Energy Exchange

Poor Well Construction Is The Culprit

The iconic image of shale gas development is the flaming faucet featured in Josh Fox’s recent movie, Gasland.  Inquiring minds want to know: “how does methane get into a water faucet, and is hydraulic fracturing of shale to blame?”  A Duke University study released this week sheds light on these important questions.

The study, performed by three researchers affiliated with Duke University’s Biology Department and Nicholas School of the Environment, examined 60 drinking water wells in northeastern Pennsylvania and southern New York, the northern tier of the geological formation known as the Marcellus Shale, ground zero for aggressive shale gas development in the eastern United States.  And sure enough, methane concentrations were detected in 51 of the 60 wells, with substantially higher concentrations of methane found in drinking water wells closest to active natural gas production sites.  While there are numerous instances of methane migrating into drinking water supplies through naturally occurring fissures, even in the absence of gas drilling, this study makes a pretty compelling case that natural gas production can create a problem where none ever existed, or certainly make an existing problem worse.

But, on the question of whether hydraulic fracturing is to blame, the evidence is less compelling.  Indeed, the fact that methane was found in water wells, but the chemicals used to fracture the shale were not, suggests that fracturing may have had nothing to do with the unwanted migration.  The culprit, it would seem, are not fissures created by the fracturing of the shale, but rather poor well construction – specifically, failures in the cement casing surrounding a well – which enable the natural gas to migrate into the water table as it moves its way up the well to the surface.  The authors have noted that “leaky casings” are the most likely cause of problems.

Poor well construction is a problem that can occur anywhere, whether production is aided by hydraulic fracturing or not.  For all of the attention Gasland’s flaming faucet has brought to the hydraulic fracturing debate, this study points our attention to the role that better well construction and design practices can play in reducing the very real problem of methane contamination of well water.

Posted in Natural Gas / Comments are closed

Mixed News Coverage Of Report On Climate Pollution From Natural Gas Underscores The Need For Better Data

I blogged last week about the implications of the findings of a paper by Professor Robert Howarth and colleagues at Cornell University.  The paper compares the carbon footprints of natural gas and coal and concludes that – because of methane leakage – natural gas contributes to global warming as much as coal, or even more, when assessed on a life-cycle basis.  While I have questions about the emissions estimates in the paper, it has brought attention to an important fact.

Namely, that we need better data to accurately characterize air pollution from natural gas development and determine with confidence the associated health and climate implications. 

Media coverage over the past week was extensive.  A Washington Post editorial hit the bull’s eye.  Unfortunately, not all the coverage has been 100% accurate – perhaps owing to the technical nature of the issue and the paucity of solid data about methane emissions associated with natural gas systems.

In particular, I want to clarify a reference in a New York Times column to Environmental Defense Fund “estimates of methane gas emissions that are 75 percent lower than Howarth’s.”

Though we appreciate Joe Nocera’s consideration of our work, the statement in the Times’ column is misleading in two ways.  First, the estimates EDF relies on are not our own, but rather taken from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which  just finalized its 2009 inventory of greenhouse gas emissions.   From EPA’s inventory, we estimate that at least 2.2% of gross natural gas produced in the U.S. is released to the atmosphere.   This estimate is highly uncertain, as evidenced by EPA’s recent revision that doubled its estimates from as recently as last year. 

Second, Professor Howarth’s paper uses a different metric:  how much methane is leaked as a percent of the total methane produced over the life of an unconventional gas well.  The paper reports this value to be 3.6% and 7.9% as the low- and high-end estimates.  Assuming these different metrics can be directly compared, EDF’s estimate of the methane leak rate is 39% lower than Professor Howarth’s paper’s low-end estimate and 72% lower than the high-end estimate.  It is unfortunate that the Times’ column only made the comparison with the paper’s high-end estimate.

