Home » Posts tagged "Robert Howarth"

Robert Howarth

RFF Survey Destroys Myth of Shale-Specific Risk
To hear opponents of shale development tell it, the combination of horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing is a new and “dangerous” technology – so “inherently risky” and full of threats unique to the process that we should just shut the whole thing down and call it a day. But a recent survey of experts turns this carefully crafted talking point on its head by noting risks associated with developing oil and natural gas from shale are no different than the ones that industry and regulators have been managing well for over 100 years

johnkrohnJD
Communications Director

To hear opponents of shale development tell it, the combination of horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing is a new and “dangerous” technology – so “inherently risky” and full of threats unique to the process that we should just shut the whole thing down and call it a day.

The talking point about shale as being new and different and inherently unsafe is actually part of a sophisticated messaging strategy by activists to separate in folks’ minds the relatively uncontroversial act of drilling an oil well with the virtually identical act of drilling an oil well and then turning the drill bit horizontally. Technically, they may be the same. But because the public isn’t scared of vertical wells, opponents have worked very hard to convince them that shale is an entirely different enterprise – and a much scarier one than they may think. To wit:

“Fracking has been around for decades, but the techniques, technologies and chemicals used to reach new, remote gas reserves are more intensive and riskier than conventional gas drilling.” – Food and Water Watch, the case for a ban on gas fracking

“This approach is far bigger and riskier than the conventional fracking of earlier years.”  - Cornell study author Robert Howarth, “Should fracking stop?” (Nature, September 15, 2011)

“In January, I will introduce legislation to create a statutory moratorium on all fracking activity in Maryland. This moratorium will stay in place until and unless we have a science-based review of all the safety risks involved.” – Maryland State Del. Heather Mizuer (D), “No study? No fracking” (Baltimore Sun, September 12, 2012)

“Fracking,” or hydraulic fracturing, is a dangerous drilling technique that endangers our state’s water, air, wildlife and public health. – Center for Biological Diversity, California protect yourself from a fracking explosion

“Everyday the facts of fracking become clearer. The process is inherently contaminating, and no amount of regulation can make it safe for people living near or downriver from it.” – Josh Fox, “Ban fracking now” (USA TODAY, May 6, 2011)

But what if the risks associated with developing oil and natural gas from shale were no different than the ones that industry and regulators have been managing well for over 100 years now in the context of traditional vertical oil and gas development? What would that do the opposition’s talking point?

Well, could be we’re about to find out. Earlier this month, the environmental research group Resources for the Future – certainly no shill for oil and gas – released a survey of experts’ opinions on the “risks” associated with developing oil and natural gas from shale.  In the end, experts with varying backgrounds identified 12 consensus items of concern, the vast majority of which, the experts declared, not only weren’t unique to shale – but not even unique to oil and gas development in general.

According to RFF director Alan Krupnik, “only 2 of the consensus risks identified by the experts are unique to the shale gas development process … The remaining 10 consensus risks relate to practices common to gas and oil development in general, such as the construction of roads, well pads, and pipelines and the potential for leaks in casing and cementing.”

In case you were wondering, the two risk activities RFF identified as being unique to shale were “the storage of fracing fluids onsite before they’re used and after they flow back.” Of course, that’s not technically accurate either, as plenty of vertical, non-shale wells are also fracture stimulated every day and thus generate wastewater that needs to be properly managed on site. But hey, at least they’re trying!

For just one example of how the “unique” risks from shale are already being addressed, look no further than the industry’s use of closed-loop drilling systems.  These systems reduce impacts to the environment by completely separating waste materials where development takes place and capturing drill cuttings, flowback fluids and other materials at the point of extraction. Those materials are then channeled directly to sealed containment systems.  Even well-known (if lightly regarded) anti-energy groups such as Earthworks have stated that closed-loop systems “isolate waste products from the environment” and “can greatly reduce or eliminate the discharge of toxic drilling wastes on site.”

