Fracking, earthquakes and the positive answer to shale gas

2 November 2011

The worrying news that drilling for shale gas probably did cause earthquakes near Blackpool is only part of our problem with ‘fracking’. The other big environmental elephant in the room is that shale gas is simply another greenhouse gas-pumping fossil fuel, and far from the ‘wonder gas’ it’s hyped as.

The report into this year’s unusual seismic activity in Lancashire - released today by Cuadrilla Resources, the British company exploring for natural shale gas in the Bowland Basin – concludes that: “It is highly probable that the hydraulic fracturing … did trigger a number of minor seismic events.”

It just serves to confirm one of our many fears about shale gas. As well as the earth tremors, and concerns over ground and surface water contamination attributed to shale gas drilling, there are of course also the greenhouse gas emissions associated with its extraction and the consequent burning of what is yet another carbon-emitting fossil fuel.

That’s why we’re calling in the first instance for a moratorium on shale gas extraction in the UK until the potential environmental risks around shale gas drilling have been properly researched and the right regulations have been put in place. 

But we’re also reiterating that a new ‘dash for gas’ risks taking the world towards dangerous levels of climate change - increasing temperatures by at least 3.5°C according to a recent report by the International Energy Agency.

As Nick Molho, our head of energy policy, says: “We’re extremely concerned by the way shale gas is being painted as a ‘wonder gas’ that will slash energy bills in Britain and somehow help tackle climate change.

“Shale gas is still a fossil fuel, and a new dash for gas could see global temperatures skyrocket. There’s also no evidence that it will have a big impact on energy bills, which have in fact been driven up in recent years by a rising gas price.”

Our research - seen most recently in our Positive Energy report, which demonstrates how renewable sources of energy could meet between 60% and 90% of the UK’s electricity demand by 2030 - makes it clear that prioritising energy efficiency and renewables like wind, wave and tidal power, not shale gas, are the best way of reducing our disproportionate vulnerability to the gas price, and of genuinely tackling climate change, in the long term.

The government has to listen to the clear and sensible evidence and steer a straight course to a low-carbon future - resisting the siren calls of the fossil fuel industry.

Natural gas from fracking could be 'dirtier' than coal, Cornell professors find

April 11, 2011

Natural gas from fracking could be 'dirtier' than coal, Cornell professors find

Howarth

By Stacey Shackford

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 gas 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 potent greenhouse gas, 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 Environmental Protection Agency (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 hydraulic fracturing 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."

Stacey Shackford is a staff writer in the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences.

##

| April story index | Cornell Chronicle Online Home Page |