Fracking leaks may make gas 'dirtier' than coal

Apr 12, 2011 By Stacey Shackford

(PhysOrg.com) -- Extracting natural gas from the Marcellus Shale could do more to aggravate global warming than mining coal, according to a Cornell study published in the May issue of Climatic Change Letters (105:5).

While natural has been touted as a clean-burning fuel that produces less carbon dioxide than coal, ecologist Robert Howarth warns that we should be more concerned about methane leaking into the atmosphere during hydraulic fracturing.

Natural gas is mostly methane, which is a much more , especially in the short term, with 105 times more warming impact, pound for pound, than carbon dioxide (CO2), Howarth said, adding that even small leaks make a big difference. He estimated that as much as 8 percent of the methane in shale gas leaks into the air during the lifetime of a hydraulic shale gas well -- up to twice what escapes from conventional gas production.

"The take-home message of our study is that if you do an integration of 20 years following the development of the gas, shale gas is worse than conventional gas and is, in fact, worse than coal and worse than oil," Howarth said. "We are not advocating for more coal or oil, but rather to move to a truly green, renewable future as quickly as possible. We need to look at the true environmental consequences of shale gas."

Howarth, the David R. Atkinson Professor of Ecology and Environmental Biology, Tony Ingraffea, the Dwight C. Baum Professor of Engineering, and Renee Santoro, a research technician in ecology and evolutionary biology, analyzed data from published sources, industry reports and even Powerpoint presentations from the (EPA).

They compared estimated emissions for shale gas, conventional gas, coal (surface-mined and deep-mined) and diesel oil, taking into account direct emissions of CO2 during combustion, indirect emissions of CO2 necessary to develop and use the energy source and methane emissions, which were converted to equivalent value of CO2 for global warming potential.

The study is the first peer-reviewed paper on methane emissions from shale gas, and one of the few exploring the greenhouse gas footprints of conventional gas drilling. Most studies have used EPA emission estimates from 1996, which were updated in November 2010 when it was determined that greenhouse gas emissions of various fuels are higher than previously believed.

"We are highlighting unconventional gas because it is a contemporary problem for us in upstate New York, and because there is a big difference between developing gas from an unconventional well and a conventional well, for the mere reason that unconventional wells are bigger," Ingraffea said.

He noted that the process lends itself to more leakage because it takes more time to drill the well, requires more venting and produces more flowback waste, he said.

"A lot of the data we used are really low quality, but I'm confident they are the best available," Howarth said. "We want to go out into the Marcellus Shale and do micrometeorological fluxes of methane at the time of venting and get a real number on this, which has never been done. We're optimistic we can get funding and do that over the next year."

"We've tried to be conservative all along; we're not trying to be hyperbolic in our statements," Ingraffea said.

"We do not intend for you to accept what we've reported on today as the definitive scientific study in regards to this question. It's clearly not," he added. "What we're hoping to do with this study is to stimulate the science that should have been done before. In my opinion, corporate business plans superseded national energy strategy."

Explore further: EU reaches deal to cut greenhouse gas emissions

More information: Howarth RW et al (2011). Methane and greenhouse-gas footprint of natural gas from shale formations. Climatic Change Letters. DOI 10.1007/s10584-011-0061-5

Related Stories

Canada joins U.S. EPA program

Jul 14, 2005

Canada Thursday became the 16th nation to join the U.S. EPA's Methane to Markets Partnership to reduce emissions of the greenhouse gas methane.

Hundreds attend EPA hearing on Pa. gas drilling

Jul 22, 2010

(AP) -- Hundreds of people are attending a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency hearing in southwestern Pennsylvania on a controversial natural gas drilling technique called hydraulic fracturing, or "fracking."

Recommended for you

Coal-rich Poland ready to block EU climate deal

12 hours ago

European Union leaders meeting in Brussels to set their new greenhouse gas emissions plan are facing staunch opposition from coal-reliant Poland and other East European countries who say their economies would ...

EU leaders seek last-minute climate deal

17 hours ago

European Union leaders came under pressure Thursday to strike a deal aimed at bolstering Brussels as a trailblazer in fighting global climate change as negotiations went down to the wire.

User comments : 5

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

CapitalismPrevails
1.5 / 5 (8) Apr 12, 2011
Is there no alternative energy source that the environmental wackos won't put down?
http://www.physor...een.html
wiyosaya
3 / 5 (4) Apr 12, 2011
Is there no alternative energy source that the environmental wackos won't put down?
http://www.physor...een.html

Yes, damn the environmentalist wackos. Let's pump poison into the ground to satiate our energy needs. Why should anyone care that their drinking water is now poisoned? The nerve of these environmental wackos. Why should we put humanity before our energy needs and the profits of gas companies?
NotParker
3 / 5 (4) Apr 12, 2011
Good news. Burning coal is now environmentally acceptable!

Bad news. Methane is leaking from naturally fractured shale. and it alone is reponsible for global disruption/warming/conjob.
FrankHerbert
1 / 5 (6) Apr 12, 2011
NIMBY. I however would have no problem living next to a nuclear power plant. I'm sure fracking could be done right, but I don't trust the (Pennsylvania) government to enforce adequate regulations. I have a hydrofracking station about 5 miles from my house that is on the same water table as me. I fully expect my water to be flammable by the end of Corbet's first term.
eachus
not rated yet Apr 12, 2011
Sigh! When you look at reality, methane is rapidly converted to CO2 and water in the atmosphere. In effect, it doesn't get up high enough to have a significant effect without being oxidized. If you want to allow for a little bit more of a greenhouse effect per carbon atom, say considering a kilo of CH4 as equivalent to a kilo of CO2, fine. But all these scare reports saying that cows are responsible for more greenhouse emissions than cars are bogus.