For these reasons, regulators across the country have recognized the technology as an approved “best management practice,” and many states require their implementation.  As a result, the use of closed-loop systems has increased significantly in states like Texas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Alaska, Pennsylvania, New Mexico and Ohio – just to name a few. Cabot Oil and Gas uses the technology in all of its operations. Chesapeake Energy uses the technology extensively in its Utica and Marcellus Shale operations, as does Chief Oil and Gas – among many others.

The fact that currently available technology is already being used to reduce and manage risk is, everyone can agree, very good news – especially when you combine it with the fact that water recycling is also being used increasingly nationwide. Recent reports highlight that operators in the Marcellus, as one example, are using water recycling to treat over 90 percent of the water used in their operations.  Additionally, a recent study from Duke found that natural gas development from shale produces less wastewater than so-called “conventional” wells on a per-unit basis.  These factors not only reduce the likelihood of spills from the storage of fracturing fluid additives and flowback on-site, but also significantly reduce the freshwater needed to fracture a well – another common concern listed by the experts polled.

Taken together, a pretty clear picture emerges: shale development utilizing hydraulic fracturing is not a “new” and “dangerous” technology with unknown and unmanageable risks.  Rather, the risks are well-understood, carefully managed and tightly regulated. In fact, the only risks “unique to shale development” – notwithstanding that they’re not actually unique — are being addressed effectively by industry and state regulations.

In the end, the RFF survey confirms what most objective observers already recognize: Shale development, which is made possible through the combined use of hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling (among many other things) doesn’t pose unique risks to the public, but does provide unique benefits – like jobs, revenue and opportunity for places and people that can certainly use the boost.

MIT Report Takes Square Aim at Howarth’s “Unreasonable” Inputs
A new paper by two experts at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and published in the journal Environmental Research Letters suggests that Cornell professor (and activist) Robert Howarth’s thesis about greenhouse gas emissions from shale is even more irreconcilably divorced from the facts than was previously thought.

Steve
Spokesman

 

A new paper by two experts at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and published in the journal Environmental Research Letters suggests that Cornell professor (and activist) Robert Howarth’s thesis about greenhouse gas emissions from shale is even more irreconcilably divorced from the facts than was previously thought.

The MIT paper — coauthored by one of the lead authors of the forthcoming Fifth Assessment Report of the IPCC — is appropriately titled “Shale gas production: potential versus actual greenhouse gas emissions.” As many will remember, Dr. Howarth erroneously assumed that every single cubic foot of natural gas that he couldn’t account for was vented into the air as pure methane, contrary to technological realities and regulations requiring at least partial capture (more on that in a minute). You might also remember that Howarth’s paper has been widely panned by the U.S. Department of Energy, various universities, and even his own colleagues at Cornell. Many of these critiques stemmed from Howarth’s unreasonable leakage assumptions, not to mention an inflated global warming potential of methane far above what even the IPCC recommends.

Lo and behold, the new paper finds that the use of existing field technologies and “reduced emission ‘green’ completions” have resulted in actual GHG emissions that are “substantially lower than several widely quoted estimates” – and Cornell’s in particular. As the MIT researchers note:

“Although fugitive emissions from the overall natural gas sector are a proper concern, it is incorrect to suggest that shale gas-related hydraulic fracturing has substantially altered the overall GHG intensity of natural gas production.” (p. 1)

But wait, there’s more.

As we pointed out in our critique of the NOAA study earlier this year — which also claimed methane leakage rates were abnormally high — the current operating environment in Colorado and many other states renders such an assumption useless. Why? Because new regulations have taken hold that require companies to reduce emissions, sometimes by as much as 95 percent. That’s another key point in the MIT report:

“Some of the contemporary analysis on shale gas-related fugitive emissions has not attempted to account for the impact of real world gas handling field practice. For example, in Howarth et al (2011b) it is assumed that all potential fugitive emissions are vented. This is an unreasonable assumption, not least because some producing states have regulation requiring flaring as a minimum gas handling measure.” (emphasis added, p. 4)

Although folks like Howarth want to believe that natural gas operators are venting methane because it’s apparently more profitable to do so (notwithstanding basic rules of economics), the truth is actually the opposite. In its report, MIT actually quantifies several scenarios that show how much money operators would be losing if they vented as much natural gas as Howarth claims in his hypothetical model. Their conclusions suggest an assumption of high leakage does not reflect operational reality. For example:

“If the cost of reduced emission completion is $1000 per day as stated by Devon (2008), 95% of the 2010 Barnett [Shale] wells yielded positive net revenues, i.e. operators added to the value of their wells by capturing the potential fugitive emissions. Even at twice this reported capture cost, $2000 per day, 83% of the 2010 Barnett wells would still [yield] positive net revenues, and this trend is repeated in all the other shale plays.” (p. 4-5)

Activists constantly accuse the industry of being motivated only by “profits” and bottom lines, and they use that reasoning to suggest that operators are venting methane at an alarming rate because it’s cheaper than capturing it. But as with so many other claims made by activists, this line of reasoning reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the industry they so desperately want to malign.

Companies are using green completions and capturing more methane than opponents will ever admit, and the bombshell reason is because it’s not only environmentally responsible to do so, but it also makes very good business sense.

It will never be convenient for opponents to face the scientific reality that developing natural gas from shale is both an environmental and economic boon to the United States, but that shouldn’t preclude the rest of us from enjoying that fact.

*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:

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:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

READ MORE

Debunked: Chesapeake Bay Fdn. “methane leak” video based on invalid analysis
Following an investigation by the Associated Press highlighting several high-profile examples of oil and gas opponents misrepresenting science as part of their campaign against hydraulic fracturing, a short new video released today by EID confirms that a video and letter issued by the Chesapeake Bay Foundation late last year in which the group attacks natural gas development is, according to independent scientists, based on a complete misrepresentation of the facts.

Chris Tucker
Team Lead

Following an investigation by the Associated Press highlighting several high-profile examples of oil and gas opponents misrepresenting science as part of their campaign against hydraulic fracturing, a short new video released today by Energy In Depth (EID) confirms that a video and letter issued by the Chesapeake Bay Foundation (CBF) late last year in which the group attacks natural gas development is, according to independent scientists, based on a complete misrepresentation of the facts.

Last November, CBF issued a press release and video file purporting to show large volumes of methane and other hydrocarbons escaping undetected from natural gas wellsites and compressor stations across Pennsylvania, Maryland and West Virginia – methane CBF says was discovered through the use of infrared camera and confirmed as such by anti-shale activist Robert Howarth, also a professor at Cornell. But according to Dr. Ram Hashmonay, who is credited with co-inventing modern radial plume mapping technology, what Prof. Howarth asserts is leaking methane in the video is actually just heat and exhaust from combustion sources: the same stuff an infrared camera would pick up from the tailpipe of a car.

“It might have taken a couple months to compile this response, but it only took a couple seconds to figure out that what CBF was showing in that video had nothing to do with methane,” said Lee Fuller, EID’s executive director. “Unfortunately, it appears that the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, which otherwise has a pretty good reputation, may have been misled by Howarth, who has seen his own papers on natural gas and GHGs harshly criticized by government scientists, independent analysts, environmental groups, and even his own colleagues at Cornell.”

In the CBF video, Prof. Howarth is shown providing his analysis of FLIR camera footage gathered from 15 wellsites last summer by David Sawyer, a Mass.-based infrared videographer paid by CBF. To hear Howarth tell it, oil and gas operators choose to surreptitiously “vent” large volumes of methane (the same stuff they’re trying to sell) straight into the atmosphere because they’re fearful that alternate means of maintaining safe pressure, such as flaring, would “disturb people.” According to Howarth (0:30 of the video):

When the pressure gets too high, they have to let it go. And yeah, there it is. That’s a lot of [methane] gas flowing out of that one. They have the capability of flaring it, that is: burning it and turning it to carbon dioxide instead of just venting it like this. And from a global climate change perspective, that’s a lot better – because methane is such a potent greenhouse gas. But they don’t like to do it because it draws public attention; it makes a lot of noise, it disturbs people. So they like to just have this venting, which, as you can see, without your fancy FLIR camera, you wouldn’t know they were doing anything at all ther

But as Dr. Hashmonay explains, had the plumes in the CBF video actually been comprised of methane or other hydrocarbons, they would have remained intact and visible long after billowing from the source. Instead, the CBF plumes dissipate into the air almost immediately upon leaving the stack, a clear indication of an exhaust-product from a combustion source. According to Dr. Hashmonay: “I did not see clear clips here that show [anything] that indicates any substantial hydrocarbon leaving any of these sites. … They’re not indicative of any hydrocarbon leaks.”

