A Look at Shale Gas and Climate Destabilization

[Smidge204]

We tend to automatically give 'expert' status to people or groups too easily.

Using this hierarchy borrowed from an Oregon science teacher:

-----------------
More Credible

Professional Organizations & Organizations that Contradict Their Normal Bias

Peer-Reviewed Science Publications and Articles

I'm sorry Andy but I just can't take you seriously when you do things like this...

You start by saying we more readily trust sources that confirm our biases (true!) and more readily raise those people to 'expert' status (true!) but then, in the very next paragraph, do exactly that without justification.

From the quoted portion alone:

Who is this "Oregon science teacher" and what about him makes him a suitable authority for making that list?

How does he (or anyone) justify making "Professional Organizations" more credible than peer-reviewed science? Especially when 100% of peer-reviewed science is done by professional organizations pretty much be definition of "peer review."

Why would an organization who "contradicts their normal bias" be more credible? What objective criteria do you use to determine the bias of an organization, if that's even possible?
=Smidge=

 

[AndyH]

We tend to automatically give 'expert' status to people or groups too easily.

Using this hierarchy borrowed from an Oregon science teacher:

-----------------
More Credible

Professional Organizations & Organizations that Contradict Their Normal Bias

Peer-Reviewed Science Publications and Articles

I'm sorry Andy but I just can't take you seriously when you do things like this...

You start by saying we more readily trust sources that confirm our biases (true!) and more readily raise those people to 'expert' status (true!) but then, in the very next paragraph, do exactly that without justification.

From the quoted portion alone:

Who is this "Oregon science teacher" and what about him makes him a suitable authority for making that list?

How does he (or anyone) justify making "Professional Organizations" more credible than peer-reviewed science? Especially when 100% of peer-reviewed science is done by professional organizations pretty much be definition of "peer review."

Why would an organization who "contradicts their normal bias" be more credible? What objective criteria do you use to determine the bias of an organization, if that's even possible?
=Smidge=

Thanks Smidge! It's ok to not take me seriously, but I hope there's some value in the message. I sometimes skip steps, sometimes don't show my work, and sometimes need to go back and build a bridge or three.

The professional organizations at the top of the list are top-level scientific organizations - like the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

Contradicting bias is for times when, for example, the gas industry admits fracking could cause harm (which I don't think has happened) or when a group including business, power, and oil companies call for carbon emission limits (which has happened), or when very wealthy Americans call for increased personal taxes (which has happened) or when the Department of Defense considers climate change to be a significant National Security threat (which has happened).

I think there's value in looking for indicators and then using those to help peel away unknowns or errors. If (to use a horribly simple example) an oil company, or a group of oil companies, suggests year after in their annual reports "1995: Drill! 1996: Drill! 1997: Drill!...2007: Drill! 2008: Maybe we shouldn't drill", then that contradiction of a long-standing position might be worth looking into more deeply.

As with everything else, I may be wrong - open fire and help me learn something new.

I borrowed a tool that makes sense to me, but it's possible that I'm using it out of context. I intentionally didn't link to it's origin earlier as I didn't want to pull in the climate change energy. But since it's part of the discussion, I guess it's necessary.

Visit this site, click the "Approach" heading below the video screen, and click on "Risk Management". The first part of the video is useful, but the hierarchy is developed starting about 11 minutes in.
http://www.manpollo.org/

How can we refine the credibility list so that, for example, we know which Leaf-related info to trust and which to discount?

As for the immediate topic: Top level scientific bodies state that the climate has changed and that it's a man-made problem. They also confirm that methane is a more effective greenhouse gas than CO2. They further express concern about the seriously destabilizing effects of methane release from melting permafrost. In that environment, it seems somewhat significant that we're choosing to vent a significant amount of methane into the atmosphere while acquiring an energy carrier intended to reduce CO2 emissions...

 

[Smidge204]

How can we refine the credibility list so that, for example, we know which Leaf-related info to trust and which to discount?

I think defining such a list in the first place is exactly the problem. In my opinion there there is no satisfactory, formulaic way to determine credibility. I really wish there was but reality is often not so kind!

For example, if someone or some group advocates drilling (to borrow your example) then suddenly reverses their position, that does not necessarily make that person/group credible. It could be that the change in stance is manipulative, rather than based on anything factual. We see this in politics all the time! See John McCain's stance on DADT before, during and after the 2010 elections as an excellent example of how someone can espouse any view that is convenient for them at that moment.

