Researchers challenge study on hydrofracking's gas footprint

Mar 05, 2012 By Anne Ju

(PhysOrg.com) -- A Cornell study's contention that hydraulic fracturing would be worse for climate change than burning coal is being challenged by another study, also by Cornell researchers.

In April 2011, Robert Howarth, the David R. Atkinson Professor of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, and colleagues published a study in Letters concluding that methane leakage from hydraulic fracturing would outweigh any benefits of as a transition fuel to greener technologies.

In the spirit of academic discourse, a commentary on that study, published Jan. 3 by the same journal, challenged these claims. Lawrence Cathles, professor of earth and atmospheric studies, and his co-authors took issue with Howarth's analysis and sources of data, which they called "seriously flawed," and made the case that natural gas is a greener fuel than coal.

Howarth's group then wrote a response to the Cathles rebuttal, published Feb. 1 in the same journal, in which they stood by their previous findings that the greenhouse gas footprint of is greater than other fossil fuels.

Howarth's April 2011 study -- co-authored by Tony Ingraffea, the Dwight C. Baum Professor of Engineering, and Renee Santoro, a research technician in ecology and evolutionary biology -- warned that methane, a greenhouse gas with 100 times more warming impact than carbon dioxide, leaks or is purposely vented into the atmosphere over the life cycle of shale gas production. Part of that life cycle is the process, which, in "unconventional" horizontal shale wells, involves pressurized injection of millions of gallons of water and chemicals to break open paths for the natural gas to flow from the well.

The researchers estimated that as much as 7.9 percent of the methane in shale enters the atmosphere during the lifetime of unconventional -- 40 percent to 60 percent more than for wells. Because of this methane leakage, they also contend that over a span of 20 years, shale gas is worse even than burning coal in terms of .

Cathles and colleagues, including Larry Brown, professor and chair of the Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, argued against the claims, saying that the leakage rate at which gas would be worse than coal, although closest for a 20-year transition, is far from the current leakage rate.

A methane leakage of 7.9 percent and a 20-year transition are both needed to make gas worse than coal from a greenhouse perspective, Cathles said. The leakage rate of the crossover would be much higher, about 17 percent, if the transition period were 100 years.

Methane leakage today is probably less than 2 percent, they said, and there is no evidence that shale leak more than conventional wells.

The greenhouse benefit of gas doubles when it replaces coal in electrical generation -- essentially coal's only use, Cathles asserted -- because gas can generate electricity twice as efficiently as coal. Furthermore methane's short lifetime in the atmosphere means that any leakage is quickly dissipated, whereas the extra CO2 that would be generated by coal would remain in the atmosphere for a very long time.

These points were established in the Jan. 3 commentary by Cathles and his co-authors, which also include Milton Taam, president of Electric Software Inc., and Andrew Hunter, lecturer in the School of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering. They concluded that natural gas remains an attractive transition fuel with half to a third of the greenhouse impact of coal.

Howarth et. al's Feb. 1 response to the Cathles rebuttal stated that the latest EPA estimate for methane emission from shale gas falls within the range of their independent estimates, but not those of Cathles, et al., which are much lower.

They stood by their approach and findings, pointing out that their original analysis covered both electricity and heat generation. They evaluated both a 20-year and 100-year time frame for methane leakage from shale gas, and they contended that "both time frames are important, but the decadal scale is critical, given the urgent need to avoid climate-system tipping points."

Howarth and an expanded group of colleagues led by Jed Sparks, associate professor of ecology and , plan further study into the footprint of shale-derived , supported by a $74,200 grant from Cornell's Atkinson Center for a Sustainable Future.

Explore further: Brazil says pace of Amazon deforestation down 18%

Related Stories

Fracking leaks may make gas 'dirtier' than coal

Apr 12, 2011

(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).

Recommended for you

Brazil says pace of Amazon deforestation down 18%

2 hours ago

The pace of deforestation in Brazil's Amazon basin fell 18 percent over the past year, the government said Wednesday, dismissing as speculation reports of a huge increase in forest loss last month.

The unbelievable underworld and its impact on us all

4 hours ago

A new study has pulled together research into the most diverse place on earth to demonstrate how the organisms below-ground could hold the key to understanding how the worlds ecosystems function and how they ...

Toolkit for ocean health

6 hours ago

The ocean is undergoing global changes at a remarkable pace and we must change with it to attain our best possible future ocean, warns the head of The University of Western Australia's Oceans Institute.

Tool kit for ocean health

9 hours ago

The ocean is undergoing global changes at a remarkable pace and we must change with it to attain our best possible future ocean, warns the head of The University of Western Australia's Oceans Institute.

User comments : 6

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

jc_french
1.5 / 5 (2) Mar 05, 2012
There is no form of energy other than Solar, that has the potential to provide what is needed in the future for the survival and well being of the Specie.
END OF STORY!!!
antialias_physorg
4.7 / 5 (3) Mar 05, 2012
There is no form of energy other than Solar, that has the potential to provide what is needed in the future for the survival and well being of the Specie.

Solar is one source we should tap into (in all its forms like wind and wave and hydrokinetic). But there are other sources of energy that are also viable and do not produce any pollution.

The heat of the Earth's depths is one (we live on a mostly molten ball of slag with only a thin, solid crust on top. The energy potential down there is virtualy limitless).
Another one would be tidal energy from the Moon's gravitational pull.
bugmenot23
3 / 5 (3) Mar 05, 2012
Any plan for energy independence that doesn't involve nuclear in the next 50 years is a pipe dream. Solar and wind are great for helping the power grid, but they can't replace dependable fossil and nuclear fuel.
Callippo
1 / 5 (3) Mar 05, 2012
The hydrofracking has many environmental impacts, but the lost of methane into atmosphere is the most acceptable one (I don't believe in carbon dioxide powered global warming theory). Anyway, in the light of twenty years standing evidence for cold fusion the hydrofracking is somehow desperate way, how to get the rests of fossil fuels from the underground. It's absolutely meaningless, it just protects the investments into fossil fuel related technologies.
Xharlie
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 06, 2012
Agreed. Of all the side-effects of hydraulic fracturing, methane leakage has got to be the least alarming. The impact of the undisclosed "chemicals" included in the fracturing fluid is both unknown and potentially devastating.
Wolf358
5 / 5 (2) Mar 06, 2012
Fracking is a great way to extract money from the economy. Like most "black energy" projects, it will cost society more (in terms of clean-up costs, pollution, health effects, etc.) than society will gain.
And once the gas (quantities are grossly over-estimated, imo) is all used up, what then? Where does industrial energy come from then? Treadmills?

Who will pay to build all of the plug-dams when that pressurized toxic sludge starts leaking upwards? The folk who are profiteering by flipping the land? Nope. It'll be the same folk who are paying to clean up industrial landfills, toxic dumps, closed nuke plants, and the like. Us. The taxpayers. Again.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.