Department of Energy

Library

Harvard Study Confirms Shale’s Benefits
Just a few months in, 2013 is proving to be a very frustrating year for ideologically motivated environmental activists seeking to ban hydraulic fracturing. Now, a new report from researchers at Harvard makes clear why activists’ efforts are failing -- and will likely continue to do so.

JD
Communications Director

Just a few months in, 2013 is proving to be a very frustrating year for ideologically motivated environmental activists seeking to ban hydraulic fracturing. So far, they have been confronted with three important facts: a plurality of Americans supports the technology, politicians in both parties are accepting it as a means to improve both the economy and environment, and the President’s nominees to lead the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection Agency have both declared that natural gas, and by extension hydraulic fracturing, is a key component of the nation’s energy future.

Now, compounding this frustration, a new report from researchers at Harvard’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs makes clear why activists’ efforts are failing — and will likely continue to do so. Specifically, the report found that, on a global scale, “a long-term domestic supply of natural gas is expected to yield environmental benefits,” as the fuel “has the lowest carbon dioxide emission factor at combustion of any fossil fuel.” The study also observes that shale development is certain to continue well into the future, noting that “unconventional fossil fuel extraction from shale formations has already transformed the U.S. energy portfolio,” and that, as a result, “unconventional oil and gas are poised to dominate the U.S. market in the coming decades.”

The study also took a closer look at development in the Bakken, Barnett and Marcellus shale basins to identify environmental concerns and whether or not practices are being implemented to mitigate those concerns. Here again, activists were served a bitter pill. Even though the researchers suggested the industry typically has a “slow rate of adoption” of environmental mitigation (which simply isn’t true), they nonetheless concluded that “the degree of adoption across available technologies highlights characteristics of successful environmental mitigation strategies.” In other words, the industry is proactively addressing environmental concerns through the rapid advancement of new technology.

Now, that’s not to say the study didn’t find any areas in need of improvement. Indeed, there were about twenty items — ranging from “laying reusable mats over well pad site and planned access routes, rather than laying gravel” to “setting surface casing at greater depths.” But, as you can see, the suggestions offered by the researchers don’t point to any inherently troubling concerns with hydraulic fracturing and shale gas development. A few examples:

Wastewater recycling and reuse
Laying impermeable liners over well pad sites to reduce the risk of oil and surface water contamination
Cementing intermediate casing, if present, to surface
Collection and analysis of surface and subsurface data, used to inform planning and real-time management of hydraulic fracturing jobs
Conducting small-scale test run before commencing full hydraulic fracturing job
Reuse of drilling fluids and muds
Capturing fugitive methane by implementing green completions, replacing high-bleed valves, and installing vapor recovery units on tanks
Burying corrosion-resistant lines and pipes for longer-term operations
Planning multiple wells per pad

What ties these (and many others in the report) together is that they’re already being implemented across the country, something that the Harvard researchers also noted. Closed-loop systems are in use in the Marcellus, and many operators are already recycling fluids and drilling muds. Operators have also begun implementing central water conveyance systems in many areas, and green completions are also increasingly being utilized (MIT previously found that such technology had been adopted at a far higher rate than previous studies had estimated). Green completions will also be required for nearly all natural gas wells beginning in 2015.

So, in summation, one of the nation’s pre-eminent academic institutions took a closer look at a process that fringe environmental groups describe as being an “inherently dirty and dangerous process that decimates entire landscapes.” Because they were interested in facts instead of hysteria, they came to a completely different conclusion. Indeed, their review indicated that shale development will provide significant environmental benefits, and that reducing environmental footprints even further is not only possible, but is actually a task already in progress.

In sum, the Harvard study is good news for those of us who view shale development as a valuable part of our energy future, as well as those of us who are interested in solutions and progress. In that sense, it’s yet another reminder that those who want to demagogue “fracking” in order to raise funds from wealthy donors are actually arguing against expert consensus.

IPAA and EID Explain to Feds Why LNG Exports Make Sense
As part of the federal government’s review process for approving exports of liquefied natural gas (LNG), the U.S. Department of Energy has solicited two rounds of comments regarding its recent macroeconomic study on the economic benefits of allowing such exports. During the initial round, environmental groups raised a series of concerns regarding alleged impacts, focusing chiefly – wait for it – on hydraulic fracturing. Luckily, the talking points submitted to DOE have been employed unsuccessfully so many times by now that refuting them wasn’t the toughest thing in the world to do.

