Methane emissions from oil & gas development

Posted on 2 January 2014 by gws Earlier last year we posted a blog on whether the new natural gas boom, thanks to improved drilling technologies and hydraulic fracturing or “fracking”, was to be considered a boon or bane to Earth’s climate. The…

Post Author:

Climate State

Date Posted:

January 13, 2014

Earlier last year we posted a blog on whether the new natural gas boom, thanks to improved drilling technologies and hydraulic fracturing or “fracking”, was to be considered a boon or bane to Earth’s climate. The boon part comes from the fact that natural gas burns much cleaner and causes roughly a factor of two lower CO2 emissions than the burning of coal. So if the gas were exclusively used in high efficiency gas-fired power plants, or even combined heat and power (CHP) plants to replace coal combustion power plants for electricity production, CO2 emissions reduction would be maximized. The bane part is the fact that mining and use of natural gas does not happen without the inevitable gas leaks, in this case releasing a different, more powerful greenhouse gas: methane.

We concluded that knowledge on leak rates (commonly expressed as a percentage of produced gas), especially for newly developed wells and their infrastructure, was lacking. Some scientific estimates implied rates near or below 2%, while others implied 5% or more. We also pointed out that, regardless of current leak rates from booming oil&gas activities, methane leakage in general is an important issue.

The methane budget

Several recent scientific assessments put current fossil fuel related, “fugitive” methane emissions to the atmosphere at 100 million tons per year, roughly two thirds coming from the oil&gas industry, the remaining third from coal mining. It is useful in this context to realize that humans have roughly tripled the emissions of methane to the atmospheresince the beginning of the industrial revolution. Meaning, nature only provides for one third of atmospheric methane, the other two thirds are from human activities, dominated by domestic ruminants (mostly cows, i.e. the beef you eat) and fossil fuel mining and use. At the same time, nature takes care of all methane removal from the atmosphere, overwhelmingly through its slow atmospheric photo-oxidation. This oxidation is responsible for an atmospheric lifetime of methane of nine years and causes a ripple effect through atmospheric chemistry, such as via producing ozone and carbon monoxide, and via increasing the lifetime of other trace gases, including methane itself.

See also  Time for a Change

Inventoring human emissions

Because methane is such a strong greenhouse gas, reducing its emissions has direct benefits for climate stabilization. Methane’s comparatively short atmospheric lifetimewould make the effects of emissions reductions measurable in the atmosphere within a decade. Alas, neither the production of beef nor the mining and use of fossil fuels are on the decline. Nevertheless, much ado has been made of EPA’s 2013 US greenhouse gasinventory, in which the agency lowered its estimates of past oil&gas industry related methane emissions to below 2% of produced gas amounts. This change has been misused by “pro-fracking” advocates to again attack the initial Howarth work and argue that methane releases are much lower than presumed, while “anti-fracking” advocates have instead highlighted that methane still contitutes a large fraction of US greenhouse gas emissions.

Read the entire article @SkepticalScience

About the Author: Climate State

Profile photo ofadmin
Climate State covers the broad spectrum of climate change, and the solutions, since around 2011 with the focus on the sciences. Views expressed on this site or on social media are not necessarily the views by Climate State – we endorse data, facts, empirical evidence.

4 Comments

  1. Santimvah January 15, 2014 at 2:01 am - Reply

    That was a good summary article from SkS. Here is some more info I have been compiling recently on fugitive emissions of methane.

    The first ever ‘Science Paper’ published on the GHG Footprint of Unconventional Gas extraction was not until March, 2011 by Howarth (as mentioned above). A decade after the shale gas boom began.

    Methane and the greenhouse-gas footprint of natural gas from shale formations by Robert W. Howarth, Renee Santoro, Anthony Ingraffea about the USA.
    This paper received a lot of criticism as it didn’t actually perform direct measurements but analysed various prior Papers and assumptions. It was perceived by many to be biased, invalid, and incomplete. But it was a first step which summarized the existing limited knowledge that was available up to 2010.
    http://www.eeb.cornell.edu/howarth/Howarth%20et%20al%20%202011.pdf

    The next scientific study was done in Australia during 2012 by a team led by Dr Isaac Santos of Southern Cross University (SCU) COAL SEAM GAS & THE ENVIRONMENT http://scu.edu.au/coastal-biogeochemistry/index.php/20
    Initially the information from this study was released via SCU and the media.
    November 14, 2012, Methane leaking from coal seam gas field, testing shows Vast amounts of methane appear to be leaking undetected from Australia’s biggest coal seam gas field, according to world-first research that undercuts claims by the gas industry. … found some greenhouse gas levels over three times higher than nearby districts, according to the study by researchers at Southern Cross University.
    Inside the gas field, methane was measured at up to 6.89 parts per million, compared to an average background level outside the gas field of about 2 (two) parts per million.
    Carbon dioxide levels inside the gas field were measured at up 541 parts per million, compared to 423 parts per million outside. http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/methane-leaking-from-coal-seam-gas-field-testing-sh
    This study also received much criticism, especially from the CSG industry and government, mainly because it was not a genuine “peer-reviewed paper”. The facts presented were therefore discounted out of hand by many.