To get back to the original topic (scenic route!): My personal bias is towards actual research above personal, even professional, opinion. I also dislike how many worthwhile debates are boiled down to dichotomies and it irks me when debates are framed that way from the onset. "Is fracking harmful to the environment" is a bad question. It implies a simple yes/no answer. The question should be "How harmful to the environment is fracking." We can now work in degrees.

That said, I don't disagree with any of the points you raise re: environmental damage. I'll probably elaborate on that a bit more when I have the time though :?
=Smidge=

 

[AndyH]

How can we refine the credibility list so that, for example, we know which Leaf-related info to trust and which to discount?

I think defining such a list in the first place is exactly the problem. In my opinion there there is no satisfactory, formulaic way to determine credibility. I really wish there was but reality is often not so kind!

For example, if someone or some group advocates drilling (to borrow your example) then suddenly reverses their position, that does not necessarily make that person/group credible. It could be that the change in stance is manipulative, rather than based on anything factual. We see this in politics all the time! See John McCain's stance on DADT before, during and after the 2010 elections as an excellent example of how someone can espouse any view that is convenient for them at that moment.

Absolutely! When I'm inspecting an aircraft part, the go/no-go gauge fits or it doesn't. The hole is round or it's not. But we have to allow for tolerances and tolerance stacking. I'm not at all trying to suggest that we can create a credibility formula we can follow blindly. But I think there is tremendous value in looking for indicators. These might be dead-ends, but they might lead to breaking the pot of understanding wide open.

(As for credibility indicators...politicians - paid liars - and pretty low on my personal list. The Senator's view and flip are both within the expected behavior. Being in favor of repealing DADT and sticking with it come hell or high water would have been counter to my expectation.)

Stop to consider the momentum behind Exxon's focus for a bit. A huge multinational corporation in the fuel business. If they don't drill and extract and process and ship they don't get paid. And the pay is good indeed! They don't want any regulations between them and the paycheck, so they spent millions of dollars every year funding climate change denial groups. Or..did. Until Rex Tillerson declared: "We recognize that greenhouse gas emissions are one of the factors affecting climate change.'' That's an example of going against the perceived bias. That and the termination of denial group funding are SIGNIFICANT indicators!

It's in the gas industry's best interest to under report emissions, for example, or to downplay the need to look for them in the first place. I'm not suggesting that the folks in the field aren't professionals looking to do the best job they can, but not all are focused on the same job. For some, the job is to make sure they can get the drilling permits so they can develop this field and keep their jobs. That's a mighty strong incentive. And for a group of Americans that don't 'believe' that we're affecting the atmosphere anyway, there's really no incentive to measure methane release.

 

[AndyH]

It's been interesting and somewhat enlightening for me to see the early debate on the Howarth paper. I'm trying to understand the science and implications, as well as how the message is...warped? evolved? as it's disseminated.

I still haven't found any top-level science on the subject - the folks at Cornell seem to hold the top-tier position on my borrowed credibility scale. They clearly state that the existing data are thin, that industry resists providing better data (and are resisting the EPA's requests for more accurate data), but they've done the best they can with the info they've got in order to stimulate further research.

Michael Levi from the Council on Foreign Relations (think tank) commented on April 15th.
http://blogs.cfr.org/levi/2011/04/15/some-thoughts-on-the-howarth-shale-gas-paper/
One of the author's objections to the Howarth paper is that the gas to coal comparison should have been done on a produced kWh basis rather than a 'pre-work' comparison. He suggests this would show the superiority of gas as it's a more efficient fuel for electrical generation. He may be correct, though it seems to depend on the age, type, and efficiency of both the coal and gas power plant. But I think he misses the point of staying 'application neutral.'

The folks behind the Natural Gas Act - like Boone Pickens - are lobbying to replace the natural gas used in electricity generation with wind so that the natural gas can be used for long-haul trucks. The goal of this portion of the Pickens Plan is to remove imported oil from the long-haul transportation sector and replace it with a domestic fuel. This suggests to me that Levi might be missing something important in his analysis as it's not necessarily about electrical generation.

There are a couple of other inputs on the issue. The Natural Resources Defense Council weighed in on April 12th:
http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/dlashof/natural_gas_needs_tighter_prod.html

On the other side of the organization/think tank level we have the American Petroleum Institute's input.
http://www.api.org/Newsroom/natural-gas-study.cfm

Lower on the list we have an article in Foreign Policy magazine:
http://oilandglory.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/04/15/the_weekly_wrap_april_15_2011

As far as I can tell, and I don't claim to have all the required inputs, the main attacks on the study - all from bloggers, pro-gas organizations and industry groups - seem to be directed either at author credibility or the low quality and quantity of the source data. The opponents seem to be ignoring that the authors used the best available data - most directly from the industry, while failing to mention that the industry is actively fighting EPA requests for better information.