As part of its research, EID traveled to Ithaca, N.Y. to shoot FLIR camera video of Cornell University’s power plant, a facility that emits plenty of heat, but, best we can tell, very little or no fugitive methane. As expected, the emissions seen coming from the Cornell facility in the EID video are strikingly similar to the ones that CBF presented in its video, which Howarth mistakenly asserts are composed of hydrocarbons. The EID video also includes infrared camera footage of a propane grill and cigarette lighter, which, when shot with FLIR, clearly demonstrate the difference between a plume of unburned hydrocarbons versus a plume of standard combustion exhaust, which is primarily composed of carbon dioxide (CO2) and water vapor.

For its part, a little more than a month after first releasing its video, the Chesapeake Bay Foundation re-wrote its original press release in response to a stream of negative comments. The purpose of the update, according to CBF, was to “make it clear that the [FLIR] images likely include methane and/or other hydrocarbon gases, and that some of the images could include diesel engine emissions” – as if that had been CBF’s position all along (or Howarth’s). In an article published earlier today in the Baltimore Sun, a CBF spokesman declined to “respond in detail” to Dr. Hashmonay’s analysis.

The revelation today of CBF’s erroneous methane video comes on the heels of an explosive Associated Press report late last month detailing several other cases in which professional opponents of oil and natural gas either misused or misrepresented science to advance political ends. In one case, Gasland director Josh Fox asserted that the occurrence of breast cancer in the Dallas/Fort Worth had risen as a result of shale development. In fact, cancer rates in the area have not risen — as confirmed by both the Texas Cancer Registry and the Susan G. Komen Foundation.

Last year, EID guest bloggers Sue Mickley, a Yale-trained public health professional, and Uni Blake, a respected, N.Y.-based toxicologist, published a detailed health profile analysis focused on several of the most heavily drilled counties in North Texas. The pair found that health indicators in the study area actually improved over the past decade, even as the average age of the region’s population increased.

The Re-Education of Bill McKibben
The environmentalist who praised new natural gas development and demanded Congress use as much of the stuff as possible is now teaming up with Gasland director Josh Fox to shut down the natural gas industry? That's quite a flip flop.

One of the biggest hurdles to expanding the responsible development of any form of energy in America – oil, gas, coal, wind, solar, nuclear, wood chips – is dealing with people who prefer endless debate and controversy over real action and workable outcomes. 

Unlike most Americans, who simply want good answers to reasonable questions about where and how they get their energy, some folks have a bigger stake in keeping the argument going than coming up with solutions. Sometimes, the stakes are ideological. Other times, they’re financial. Since controversy tends to attract TV cameras, sometimes vanity is what’s at stake. More often than not, it’s a bit of all three.

Truth be told: we’re not entirely certain of what drives Bill McKibben, the founder of the environmental group 350.org, although we have noticed he’s no stranger to book tours or the speaking circuit. In fact, McKibben has published more than a dozen books and you can request his services as a speaker through the same agency that represents supermodel Claudia Schiffer, TV doctor Sanjay Gupta, zookeeper Jack Hanna, cable news host Al Sharpton and actor-pundit Ben Stein. 

But whatever motivates McKibben, he clearly prefers a good argument to a good solution, based on the way he’s been talking with respect to natural gas recently. 