The only way we can gain confidence about the climate benefits of natural gas relative to other fuels is by obtaining more accurate data about the amount of methane released during the production and distribution of natural gas.  And as I have said before, this is something the natural gas industry – which claims to provide the “low-carbon” fossil fuel – should support.

Posted in Natural Gas / Comments are closed

“The World Is Watching” – Will Texas Set The Standard For Mandatory Disclosure Of Frac Fluid Chemicals?

As early as tomorrow, the Texas House of Representatives Energy Resources Committee could approve HB 3328, a measure that is intended to be the most effective law in the country requiring public disclosure of the chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing fluid.

Last Wednesday night in a hearing room at the Texas Capitol, Representative Jim Keffer (R-Eastland), the Committee’s Chairman and author of the bill, told members of his committee that “the world is watching” to see whether Texas will require oil and gas drillers to tell the public what chemicals are added to hydraulic fracturing fluid. He declared that “the time has come” to mandate public disclosure of all chemical ingredients subject only to reasonable protection for trade secrets. Where trade secrets are concerned, he wants regulatory agencies and health care professionals to have the information on a confidential basis.

Keffer isn’t kidding. He and a growing number of supporters hope to create a model that can settle the issue once and for all, if followed in other jurisdictions as well.

EDF strongly supports Keffer’s mandatory disclosure legislation. So do others in the environmental community. Sierra Club and the Texas League of Conservation Voters were among those testifying for the bill at the hearing last week. Also heartening is the fact that Keffer’s initiative is attracting industry support.  Kudos to the half-dozen gas industry leaders who stepped forward at the hearing to support the bill: Apache, El Paso Production, Petrohawk Energy, Pioneer Natural Resources, Southwestern Energy, and Talisman Energy. These are companies that understand what it takes to earn the public’s trust. Additional industry support is likely to appear in the coming days and weeks.

Also posted in Texas / Read 1 Response

The Spotlight Shines On Natural Gas

You may have seen the many articles that came out this week on a new peer-reviewed paper in the Journal of Climatic Change by Professor Bob Howarth and others at Cornell.  The paper compares the carbon footprints of natural gas and coal and concludes that natural gas contributes to global warming as much as coal, or even more, when assessed on a life-cycle basis.

Though we have questions about Professor Howarth’s paper’s emissions estimates, it nevertheless highlights the critical importance of obtaining and sharing better data so that we can accurately characterize air pollution from natural gas development — including the short-term climate impacts of methane.  Because of methane’s powerful heat-trapping ability during its roughly decade-long atmospheric residence time, or life span, reducing methane emissions from production increases the chances of meeting critical climate targets, such as limiting global warming to a two degree Celsius temperature increase. 

Professor Howarth’s research should also help focus attention on the methane leakage issue.  EDF has been concerned for some time that methane leakage in the natural gas development process could significantly diminish its inherent low-carbon advantage relative to other fossil fuels.  There is consensus that a methane leak rate during production, processing, and transportation of 5% (of total gas production) is the approximate break-even point at which natural gas and coal used to generate electricity have similar climate impacts on a 20-year time horizon.  Examining the warming potential of natural gas over a 20-year timeframe is important, rather than the customary 100-year timeframe, given the need to reduce global warming in coming decades.  What we don’t fully know is whether the leakage rate today is lower than that break-even point, though the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) most recent assessment estimates the leakage to be between 2 to 3%.    

Bottom line: We need better data on methane leakage from natural gas production and transport.  The natural gas industry, which touts itself as providing the “low-carbon” fossil fuel, should drop its lawsuits against EPA to require disclosure of its global warming pollution and take aggressive steps to both curb the loss of its product into the atmosphere and maximize the greenhouse gas benefits of natural gas.  Numerous cost effective opportunities exist to capture leaking gas and turn it into increased fuel sales.  And less natural gas leakage will mean healthier air for communities, since raw natural gas contains both cancer-causing and smog-forming pollutants.  