Jeff
Executive Vice-President

As part of the federal government’s review process for approving exports of liquefied natural gas (LNG), the U.S. Department of Energy has solicited two rounds of comments regarding its recent macroeconomic study on the economic benefits of allowing such exports. During the initial round, environmental groups raised a series of concerns regarding alleged impacts of allowing LNG exports, focusing chiefly – wait for it – on hydraulic fracturing.

Of course, in order to liquefy natural gas, first you have to produce it, and we know folks at the Sierra Club absolutely cannot stand the thought of that. So, they naturally tried to pollute the entire DOE review process with misinformation about shale development in general and hydraulic fracturing in particular, apparently unable to conjure up a credible case that actually seeks to address the real issue at hand (um, exports).

Luckily, the talking points submitted to DOE have been employed unsuccessfully so many times by now that refuting them wasn’t the toughest thing in the world to do. Below are a few examples of the kinds of claims that activist groups made in their comments to DOE, as well as a version of the response that IPAA and EID provided. Be sure to check out the full comments on IPAA’s webpage.

–

CLAIM: The Sierra Club argues that LNG exports would increase air pollution, and thus harm public health for residents living near gas wells.

FACT: The Sierra Club’s source was a study from the Colorado School of Public Health, a study that was so flawed from the very beginning that it was decommissioned by officials in the county where the data were collected. The study inflated the duration of industry operations by as much as 900 percent (and thus inflated the air emissions associated with those operations); used data known to be out of date; and its data on benzene emissions were taken from a monitoring station closer to a major interstate highway than the control sample.

What’s more is that, according to assessments by Texas and Pennsylvania regulators, air emissions from shale development do not reach levels that would be harmful to public health.

CLAIM: The Delaware Riverkeeper Network says shale development “presents an unparalleled level of harm to drinking water,” and the Sierra Club references casing failure rates as an example of a major risk.

FACT: Looking at actual data, casing failure rates are actually quite low. In more than 34,000 wells drilled in Ohio over a 25 year period, the failure rate was less than one-tenth of one percent – 0.03 percent to be exact. In Texas, the failure rate was even less: 0.01 percent. Federal and state regulators, meanwhile, have repeatedly stated that hydraulic fracturing does not pose a serious risk of contaminating drinking water supplies.

CLAIM: The Sierra Club references EPA’s report on water quality in Pavillion, Wyo., to suggest that expanded shale development is too dangerous.

FACT: Assessments by the U.S. Geological Survey and the Bureau of Land Management raise considerable doubts about the EPA’s methodology in Pavillion. The USGS, for example, conducted its own sampling, the results of which differed from EPA’s tests in at least 50 instances. USGS also effectively disqualified one of EPA’s two monitoring wells for being poorly constructed. The Bureau of Land Management said EPA’s techniques could have introduced “bias” into the samples, and that the data collected by EPA “should not be prematurely used as a line of evidence” supporting the claim that the EPA made; namely, that oil and gas activity caused chemical migration into groundwater.

On a more fundamental, even the EPA said its draft findings regarding Pavillion’s water quality “should not be assumed to apply to fracturing in other geologic settings” – which is exactly what the Sierra Club is trying to do!

–

Read the full comments here.

*UPDATE II* New Study Debunks Cornell GHG Paper. Again.
Earlier this year, researchers from Cornell University -- Robert Howarth and Anthony Ingraffea -- released a study that found emissions from shale gas production are worse than coal, based chiefly on the global warming potential (GWP) of methane. Of course, the study had more holes in it than big slice of Swiss cheese (read EID's six-times-updated rebuttal here), with its conclusions resting on such a poor foundation that even a Sierra Club funded study found its premises to be flawed.

Steve
Spokesman

UPDATE II (9/17/2012, 3:49pm ET): A new report for the European Union examining the potential climate impact from shale gas development further marginalizes the Howarth/Ingraffea thesis, concluding that shale gas has “significantly” lower emissions than coal when burned for electricity.

Some studies, which have received a lot of media attention, have concluded that the lifecycle GHG emissions from shale gas may be larger than conventional natural gas, oil, or coal when used to generate heat and viewed over the time scale of 20 years (Howarth et al, 2011). However the majority of studies suggest that emissions from shale gas are lower than coal, but higher than conventional gas, based on other assumptions.

