I learned about this 'phantom problem' when watching Josh Fox's documentary Gasland II, last night. It's only a 'phantom problem' because the leaking Methane from Fracking is largely invisible (unless you light it on fire, of course).
BUT just because we can't SEE this Fugitive Methane leaking with unconventional Fracturing methods, that doesn't mean it will NOT have a BIG Impact on Climate Change. Out of sight should not mean, out of mind.
As with CO2, "invisible" doesn't have a damn thing to do with how much Heat these Greenhouse Gases end up trapping in the Atmosphere. Look the "invisible" windows on your car, or an "invisible" pane of glass in an actual Greenhouse -- being invisible does NOT stop them from heating things up in the summer sun. The infrared heat they're trapping is "invisible" too -- but that doesn't prevent it from scorching your day, as you pull out the car from of the parking lot.
Well, here's a bit more on this 'phantom problem' -- that Fracking advocates, have up to now been able to blithely discount away as "insignificant" math problem.
Methane and the Greenhouse-gas Footprint of Natural Gas from Shale Formations
by Rozanne Larsen, journalistsresource.org -- May 5, 2011
In the quest to find solutions to the problem of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and climate change, many have pointed to natural gas as a cleaner burning fuel that could displace dirtier fuels such as coal or oil and help the world transition to alternative sources of energy. However, recent research has focused on the more intensive, “unconventional” industrial process that is being used to extract natural gas from shale formations -- called hydraulic fracturing, or “hydrofracking” -- and the waste gas that seeps out.
A 2011 study by Cornell University published in Climatic Change, “Methane and the Greenhouse-gas Footprint of Natural Gas from Shale Formations,” calculates the climate impact of unconventional natural gas extraction. Though carbon dioxide is the best known of the GHG that trap heat in the Earth’s atmosphere, methane gas can have an even more powerful effect.
The study’s findings include:
-- Between 3.6 and 7.9% of the methane escapes into the atmosphere during shale-gas production due to venting and well leaks; this level is at least 30% higher than that released during conventional natural gas production.
-- On a 20-year time horizon, the GHG footprint for shale gas is up to 43% higher than conventional natural gas, 50% greater than oil and 20% higher than coal for the same amount of energy produced by each of those other sources.
[...]
That "3.6 and 7.9% of the Methane" that
escapes from the hydraulic fracturing process, is NOT a phantom problem, but a very REAL problem in terms of short run planetary warming -- since Methane is a more effective Greenhouse Gas than CO2 by at least
20 times more, or worse by some estimates.
Here are some of the techie details from that Cornell report, which question the wisdom of running headlong into the Fracking Transition pool. Beware of large "invisible" objects, lying just below the surface of those NG Industry claims.
Climatic Change -- DOI 10.1007/s10584-011-0061-5 -- cornell.edu
Methane and the greenhouse-gas footprint of natural gas from shale formations (pdf)
A letter
Robert W. Howarth, Renee Santoro, Anthony Ingraffea
Received: 12 November 2010 / Accepted: 13 March 2011
Abstract: We evaluate the greenhouse gas footprint of natural gas obtained by high-volume hydraulic fracturing from shale formations, focusing on methane emissions. Natural gas is composed largely of methane, and 3.6% to 7.9% of the methane from shale-gas production escapes to the atmosphere in venting and leaks over the lifetime of a well. These methane emissions are at least 30% more than and perhaps more than twice as great as those from conventional gas. The higher emissions from shale gas occur at the time wells are hydraulically fractured -- as methane escapes from flow-back return fluids -- and during drill out following the fracturing. Methane is a powerful greenhouse gas, with a global warming potential that is far greater than that of carbon dioxide, particularly over the time horizon of the first few decades following emission. [...] Compared to coal, the footprint of shale gas is at least 20% greater and perhaps more than twice as great on the 20-year horizon and is comparable when compared over 100 years.
[pg 3]
1 Fugitive methane emissions during well completion
Shale gas is extracted by high-volume hydraulic fracturing. Large volumes of water are forced under pressure into the shale to fracture and re-fracture the rock to boost gas flow. A significant amount of this water returns to the surface as flowback within the first few days to weeks after injection and is accompanied by large quantities of methane (EPA 2010). The amount of methane is far more than could be dissolved in the flow-back fluids, reflecting a mixture of fracture-return fluids and methane gas. We have compiled data from 2 shale gas formations and 3 tightsand gas formations in the U.S. Between 0.6% and 3.2% of the life-time production of gas from wells is emitted as methane during the flow-back period (Table 1).
More methane is emitted during “drill-out,” the stage in developing unconventional gas in which the plugs set to separate fracturing stages are drilled out to release gas for production. EPA (2007) estimates drill-out emissions at 142 × 103 to 425 × 103 m3 per well. Using the mean drill-out emissions estimate of 280 × 103 m3 (EPA 2007) and the mean life-time gas production for the 5 formations in Table 1 (85 × 106 m3), we estimate that 0.33% of the total life-time production of wells is emitted as methane during the drill-out stage. If we instead use the average life-time production for a larger set of data on 12 formations (Wood et al. 2011), 45×106 m3, we estimate a percentage emission of 0.62%. More effort is needed to determine drill-out emissions on individual formation. Meanwhile, in this paper we use the conservative estimate of 0.33% for drill-out emissions.
Combining losses associated with flow-back fluids (1.6%) and drill out (0.33%), we estimate that 1.9% of the total production of gas from an unconventional shale-gas well is emitted as methane during well completion (Table 2). Again, this estimate is uncertain but conservative.
Emissions are far lower for conventional natural gas wells during completion, since conventional wells have no flow-back and no drill out. An average of 1.04 × 103 m3 of methane is released per well completed for conventional gas (EPA 2010), corresponding to 1.32 × 103 m3 natural gas (assuming 78.8% methane content of the gas). In 2007, 19,819 conventional wells were completed in the US (EPA 2010), so we estimate a total national emission of 26 × 106 m3 natural gas. The total national production of onshore conventional gas in 2007 was 384 × 109 m3 (EIA 2010b). Therefore, we estimate the average fugitive emissions at well completion for conventional gas as 0.01% of the life-time production of a well (Table 2), three orders of magnitude less than for shale gas.
[...]
5 Contribution of methane emissions to the GHG footprints of shale gas and conventional gas
Summing all estimated losses, we calculate that during the life cycle of an average shale-gas well, 3.6 to 7.9% of the total production of the well is emitted to the atmosphere as methane (Table 2). This is at least 30% more and perhaps more than twice as great as the life-cycle methane emissions we estimate for conventional gas, 1.7% to 6%.
larger image
Where is this fabled transition to a Clean Energy Future that this bold new Fracking Process is supposedly giving us?
It kind of looks like it went up in a "3.6 to 7.9%" cloud of invisible smoke.
Now we see the Clean Fracking Future, now we don't. Surprise.
Here's what that invisible methane looks like, if you bother to use an infrared FLIR camera to see it. Multiply that by about a million wells.
Drilling Air Pollution -- Chesapeake Bay Foundation www.cbf.org
link to video
MORE infrared FLIR videos of that Fugitive Methane problem.
Out of sight should not mean, out of mind.