Adrian said:
Andy,
I don't work for the gas industry. I'm also not attempting any disinformation. We simply have differing opinions. Also, I'm not going to take any of your comments personally.
Very glad to hear on all counts. My intent is clarity not attack.
Adrian said:
As I said, I haven't watched Gasland. I probably should have been more clear what I meant. Basically a documentary is not the same thing to me as emission reports based on following an approved protocol for emissions to air or water.
I completely agree. And yet one can see strong indicators in the documentary that highlight areas where further investigation might be in order...
Adrian said:
Again, if you believe in being objective, it is the data itself that matters, not who publishes it. Mentioning your background helps me understand why you might have a different way to look at this. It's obvious my background influences my point of view. I'm an engineer so to me data is more important than spin. And spin usually stands out from data.
Yes the data is critical. But data can be misused, falsified, twisted, and cherry picked - and that's why any piece of data needs to have a source attached. While the truth is the truth even if we learn it from a liar, not everything presented as truth should be accepted at face value even if we trust the source. We need to know the biases and intentions...etc...
Adrian said:
Unless you have been involved in emission reporting, it's difficult to reach a common point of understanding through a few exchanges on a forum. Just like I'm sure I would have no way of understanding your area of expertise in a few paragraphs.
Agree completely.
Adrian said:
But simply put, source specific data is the most accurate. I've already mentioned my hierarchy of data credibility.
You said the Cornell researchers will be instrumenting the wells. Good. I believe that when they have that representative data we'll have a better picture. Yes, getting specific data first and then publishing is not too much to ask. In fact it should be expected. Anything else is in fact disinformation, which was my point by bringing up the example of the USA today reports. USA today just ran the articles. The work was done by the oh so credible universities that screwed up anyway.
The point Adrian is that the paper resulted from hard data. One of the authors has 25 years experience designing conventional and unconventional wells and drilling methods. And this is not the only source of emissions data, but is the first of which I'm aware that focused specifically on quantifying methane release. This is vitally important from a greenhouse gas/climate destabilization standpoint.
Adrian said:
I believe we'll learn more because of research based on hard data will be published since there is public interest in this topic.
Anyway, no need to sigh or reply. It's perfectly ok for two different opinions to exists.
Hard data makes opinions less important. Shall we disagree on the existence of gravity? In the midst of the debate we're both still planted on the ground.
(And no, that's not intended to make light of the conversation - science is still debating the nature of gravity and NASA has a satellite in orbit as part of that debate...)
There is plenty of hard data showing that significant emissions exist throughout the entire well to consumer process. Data is provided by industry, state environmental and permitting agencies, environmental groups, city and town governments, the medical community, and individual citizens.
Adrian said:
As far as over reporting emissions, here's the short story: emission factors grossly overestimate emissions, sometimes as much as 1000%. Accurate source specific tests are almost always lower in emissions but more expensive to run. If there are no fees for reporting higher emissions, it's cheaper for industry to report higher emissions using emission factors accepted by various gov agencies than pay to source test and get lower, accurate results.
And yet in the gas fields, it's very clear that emissions are being under reported. The first is that because of the way the reporting laws are written, each individual well is considered a unique source - and the reporting thresholds - designed for facilities the size of power plants - are too high. Throw in the 'maintenance' provision - which allows refineries to store hazardous products during the week and dump them when they go down for maintenance... Sorry, no - I'd be very surprised to find that emissions are being over-reported.
[edit]
Here's a real-world example of industry emissions reporting. In 2007, Congress ordered the EPA to compile industry green house gas emissions so the nation could determine if there's really an emissions problem. In spite of
industry's statement that accurate numbers are vital, the data had to be revised a number of times and was still shown to significantly understate the full scope of emissions:
Note that, in every case, the refinery’s initial reports are well below – and sometimes orders of magnitude below – actual emissions.
(Note that the industry used the 98% number for their estimate, even though they are using steam-augmented flaring which is known to reduce flare efficiency.)
Source:
http://www.environmentalintegrity.o...y.Enforcement.Emerging.Issues.2011.02.22.pptx
http://www.eenews.net/assets/2011/03/08/document_gw_01.pdf
[/edit]
A body of data can be corrupted by bad information - bad data is much worse than no data. While I have and do apologize for coming at you as strongly as I did, my first priority is accuracy. The climate has become a huge experiment - and we're in the test tube. We simply do not have time to sit back and watch any longer. Population continues to increase, peak oil has come and gone, world grain production has peaked and is falling off, 'freak' storms and fires have become the new norm, and aquifers are being pumped much faster than they're being replenished. While it's great that the gas industry is enjoying this non-conventional boom, someone has to be keeping an eye on the big picture. And it's very clear that the largest threat to the US is no longer any terrorist group or OPEC...