…

In our analysis, emissions from shale gas generation are significantly lower (41% to 49%) than emissions from electricity generated from coal. This is on the basis of methane having a 100 year GWP of 25. This finding is consistent [with] most other studies into the GHG emissions arising from shale gas.

The Europeans may drive on the wrong side of the road, but facts are still facts.

UPDATE (11/3/2011, 5:02 pm ET): A new study from the Department of Energy’s National Energy Technology Lab casts even more doubt on the Cornell study. A presentation of the study comes to the following conclusion: “Average natural gas baseload power generation has life cycle GHG emissions 53% lower than average coal baseload power generation” (p. 36). All forms of natural gas scored significantly lower on GHG emissions than coal-powered generation.

And what about the infamous 20-year time for global warming potential (GWP), which Dr. Howarth deemed “critical” for making a proper environmental impact assessment? NETL concludes: “Average natural gas baseload power generation has life cycle GHG emissions 42% lower than average coal baseload power generation on a 20-year time horizon” (p. 37). Once again, all forms of natural gas score lower than coal, even on the 20-year time frame.

—Original post: October 26, 2011—

Maryland joins Carnegie Mellon, Wood Mackenzie, and even U.S. Dept. of Energy in locating gaping holes in Howarth/Ingraffea paper

Earlier this year, researchers from Cornell University — Robert Howarth and Anthony Ingraffea — released a study that found emissions from shale gas production are worse than coal, based chiefly on the global warming potential (GWP) of methane. Of course, the study had more holes in it than big slice of Swiss cheese (read EID’s six-times-updated rebuttal here), with its conclusions resting on such a poor foundation that even a Sierra Club funded study found its premises to be flawed.

Yet the Cornell study continues to be used by ideological opponents of shale gas production, not just in the United States but also in Canada. Which is why we feel it’s imperative to highlight that yet another top-notch study — this one from researchers at the University of Maryland — is pushing the Cornell paper even closer to the ash bin of history.

The new study, entitled “The Greenhouse Impact of Unconventional Gas for Electricity Production,” has many noteworthy conclusions, including:

“GHG impacts of shale gas are…only 56% that of coal” {p. 1}
“Methane has the ability to trap large amounts of infrared radiation relative to CO₂, but it also has a comparatively shorter lifetime in the atmosphere. As a result, methane’s 100 y GWP is much lower than its 20 y GWP.” {p. 5}
“Two factors lead to an overall carbon intensity advantage for gas during the combustion stage. First, gas releases more energy per unit of carbon emitted. Second, the technology used for combustion of gas is more thermodynamically efficient than that used for coal, enabling a larger amount of chemical potential energy in the fuel to be converted to electricity.” {p. 5}
“[A]rguments that shale gas is more polluting than coal are largely unjustified.” {p. 8}
“[W]e have demonstrated that the fugitive emissions from the [shale gas] drilling process are very likely not substantially higher than for conventional gas.” {p. 8}
“Evaluated solely on the criterion of GHG emissions from electricity generation, shale gas is not likely to be substantially more polluting than conventional gas.” {p. 8}

And as we said, this most recent study is only the latest to join the party. But don’t just take our word for it…

August 2011, Carnegie Mellon Univ. report on life cycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from Marcellus shale production:

“The GHG emission estimates shown here for Marcellus gas are similar to current domestic gas.”
“For comparison purposes, Marcellus shale gas adds only 3% more emissions to the average conventional gas, which is likely within the uncertainty bounds of the study. Marcellus shale gas has lower GHG emissions relative to coal when used to generate electricity.”
Lead researcher Paula Jaramillo (an ‘energy expert,’ according to ProPublica): “We don’t think they’re using credible data and some of the assumptions they’re making are biased. And the comparison they make at the end, my biggest problem, is wrong.” (as quoted by POLITICO [subs. req'd], Aug. 24, 2011)

August 2011, Worldwatch Institute study points out how Howarth and Ingraffea are the exception, not the rule:

“Despite differences in methodology and coverage, all of the recent studies except Howarth et al. estimate that life-cycle emissions from natural gas-fired generation are significantly less than those from coal-fired generation on a per MMBtu basis.” (p. 9)

June 2011, Cornell Univ. professor Lawrence M. Cathles [report submitted for publication]:

“[Ingraffea’s and Howarth's] analysis is seriously flawed in that they significantly overestimate the fugitive emissions associated with unconventional gas extraction…”
“[T]he assumptions used by Howarth et al. are inappropriate and…their data, which the authors themselves characterize as ‘limited’, do not support their conclusions.”

