the action of its hindlimbs.
Yes, Rev, if you were just interested in science, Ritmo would be endlessly fascinating because, uh, crickets?
Put the donut away and get back to work, Homer.
Don't be embarrassed to admit that the reading level of Scientific American scares you. Just practice sounding the letters out with your lips and after a while you'll get the hang of it.
Ritmo, not only were the fracking recipes published in newspapers across Pennsylvania when this first became an issue, but those recipes continue to be available online, as chick pointed out over the weekend. Back when it first was an issue, I gave the recipe a look-over. I was more skeptical back then than I am now, but this was before people pointed out just how many different layers of impermeable rock were laying between the fracking zone and the water table. In the actual regional experience since that post, the vast majority of valid incidents have been gas blow-outs, mostly if not exclusively due to old, un-mapped, poorly capped dead gas wellheads dating back to the late Victorian, firing off when the fracking well finds an unexpected exit point. At least one case turned out to underneath some poor sod's house, built over the "lost" dead wellhead.
Was it the companies that published these or others? Also, the industry itself is the party that hasn't shown that it's solved a way to keep the wells from rupturing. These are long, long well, as you mention, making the separation of the fracking zone from the water layer a moot point. The wells still have to carry the fracked material through the water table, making their durability over that long, long, long journey crucial - something that the industry cannot do, regardless of whatever else is/was going on.
What have they done to the earth?
What have they done to our fair sister?
Ravaged and plundered and ripped her and bit her
Stuck her with knives in the side of the dawn
And tied her with fences and dragged her down
Post a Comment