    Therefore, after another year of work on this study, Dr Isaac Santos and his team submitted the study for peer review and it was published.
    Nov 2013 Published Science Paper: Enrichment of Radon and Carbon Dioxide in the Open Atmosphere of an Australian Coal Seam Gas Field by Dr Isaac Santos
    Abstract Atmospheric radon (222Rn) and carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations were used to gain insight into fugitive emissions in an Australian coal seam gas (CSG) field (Surat Basin, Tara region, Queensland). 222Rn and CO2 concentrations were observed for 24 h within and outside the gas field. Both 222Rn and CO2 concentrations followed a diurnal cycle with night time concentrations higher than day time concentrations.
    Average CO2 concentrations over the 24-h period ranged from 390 ppm at the control site to 467 ppm near the center of the gas field. A 3 fold increase in maximum 222Rn concentration was observed inside the gas field compared to outside of it. There was a significant relationship between maximum and average 222Rn concentrations and the number of gas wells within a 3 km radius of the sampling sites (n = 5 stations; p < 0.05).
    http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es304538g and http://epubs.scu.edu.au/esm_pubs/1693/
    Those that had been vocal in their criticisms a year before were overall silent in the media. This Paper received very little attention in Australia, unlike their earlier data release in 2012.

    SECOND USA STUDY
    August 19, 2013 Measurements of methane emissions at natural gas production sites in the United States by David T. Allen et al http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2013/09/10/1304880110.abstract

    THIRD USA STUDY
    October 18, 2013 Anthropogenic emissions of methane in the United States by Scot M. Millera and Steven C. Wofsy et al. http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2013/11/20/1314392110.abstract

    April, 2013 EPA’s Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP)
    Overview of Updates to the Natural Gas Sector Emissions Calculations for the Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2011
    http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/Downloads/ghgemissions/fact-sheet-oil-and-gas-estimates-in-2013-inventory.pdf

    [Highly Recommended]
    Mar 8, 2013, Post Carbon Institute Canada – New Shale Gas Report: Drill Baby Drill by David Hughes http://www.postcarbon.org/drill-baby-drill/
    "A provocative new analysis of so-called unconventional fuel reserves in the United States concludes that the exuberant forecasts are simply unwarranted based on the facts of geology. In short, the hype around shale gas is just that. Hype. We speak with the author of the Drill Baby Drill study. David Hughes is a fellow at the Post Carbon Institute." by CBC Radio Canada http://youtu.be/6r_UjRE1HvU [Future Nth American shale oil production level projections are unsustainable and not achievable.]

    [Highly recommended]
    1 April 2013 GAS LEAK! ABC Australia: Four Corners Report
    The coal seam gas industry promotes itself as a cleaner carbon-fuel alternative; but how do we know this is true? Until now much of the information used to back this claim has come from the industry itself. Four Corners reveals what really happened when two major companies applied to develop thousands of square kilometres of southern Queensland for coal seam gas. http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/2013/04/01/3725150.htm
    VIDEO: Interview with Simone Marsh, Senior environmental specialist with the Queensland State Government (Four Corners Gas Leak!) No base-line studies = no risk assessments = no scientific rigor = no checks and balances.
    http://mpegmedia.abc.net.au/news/fourcorners/video/20130401_4c_marsh_288p.mp4

    UK STUDY
    9th September 2013 Potential Greenhouse Gas Emissions Associated with Shale Gas Extraction and Use by Professor David J C MacKay FRS Dr Timothy J Stone CBE
    The emissions of shale gas extraction and use will likely to be in the range 200 – 253 g CO2e per kWh of chemical energy. Comparing shale gas extraction to Liquefied Natural Gas 233 – 270g CO2e/kWh is a better alternative. When shale gas is used for electricity generation, its emission is in the range 423 – 535 g CO2e/kWh, which is significantly lower than coal, 837 – 1130 g CO2e/kW.
    https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/237330/MacKay_Stone_shale_study_report_09092013.pdf

    • Santimvah January 15, 2014 at 2:09 am - Reply

      DRINKING WATER Contamination Studies

      June 2013 – Increased stray gas abundance in a subset of drinking water wells near Marcellus shale gas extraction by Robert B. Jackson et al Edited by Susan E. Trumbore, Max Planck Institute for Biogeochemistry, Jena, Germany, and approved June 3, 2013
      http://www.pnas.org/content/110/28/11250

      Methane contamination of drinking water accompanying gas-well drilling and hydraulic fracturing
      Center on Global Change, Nicholas School of the Environment, Division of Earth and Ocean Sciences, Nicholas School of the Environment, and Biology Department, Duke University, Durham, NC 27708
      Edited* by William H. Schlesinger, Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies, Millbrook, NY, and approved April 14, 2011 (received for review January 13, 2011) https://nicholas.duke.edu/cgc/pnas2011.pdf