May 2011, U.S. Dept. of Energy report: Emissions from natural gas are low compared to other fuels.

“Howarth [and Ingraffea] found a large fraction of produced gas from unconventional wells never made it to end users, assumed that all of that gas was vented as methane, and thus concluded that the global warming impacts were huge. As the [Dept. of Energy] work explains, though, 62% of that gas isn’t lost at all – it’s ‘used to power equipment.’” (CFR blog, May 20, 2011)

May 2011, Wood Mackenzie study “Methane Emissions from Unconventional Well Completions”

“Our analysis indicates that the Cornell study overestimated the average volume of natural gas vented during the completion and flowback stages by 60-65%. We conclude that the Cornell study overestimated the impact of emissions during well completions by up to 90%.”

Howarth “used obsolete data and considerably overestimated Haynesville emissions that contributed to the overestimation of vented methane.”

May 2011, Navigant Energy Practice, “How does the Howarth team’s report affect natural gas development?”

“[T]he report concludes that the average well [in the Haynesville Shale] spits 250 million cubic feet of methane into the sky. That’s about a million and a half dollars’ worth of gas at today’s prices. … I have to wonder whether the authors have ever seen a working drilling / fracturing operation.”

May 2011, Global Warming Policy Foundation, “The Shale Gas Shock“

“[Howarth’s conclusion] requires unrealistic assumptions about: the quantity of methane that leaks during fracking, production and transport; the lack of methane leaks from coal mines; the residence time of methane in the atmosphere; and the greenhouse warming potential of methane compared with carbon dioxide. … And Howarth gets his numbers on high gas leakage from shale gas wells from unreliable sources, his numbers on gas leakage from pipelines from long Russian pipelines, and assumes that ‘lost and unaccounted for gas‘ is actual leakage rather than partly an accounting measure. He also fails to take into account the greater generating efficiency of gas than coal.” (p. 30)

John Hanger, former head of the Pennsylvania Dept of Env. Protection:

“Professor Horwath’s conclusion that gas emits more heat trapping gas than carbon flies in the face of numerous life cycle studies done around the world.” (April 12, 2011)
“Professor Horwath just adopted an extreme and false assumption of no flaring that conveniently moved the result of his life cycle analysis in the direction that he wanted.” (April 12, 2011)
“Bit by bit the Howarth study is being consigned to the junk heap.” (Aug. 25, 2011)

Natural Resources Defense Council’s Dan Lashof rejects the Cornell study’s use of a 20-year time frame:

“Moreover, while I can see an argument for using a time horizon shorter than 100 years, I personally believe that the 20-year GWP is too short a period to be appropriate for policy analysis because it discounts the future too heavily. I calculate that over a 50 year period, the GWP of methane would be in the range of 42-56, based on the IPCC and the Shindell et al. analyses.”

And, just as a refresher, here are Howarth and Ingraffea discussing the flaws of their own paper:

Howarth: “They are limited data. These are not published data. These are things teased apart out of PowerPoint presentations here and there. So rather than try to extrapolate based on any complicated formula, we’ve ended up simply taking the mean of those values.” (Howath presentation to colleagues, 22:30, March 15, 2011)
Howarth: “A lot of the data we used are really low quality, but I’m confident that they are the best available data.” (38:50)
Howarth: “Let me just as an aside say that, again, the quality of the data behind that number [methane emissions during well completion] are pretty lousy. You know, they’re these weird PowerPoint sort of things.” (44:15)
Ingraffea: “We are basing this study on in some cases questionable data.” (38:20)
Ingraffea: “I hope you don’t gather from this presentation that we think we’re right.” (57:15)
Howarth: “We did not look as carefully at coal. … We didn’t put anywhere near the amount of effort into them [coal numbers], but I’m sure they are lower than natural gas.” (39:10 – 40:08)

“Shale emissions better than coal – study” (E&E News [subs. req'd], 10/25/2011)
EID fact check: Ithaca Is Gorges, But its Position on Hydraulic Fracturing is the Pits
Council on Foreign Relations: Picking apart the Howarth study
Fmr PA DEP Director John Hanger: Key Quotations From IHS CERA Debunking of Howarth

Shale’s Latest Beneficiary? Hydrogen Fuel Cells
We've heard a lot about what the development of natural gas from shale is doing for the American economy: hundreds of thousands of jobs, lower prices for consumers, and a rebirth of domestic manufacturing. But now experts say shale will also facilitate the creation of a cutting edge technology: hydrogen fuel cells.