In 2007 Congress ordered a national greenhouse gas survey which is to be available to the public. The first data was to be from 2010 but the EPA is under fire for bowing to industry protests and deferring reporting to 2013.
http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2011/0...-epa-over-exemption-for-greenhouse-92029.html

This seems to be a page from the CARB/EV fight playbook from the 1990s where the auto industry says on one hand - here are some EVs! - while working diligently to neuter or overturn the mandate with the other hand.

 

[AndyH]

Post-Carbon Institute to release natural gas report in May.

http://www.postcarbon.org/report/294210-will-natural-gas-fuel-the-21st

The stakes couldn't be higher, but a lack of data and rigorous analysis about the feasibility, risks, and rewards of natural gas could lead us down a dangerously false path. While a few recent studies have examined some aspects of the natural gas question, none has provided a comprehensive, systemic analysis of the role it can and should play in our nation's energy future.

In May 2011, Post Carbon Institute will release a report for policymakers, NGOs, and foundations that provides an objective, easily accessible analysis of the following:

- Recoverable, affordable supplies of conventional and unconventional natural gas in North America, including the latest actual production and depletion rates.
- Technical feasibility and scaling considerations of converting existing coal-fired plants to burn natural gas.
- The greenhouse gas impacts of natural gas plant conversion from a full-cycle point of view (point-of-use, production, transport, venting, methane leaks, carbon capture and storage, etc.), as compared to coal.
- The environmental and human health impacts of horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing.
- Implications of these findings for water and agriculture, particularly the risks of water contamination, the fresh water stocks required for production of shale gas, and the impacts on availability and cost of industrial fertilizers.
- Implications of these findings for transportation, particularly the oft-proposed widespread conversion of auto and truck vehicle fleets to run on compressed natural gas (CNG), including feasibility, infrastructural costs, time-to-build, and throughputs required.

Only a thorough examination of these questions — including how they impact one another — can provide sufficient information and perspective to determine the best policy direction.

 

[Adrian]

Publishing with (best) available data likely secured more funding for future research (from both those opposed to shale gas exploration as well as those for it wanting to clear the industry name) as well as generated enough interest to eventually lead to hard data collection. In CA, this type of interest would lead to new local air and water district(s) rule development which would typically include a requirement for source specific (hard) data collection. I would not be surprised if the same approach is taken in the case we are discussing. I think that the hard data will speak for itself. Regardless of who publishes it. It might end up being local air and water district(s) mandated source testing following an approved testing protocol that becomes public record. Anyway one looks at it, this initial publication is just that, the first part in what appears to be the beginning of a healthy debate. In the end it should lead to appropriate fracking rules for testing and reporting emissions to air, water and land both at the state and federal level. I believe we need to get this right, but don't expect we will initially. There's too much at stake..it is the birth of a large domestic energy industry that has the potential to alter the volume of oil imports into the US just like Mr. Pickens has been saying all along.

 

[AndyH]

Thanks Adrian.

I hope we (someone?) can keep it from becoming a debate - I'd much rather have numbers and let science work as designed. We need good numbers so we can understand what's happening. But it's pretty clear the industry knee-jerks anti-transparency and anti-regulation. In that environment, it seems like any reasonable numbers will have to come after court mandates...and it seems that would just fuel more anti-EPA sentiment. The EPA took a significant funding hit in the last budget battles...

I wouldn't mind so much if they were screwing up their own air while leaving mine alone.

 

[AndyH]

Just remembered something about LNG transport. The huge container ships that carry LNG from the Middle East do not run electric freezers to keep the tanks cold - they constantly vent NG from the tanks to 'create' the cold.

According to WGI, on a typical voyage an estimated 0.1% - 0.25% of the cargo converts to gas each day, depending on the efficiency of the insulation and the roughness of the voyage.[3] In a typical 20-day voyage, anywhere from 2% - 6% of the total volume of LNG originally loaded may be lost.[3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LNG_carrier

I wonder if transport is included in the Howarth references? I thought the paper only looks at domestic well-user releases...

 

[Adrian]

Recent interview with Mr. Pickens:
http://www.bloomberg.com/video/69291466/#ooid=ZhZ2pmMjrJjPXVtb2mqT8tdibB7ys7io

 

[evnow]

Anyway one looks at it, this initial publication is just that, the first part in what appears to be the beginning of a healthy debate.

