New Fracking Emissions Study Brings Out The Usual Suspects
From:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/michaellync ... -suspects/I would agree with the opponents that this study doesn’t really answer the question sufficiently. Not because I think the conclusion are incorrect but just because it was too narrowly focused. From the reservoir to the burner tip some amount of methane is leaked to the atmosphere unburned. And given its GHG capabilities this is not a good thing. But everyone on both sides of the argument is focusing on relatively small individual components of a very big system. I’ve looked but can’t find the details but have seen reports regarding a significant amount of methane that is leaked from local distribution systems many hundreds of miles from the well head.
But cherry picking analysis won’t ever answer the question. One counter argument against frac’ng leaks is mentioned in this article but the most important aspects of that analysis was left it: the airborne testing above a CO NG field didn’t take into account natural NG leaks in the area. Was that volume insignificant to what might be leaking from the wells in the field below? Don’t know…that analysis wasn’t done.
This analysis found that there was a volume of NG leaked from the studied wells but that was leakage not associated with frac'ng but from parts of the production equipment used in conventional non-frac’d wells. Both sides of the debate seem intent on focusing on just that segment of the entire NG production system that supports their prejudice. That’s not scientific analysis IMHO. More importantly, it’s not honest.
“The latest study on shale gas emissions has caused a bit of a stir, noting that the wells do not appear to be emitting significant amounts of methane, which is an important finding. There are however a number of other relevant points that have emerged. First, the researchers did find significant leakage, but at other points than the wells, most notably in the gas-water separation process. This highlights the fact that methane leakage is important and needs to be addressed, but independently of the question of hydraulic fracturing. The natural gas supply chain is long and some parts of it, such as urban distribution systems, are thought to be possible sources of significant leakage. In all likelihood, the Power Law applies, wherein most leakage comes from a small portion of sources.
Next , many correctly have pointed out that the study is somewhat limited, as the authors admit, covering only a small number of wells owned by companies that volunteered to be part of the research. This is a valid point, although usually overlooked by fracking critics when applied to studies whose results they prefer. But it only means that, as with any study, the results are not necessarily universally applicable. And following on from this is the bias in some analysts who, first of all, dismiss the results out of hand and attack the involvement of some producing companies as invalidating any findings, but more generally show a refusal to accept any results they dislike. Physicians, Scientists and Engineers for Healthy Energy dismisses the study as “fatally flawed” in part because it contradicts other findings. This is not the stance of scientists, but ideologues. Indeed, Philip Radford of Greenpeace primarily rants against the industry and methane. He, too, attacks the findings for disagreeing with a recent NOAA study that found much higher levels in a field in Utah, but doesn’t note that the measurements were done on a single day, which would also seem to be limiting.
The phrase “more research is needed” seems a cliché but is very true, however, this particular study does imply both that earlier estimates of leakage may have been too high, but also that wellhead leakage can be reduced. The potential that improved maintenance of compressors and pipeline seals elsewhere in the system might have a major impact on greenhouse gas emissions should be pursued by identifying actual emissions more broadly, something both the industry and environmentalists should embrace.
At the same time, it would be helpful if commentaries were less biased on focused more on the facts. The scientists, and some media and industry observers, seem to have no trouble admitting the limitations even of a study whose results they find agreeable, while the kneejerk reactions from some fracking opponents is highly informative of their prejudices.”