We’ve heard a lot about what the development of natural gas from shale is doing for the American economy: hundreds of thousands of jobs, lower prices for consumers, and a rebirth of domestic manufacturing.

But now experts believe that the abundant natural gas supplies in the United States will facilitate the creation of a technology that even Energy Secretary Steven Chu – winner of the Nobel Prize in Physics for 1997 – had once believed was “unlikely” to be developed: hydrogen fuel cells.

How is that, though? The U.S. Department of Energy estimates that 95 percent of hydrogen produced in the United States comes from natural gas. Just a few years ago – when the United States was considered to be on the cusp of a severe natural gas shortage – there was little reason to believe that hydrogen fuel cells would ever be economically viable. As late as 2009, Secretary Chu was arguing that the technology faced severe cost limitations, noting specifically the need to process hydrogen from natural gas.

But as they say: that was then, this is now.

Thanks to advances in (and the increased application of) proven technologies like hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling, natural gas development in the United States has grown substantially in recent years to record highs. This increased supply has lowered the price of natural gas, which naturally benefits consumers as well as manufacturers who use gas as a major source of energy or primary feedstock.

Which is why the U.S. Department of Energy now believes fuel cells are worth a second look. As Energy Department spokesman Bill Gibbons said:

“The development of America’s tremendous shale gas resources is also helping to reduce the costs of producing hydrogen and operating hydrogen fuel cells…The cost of hydrogen production alone can be cut in half based on earlier projections.”

A representative from Honda North America – which will begin commercial production of fuel cell cars in just a few years – has cited Secretary Chu’s “evolution” on the issue, adding that the Secretary now “appreciates to a greater extent” the possibilities of widespread fuel cell adoption.

Just one more example of how natural gas development – particularly from shale – is benefiting the American economy through increased innovation and technological advancement.

Baker Institute to Russia’s Energy Monopoly: ‘If It Dies, It Dies’

In the biggest blow to Russia’s global power since the Italian Stallion landed an epic left-handed haymaker on Ivan Drago’s face, a new study from the Baker Institute [PDF] finds that America’s shale gas resources will play an enormous role in loosening Russia’s grip on global natural gas markets.

Keep Reading »

Inhofe Reminds Feds that States are in Charge of Hydraulic Fracturing

Last month Energy Department Secretary Steven Chu directed the Secretary of Energy Advisory Board (SEAB) — specifically its Natural Gas Subcommittee — to “make recommendations to improve the safety and environmental performance of natural gas hydraulic fracturing from shale formations.” Those recommendations, according to the official memo sent by Steven Chu on May 5th (PDF), will eventually be shared with the Department of Interior and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

But as U.S. Senator Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) points out in a recent letter to Secretary Chu, the U.S. Department of Energy has stated that it is “not engaged in regulating [hydraulic fracturing],” and the task laid out for the SEAB “does not include making decisions about regulatory policy,” according to Chu’s official May 5th memo. “Based on these statements,” Senator Inhofe writes in his letter to Chu, “can you confirm that any report issued by DOE pursuant to this announcement will not include recommendations relating to the regulation of the hydraulic fracturing process, or any components thereof, whether by DOE or any other Federal agency?”

The question is an important one: Any attempt to sway the opinions of the EPA (or Interior) toward regulating hydraulic fracturing at the federal level would not only compromise the ongoing research inside the EPA regarding this crucial well stimulation procedure, but also upend the incredibly efficient state-based regulation that already exists. Inhofe references this last point directly, noting in his letter that many in Washington are attempting to “expand federal regulatory and permitting power to supplant State authority.”

State regulators, meanwhile, overwhelmingly believe that hydraulic fracturing is environmentally safe and effectively regulated at the state level.

You can read Inhofe’s entire letter by clicking here (PDF).