If the initial publication has enough information to make us pause ... we should.

No different from so many other things that are done and have wide acceptance (stopping all flights after 9/11 attacks or grounding similar planes after one SouthWest plane cracks open ...).

We should not continue to let companies spoil the environment until the data proves otherwise - since spoiling the environment is not easy to undo.

 

[AndyH]

EPA's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NRPM) from April 12, 2010 requires mandatory reporting of certain greenhouse gas releases from the petroleum industry.

It does not require CONTROL of emissions it only requires monitoring and reporting.

This is just one requirement that the industry is resisting.

http://www.viadata.com/rus32/epa_nprm_on_reporting_of_greenhouse_gases.htm

EPA is proposing a supplemental rule to require reporting of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from petroleum and natural gas systems. Specifically, the proposed supplemental rulemaking would require emissions reporting from the following industry segments: Onshore petroleum and natural gas production, offshore petroleum and natural gas production, natural gas processing, natural gas transmission compressor stations, underground natural gas storage, liquefied natural gas (LNG) storage, LNG import and export terminals, and distribution. The proposed supplemental rulemaking does not require control of GHGs, rather it requires only that sources above certain threshold levels monitor and report emissions.

 

[AndyH]

Recent interview with Mr. Pickens:
http://www.bloomberg.com/video/69291466/#ooid=ZhZ2pmMjrJjPXVtb2mqT8tdibB7ys7io

Thanks Adrian. I'm not surprised by this.

I suspect he's technically and very narrowly correct about fracking even considering that most of his many frack jobs probably predate the current gas rush. I suppose the industry considers the vertical and horizontal drilling prior to hydraulic forcing to be a separate function. It's probably also correct to say that no significant amount of gas is released to the atmosphere during fracking either. A bunch is released after, but it's not frack related.

The old HBO movie "Gotham" comes to mind. A ghost can lead you to a lie, they can help and support you as you move to a lie, but they cannot utter the lie with their own lips... :lol:

I'm not surprised that he's anti-EPA either. That's one of the strongest cries from the Texas governor as well. It's a huge tug of war where any fraction of an inch movement towards regulation is feared as the beginning of a slippery slope that 'kills the industry and all those wonderful jobs.'

Balance would be good here. :?

 

[AndyH]

http://www.nicholas.duke.edu/hydrof...igher-in-water-wells-near-hydrofracking-sites

http://www.nicholas.duke.edu/hydrofracking/Osborn et al Hydrofracking 2011.pdf

Duke study: Methane Levels 17 Times Higher in Water Wells Near Hydrofracking Sites

First peer-reviewed study of water wells in shale gas extraction areas.

“Methane is CH4. By using carbon and hydrogen isotope tracers we can distinguish between thermogenic methane, which is formed at high temperatures deep underground and is captured in gas wells during hydrofracking, and biogenic methane, which is produced at shallower depths and lower temperatures,” says Avner Vengosh, professor of geochemistry and water quality. Biogenic methane is not associated with hydrofracking.

“Methane in water wells within a kilometer had an isotopic composition similar to thermogenic methane,” Vengosh says. “Outside this active zone, it was mostly a mixture of the two.”

NPR Science Friday story: http://www.sciencefriday.com/program/archives/201105135
Podcast: http://www.podtrac.com/pts/redirect.mp3/traffic.libsyn.com/sciencefriday/scifri201105135.mp3

 

[AndyH]

http://www.utexas.edu/news/2011/05/09/energy_shale_gas/

AUSTIN, Texas — A research team at The University of Texas at Austin will conduct a comprehensive review of the science, policy and environmental issues surrounding hydraulic fracturing of shale gas, it was announced today [May 9th].

The project will for the first time combine an independent assessment of alleged groundwater contamination and seismic events ascribed to ‘fracing’ of shale formations with a detailed analysis of the scope and effectiveness of laws and regulations related to hydraulic fracturing.

The goal of the study is to promote a fact-based approach to regulatory policies for shale gas development.

“What we’re trying to do is separate fact from fiction,” said Dr. Raymond L. Orbach, director of the Energy Institute, which is providing funding for the study. “Unlocking huge reserves of natural gas could be vital our nation’s energy security. If proven to be safe and environmentally benign, fracing could unleash a bountiful supply of domestic energy for generations, if not centuries, to come.”

Hydraulic fracturing, which has been in use for decades, has come under intense scrutiny recently from environmental organizations, community groups and politicians who fear it poses health risks from groundwater contamination. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is initiating a study of fracing, and is expected to issue new regulations on the practice sometime next year.