If the industry wants people to trust that natural gas is a clean alternative, it would do well to spend less time fighting pollution disclosure requirements and more time addressing environmental and public health concerns.  EDF is eager to work cooperatively with the natural gas industry to accomplish this.

Posted in Natural Gas / Read 1 Response

Thinking Long Term On America’s Energy Future

On Wednesday, President Obama, speaking at Georgetown University, set out a multi-pronged approach to boosting America’s energy security.  We agree that America “cannot keep going from shock to trance on the issue of energy security, rushing to propose action when gas prices rise, then hitting the snooze button when they fall again.”  President Obama’s goals to leverage alternative fuels, increase efficiency, and invest in smart grid technology, advanced vehicles, high speed rail, and public transit are critical steps toward a truly clean energy economy.

The core objectives of our Energy Program are to help accelerate the deployment of large-scale, clean technologies into the nation’s energy system and remake the market for efficiency and innovation.  Our goal is to reduce the environmental impact of energy production, delivery, and use.  Why?  Because investments in clean technology will bring about the clean energy revolution we need by greatly reducing our use of dirty fuels and improving air quality and, thus, the health of millions of Americans – especially children and the elderly. 

We can improve our energy independence and end the economic hardships imposed on American families by spiking energy costs while preserving our air, land, and water for future generations.

As important as the energy, environmental, and public health outcomes are, this revolution also benefits our economy and creates jobs.  American workers have tremendous opportunities related to energy efficient and clean technologies, which are creating well-paying jobs and helping companies compete in the global market.  

One of EDF’s main areas of focus is on smart grid technology.  President Obama’s Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E) funds projects that will help modernize our antiquated electricity system.  A smarter grid can adjust demand, reducing the need to build costly, new power plants.  It will enable extensive new wind and solar energy to integrate into an upgraded grid so that we can rely far more on clean, renewable, home-grown energy.  The result:  less environmental damage, more jobs, and a more efficient, reliable, and resilient electricity system.  A smart grid will also facilitate the switch to electric vehicles, making it possible to “smart charge” them at night so they can be ready the next morning for commuters who will no longer be paying for gasoline.

Another key point that the President made was on responsible development practices for natural gas.  Natural gas can play a significant role in achieving our clean energy future – but it needs to be developed safely and in an environmentally sound manner.  Protecting citizens’ health and the environment will require that we “get it right from the start.”  That means putting rules in place to guarantee that our water and land are protected from contamination and ensuring that leakage of harmful air pollution is minimized.

The President’s call for increased transparency in the use of hydraulic fracturing chemicals is a necessity.  The natural gas industry is engaged in a public perception war that it is not winning.  Participating in the development of transparency within the industry is the first step necessary in attempting to rebuild public trust.  A balance between creating a sustainable market for business and ensuring the health and safety of the public should not be a source of division, but instead our common ground. 

While Congress is negotiating the federal budget, members would do well to recognize the essential need to make long-term investments in a 21st century clean energy economy that will reduce America’s dependence on foreign oil and put Americans back to work.

EDF commends the President for his willingness to look to the future.  If we can do that, we will all benefit from a stronger economy, energy security, and a cleaner environment that protects our public health and maintains our quality of life.

Also posted in Climate, Energy Efficiency, Grid Modernization, Renewable Energy, Washington, DC / Read 1 Response

Transparency Is Key To The Future Of Natural Gas

A bill was filed in the Texas House of Representatives today that will require natural gas service companies and operators to publicly disclose the chemical composition of hydraulic fracturing fluids used in Texas.   After the public beating the natural gas industry has been taking, we think participating in legislation to bring transparency to the industry would be a pretty good idea. 

Basic regulations, like disclosure, provide insulation for responsible companies from the actions of those who may not have best of interest of the broader industry or public in mind. 

From our Scott Anderson:

“Disclosure of the fluids used in hydraulic fracturing is key to gaining an understanding of the impact this process has on the environment and human health.”

Also posted in Texas / Tagged , | Comments are closed