      The natural gas boom is happening all across the country. Gas constitutes about 25 percent of total energy consumption. Pennsylvania saw natural gas production increase by 69 percent in 2012.
      But this boom has also created many issues: earthquakes, water contamination and scarcity, and leakage. 65 percent of Americans already say more regulations of fracking are needed, despite only a few studies having been conducted on the topic of possible water contamination. This makes the recent Duke study a significant contribution to the ongoing fracking debate.
      http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/06/26/2222591/bombshell-study-finds-drinking-water-near-fracking-wells-contaminated-with-methane/

      5 November 2013 Project Asks What’s in the Water After Fracking at Depth
      © 2013. American Geophysical Union. All Rights Reserved.
      Eos, Vol. 94, No. 45, PAGES 409–411 http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2013EO450002/pdf

      OTHER RECENT STUDIES

      Dec 2013 Estrogen and Androgen Receptor Activities of Hydraulic Fracturing Chemicals and Surface and Ground Water in a Drilling-Dense Region by Christopher D. Kassotis et al
      http://press.endocrine.org/doi/abs/10.1210/en.2013-1697

      May 2013 Risks to biodiversity from hydraulic fracturing for natural gas in the Marcellus and Utica shales by Erik Kiviat et al http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/nyas.12146/abstract

      17 July 2013, Can fracking cause bigger, more frequent earthquakes?
      “The most striking indication of human-induced earthquakes is provided by the graph below, which shows the cumulative number of earthquakes in the central and eastern US that were greater than or equal to magnitude 3.0 on Richter scale. The clear increase from 2005 coincides with the rapid increase of shale gas wells and associated increased deep waste-water injection. Between 2005 and 2012, the shale gas industry in the US grew by 45% each year.”
      https://theconversation.com/can-fracking-cause-bigger-more-frequent-earthquakes-16056

      Coal Seam Gas & Fracking – Academic Analysis and Comment
      http://theconversation.com/topics/coal-seam-gas
      https://theconversation.com/topics/fracking

      • Santimvah January 15, 2014 at 3:10 am - Reply

        This took from 2007 until 2013 to obtain a definitive ‘public’ science based answer about a fracking chemical release?

        Hydraulic Fracturing Fluids Likely Harmed Threatened Kentucky Fish Species – Released: 8/28/2013

        Hydraulic fracturing fluids are believed to be the cause of the widespread death or distress of aquatic species in Kentucky’s Acorn Fork, after spilling from nearby natural gas well sites. These findings are the result of a joint study by the U.S. Geological Survey and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

        The Acorn Fork, a small Appalachian creek, is habitat for the federally threatened Blackside dace, a small colorful minnow. The Acorn Fork is designated by Kentucky as an Outstanding State Resource Waters.

        “Our study is a precautionary tale of how entire populations could be put at risk even with small-scale fluid spills,” said USGS scientist Diana Papoulias, the study’s lead author. “This is especially the case if the species is threatened or is only found in limited areas, like the Blackside dace is in the Cumberland.”

        Hydraulic fracturing is the most common method for natural gas well-development in Kentucky.

        The report is entitled “Histopathological Analysis of Fish from Acorn Fork Creek, Kentucky Exposed to Hydraulic Fracturing Fluid Releases,” and is published in the scientific journal Southeastern Naturalist, in a special edition devoted to the Blackside dace.
        http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=3677#.UtXriyPrVYg

        • Santimvah January 15, 2014 at 4:35 am - Reply

          New 2013 Laws, Regulation, Environmental Protections for Coal Seam Gas (Fracking) NSW Australia
          Information from the NSW State Government website about the outcomes of this review. It is one example of how protesting and environmental activism made some gains in the Regulatory and Protection systems.

          COAL SEAM GAS PROTECTIONS
          Protecting our environment, the land, water resources and local communities is a key focus of the NSW Government’s Coal Seam Gas (CSG) regulatory framework. Exploration and production across the State is now subject to some of the strictest controls in Australia.
          http://www.csg.nsw.gov.au/protections#.UtYPCvQW3h5
          Videos http://www.csg.nsw.gov.au/videos#.UtYG1vQW3h4

          DOC Title: NSW Code of Practice for Coal Seam Gas Well Integrity
          © State of New South Wales through Department of Trade and Investment, Regional Infrastructure and Services (NSW Trade & Investment) 2012a.
          Purpose – The NSW Code of Practice for Coal Seam Gas Well Integrity has been developed by the NSW Government in consultation with the CSG industry.
          This code provides a practical guide for coal seam gas (CSG) titleholders on how to comply with a condition of title for CSG exploration, extraction or production under the Petroleum (Onshore) Act 1991 (PO Act) and the Petroleum (Onshore) Regulation 2007 to ensure that well operations are carried out safely, without risk to health and without detriment to the environment.
          http://www.csg.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/37873/Code-of-Practice-for-Coal-Seam-Gas-Well-Integrity.PDF

See also  Time for a Change

Leave a Reply

Tags: (2023)
Views: 224(2023)
post contents

The Climate State Newsletter