In other news, Texas passed what started as HB 3328, an attempt to require disclosure of hydraulic fracturing fluid components. http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/billlookup/history.aspx?legsess=82r&bill=hb3328
It appears, though, that it was so hacked by the industry...I mean the senators and reps (because, of course, industry really cannot trash a state bill, right? :? ) that...well...maybe it'll do something... But I really hope the rest of the country doesn't follow Texas' lead on this...
http://earthblog.org/content/hb-3328-tx-disclosure-bill-all-bark-no-bite

 

[AndyH]

http://www.earthworksaction.org/FLOWBACK-TXOGAP-HealthReport-lowres.pdf

Executive Summary

In the last decade, hydraulic fracturing and other new drilling
technologies have turned North Texas into the leading shale
gas-producing area in the country. But the drilling boom
has brought with it serious concerns over the health and
environmental impacts of an industry that uses large volumes
of toxic chemicals in close proximity to Texas communities.
The search for deposits of shale gas is spreading to other
regions of Texas, raising the question of whether the state is
adequately protecting its citizens and its resources.

This investigation by the Earthworks’ Texas Oil
and Gas Accountability Project concludes that
the answer is “No.”

 

[AndyH]

Interesting report on the story behind the Marcellus shale find.

http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/440/game-changer

PROLOGUE.

Host Ira Glass tells the stories of two professors, each making a calculation that no one had made before. One gets acclaim. One ends up out of a job. The first, Terry Engelder, a geologist at Penn State, was estimating the amount of natural gas that's recoverable from the Marcellus shale, a giant rock formation that's under Pennsylvania and several other Eastern states. The second, Conrad "Dan" Volz, at the University of Pittsburg, estimated how much toxic crap—chemicals and pollution from gas exploration—might be getting into water supplies. (6 1/2 minutes)

ACT ONE. YOU'VE GOT SHALE.

Producer Sarah Koenig continues the story Terry Engelder and Dan Volz, their rival calculations about natural gas in Pennsylvania, and how each was treated by his university. She explains how Pennsylvania's universities, politicans and industry have united to develop natural gas. Other states have been more cautious. (26 1/2 minutes)

ACT TWO. GROUND WAR.

Sarah takes us to Mt. Pleasant, PA, where a gas exploration company called Range Resources has leased 95% of the township's land. This led to a standoff between Mt. Pleasant and Range, starting with zoning disputes and ending in a full scale PR war—a war in which the town was seriously outgunned. (23 1/2 minutes)

 

[AndyH]

Founds this on a cng forum:

http://www.energyindepth.org/2011/04/five-things-to-know-about-the-cornell-shale-study/

...

This comment on the gas industry's "Energy in Depth" site from a scientist directly involved in methane emissions:

Which brings me to the responses to this story. The industry website Energy in Depth was quick off the mark with a response that feigned surprise and shock that the emission estimates were uncertain (somewhat hypocritically since it is the same industry that has resisted almost any improvement in reporting standards). They also try to imply that the Shindell et al study was somehow suspect because it was different to the earlier IPCC GWP numbers, without any apparent interest or knowledge of why that was. Again, the industry would be better advised to deal with fugitive emissions (which also impact air pollution) rather than attacking inconvenient science. (Funnier still are the contrarian responses, for instance from “Bishop Hill” who completely agrees with the industry (again without any actual knowledge of the issues), and who can’t resist using their criticism of Howarth to condemn a whole University (and by proxy, the whole scientific enterprise). I mean, why bother with independent scientists when the industry can tell you exactly what you are supposed to think?).

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/04/fracking-methane/#more-7390

 

[AndyH]

...And since there are "no significant emissions" from gas production (since companies want to maximize profits), then we shouldn't see...anything...right? Because we can trust the industry to maximize their profits, right?

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iW6Fw8bLIu0[/youtube]

:lol: "In God we trust; all others we monitor."

 

[Herm]

Host Ira Glass tells the stories of two professors, each making a calculation that no one had made before. One gets acclaim. One ends up out of a job. The first, Terry Engelder, a geologist at Penn State, was estimating the amount of natural gas that's recoverable from the Marcellus shale, a giant rock formation that's under Pennsylvania and several other Eastern states. The second, Conrad "Dan" Volz, at the University of Pittsburg, estimated how much toxic crap—chemicals and pollution from gas exploration—might be getting into water supplies.

Good for the University of Pittsburg, its about time green fanatics considered the results of their alarmist statements.. and to balance actual ecological damage vs GNP.