No Panacea in Shale Gas Growth

The extraction of natural gas for use in generating electricity is growing fast, and the trend looks set to continue. As our reliance on gas grows, so too should our understanding of this abundant natural resource and the impact of its use. Back in March, we briefly discussed “fracking” as an issue that got a lot of attention at the 2011 Public Interest Law Conference. But fracking is just one reason why the gas industry is facing increasing scrutiny. And, as we saw earlier this year, it is not just Natural Gas industry who is betting heavily on the resource — utilities are making long-term bets on shale gas as well. So this trend will be important not just for environmentalists and industry, but for ratepayers as well. This blog post revisits fracking and takes a closer look at some of the issues associated with the drilling and production of shale gas.

Natural gas extraction is frequently made more efficient by breaking up, or fracturing, the rock and earth surrounding the wellbore. This is particularly true for gas extracted from shale formations, where rock surrounding the wellbore tends to be less porous than is desirable, thereby slowing the permeation of the gas into the well. The process generally involves pumping large amounts of an often toxic brew of chemical-laden water and sand in to the earth. Depending on the geography and processes used, some of this water risks making its way in to underground aquifers that provide water for human or animal consumption. In other cases, much of this water is brought back up to the surface, and what can’t be reused must be disposed of. There are different disposal techniques, but each comes with risks and problems for human health and the environment.

In addition to the concerns about the chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing, there are considerable emissions from the diesel generators and trucks frequently used to drill the wells. The cost of addressing these problems is not one that the natural gas industry has fully internalized. None of this is new but, owing to a number of recent high-profile exposés on the harms caused by hydraulic fracturing, the regulatory climate may be shifting.

Despite all these detractions, it has often been argued that, at least when compared to coal, natural gas remains a decidedly cleaner option. In particular, supporters have focused on smokestack emissions from modern gas plants as emitting far fewer greenhouse gasses than those from our nation’s aging fleet of coal-powered plants. But the picture of natural gas as a clean transition fuel to help America bridge the gap on the road away from coal and toward renewables has itself come under fire in the last couple years.

One prominent example is the study by Robert Howarth. In it, the Cornell ecologist focused on the large amount of methane that escapes from a gas well over the course of its lifetime through various leaks and inefficiencies. These “fugitive emissions”, as they are often referred to in the regulatory context, represent yet another significant source of concern in assessing just how clean natural production is because they have been largely overlooked in calculating the total emissions resulting from gas drilling operations.  Once they are factored into the equation, claims Howarth, shale gas is not cleaner than coal, it is dirtier.

As the first peer-reviewed look at methane emissions, Howarth’s study garnered a large media. However, there remains no real consensus on its findings or the suitability of shale gas as fuel source, generally. Here is a snapshot of where some of the various regulators and stakeholders fall on this issue:

Environmental Groups: There are several environmental groups that support the general conclusion that natural gas extraction that makes heavy use of fracking has significant environmental impacts. Additionally, the Post Carbon Institute’s fellow Dave Hughes recently conducted another study scrutinizing the viability of natural gas which had similar findings to Howarth’s study.

Industry: Perhaps not surprisingly, industry is still touting the resource as producing 50% less carbon than coal and 30% less carbon than oil when burned, though there remains little to suggest that the industry has addressed the entire life-cycle of the resource.

Department of Energy: The DOE, through its National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL), has applied ISO standard methodology and its understanding of industry operations, and calculated the carbon footprint of natural gas itself. It concluded that when used to generate electricity, natural gas (conventional or not) results in far fewer emissions than coal. This study doesn’t address Howarth’s study explicitly, but it does attempt to explain where a substantial portion of the methane goes—Howarth assumed that all of the gas was vented as methane, whereas the NETL explains that 62% of the gas is not lost, but used to power equipment.

Environmental Protection Agency: The EPA has released research showing that natural gas production could be 25% cleaner than coal or less when methane emissions from the full life cycle of gas production are taken into account.  This is in direct conflict with Howarth’s study.

Others: Some scientists and organizations are saying that the methodology of Howarth’s study is not comprehensive enough to be credible. Recently, America’s Natural Gas Alliance’s blog contained a link to five experts from wide-ranging organizations, including the Council on Foreign Relations and Clean Air Task Force, which were all critical of the study.

In spite of the rising tide of concerns about gas, the pace of drilling continues to increase, suggesting the industry is either unaware of or unconcerned about these issues and the increasing pressure to internalize their costs. However, there is little transparency in the industry, which makes it hard to gauge what gas developers are doing or thinking. This may be changing. According to a recent article in the New York Times, there is mounting evidence suggesting that industry insiders recognize they may be moving too fast and that shale gas may not be as cheap or easy to extract as many have thought. And, it appears that state regulators are increasingly intolerant of the lack of transparency in the industry. For example, Texas recently passed a fracking disclosure law which should help scientists and regulators better understand the impact of the practice. New York has effectively banned the practice (though that ban is likely to be lifted soon) and New Jersey has even gone so far as to legislatively outlaw the practice, though this is largely symbolic as there was little or no fracking going on there prior to the enactment of the legislation.

Regardless of whether one is most concerned about the immediate, localized impacts from fracking chemicals or the broader, long-term impact of natural gas production on global climate, two facts remain:

(1) More studies are needed, and (2) the industry needs to be more transparent with regard to pollution disclosures, environmental concerns and public health concerns. Without transparency and complete life-cycle analyses, we will be hard-pressed to make informed judgments. CUB will continue tracking developments closely.

To keep up with CUB, like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter!

• Share this post on Facebook.
• Share this post on LinkedIn.
• Share this post with email.

« Back