Our story begins in 2009, when McKibben felt so strongly about the environmental benefits of natural gas that he was willing to go to jail in support of them. According to TIME magazine, McKibben was among the “eco-celebrities” who attended a protest outside the Capitol Power Plant in Washington, D.C. “demanding that the plant switch from coal to natural gas power.” Here’s what McKibben said in the build up to the protest:

 “There are moments in a nation’s—and a planet’s—history when it may be necessary for some to break the law … We will cross the legal boundary of the power plant, and we expect to be arrested.” http://goo.gl/B8EDc

 “[I]t would be easy enough to fix. In fact, the facility can already burn some natural gas instead, and a modest retrofit would let it convert away from coal entirely. … It would even stimulate the local economy.” http://goo.gl/K8TVT

A year later, in 2010, McKibben published a book called “Eaarth” (yes, that’s Earth with two As). In the book, McKibben said he supported natural gas and welcomed the expanded production made possible by horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing in shale: 

“Sometimes the news is a little better … the last year has seen new discoveries of natural gas that could help wean us off dirtier coal.” 

“And lately, at least in the United States, we’ve found some new supplies of natural gas, which is a good “bridge fuel” between dirty coal and clean sun.”

The term “bridge fuel” means two things in the realm of climate-change policy. First, it’s a recognition that gas-fired power plants produce, on average, about half as much carbon dioxide as coal plants, according to EPA. Second, gas-fired plants can also help expand the amount of renewable electricity on the power grid. That’s because they can start up and shut down much more quickly and efficiently than coal plants, providing vital backup power for solar panels and wind turbines, whose intermittent output varies with changes in the weather.

While on his book tour for “Eaarth,” McKibben explained the “bridge fuel” concept this way:

 “At the moment, solar panels are more expensive than coal and will be for a while. … In the transition, we’ll be using a lot of natural gas to make electricity…” http://goo.gl/RnxcQ

Jumping forward to 2012, McKibben is ready once more to put his liberty on the line at a protest about natural gas. This time, the demonstration is planned for mid-June in the halls of the Ohio state legislature in Columbus. Here’s how the organizers are promoting the event:

“[W]e need to shake Columbus with the biggest anti-fracking gathering yet seen in the U.S.”

“[W]e’ll be taking over the Ohio statehouse for a people’s assembly…”

“We used to think that natural gas might be a help in the fight against climate change–but new studies have demonstrated … it may be just as dirty as coal.” http://goo.gl/s77Cy

Wait, what? McKibben, who once risked arrest as a natural gas supporter, is now willing to be jailed as a natural gas opponent? The environmentalist who praised new natural gas development and demanded Congress use as much of the stuff as possible is now teaming up with Gasland director Josh Fox to shut down the natural gas industry?

That’s quite a flip flop. Clearly, McKibben has some ‘splaining to do. Here’s how he justifies his new position on natural gas:

“I was originally encouraged at the thought of major natural gas finds … [but] in the last year I’ve been joining with others to actively oppose fracking.” http://goo.gl/RQTAQ

“Well, even when it’s burned natural gas has a big carbon footprint – not as high as coal, but as the International Energy Agency pointed out, a global energy mix heavy in natural gas would still leave us at 660 parts per million CO2, i.e. Way Too High. Worse, when methane escapes from these fracking operations unburned, that [methane] is a far more potent greenhouse gas than CO2 – and the early science makes it look like lots and lots of methane escapes from these fracking operations, perhaps enough to make them worse than coal mines…” http://goo.gl/WmzTY

How convenient. As environmental activists who oppose natural gas get more and more media attention, McKibben decides that the facts about natural gas have changed – conveniently freeing himself up to join his fellow activists in front of the press photographers, TV cameras and microphones. But the facts haven’t changed. McKibben is just cherry picking numbers and studies in a desperate attempt to cast natural gas as a high-carbon problem, when he very well knows – or at least, should know – that it’s actually a low-carbon solution.

Let’s deal first with the “lots and lots of methane” charge. That’s a reference to the widely discredited Howarth et al study out of Cornell University. Anti-shale activists still cling to this study, which alleges natural gas is more carbon intensive than coal, even though Howarth’s theory has been rejected by EPA, the Department of Energy, other academics – including other Cornell faculty members – former regulators and independent analysts.  Even research supported by environmental groups, including the Sierra Club and the Environmental Defense Fund, confirms that natural gas is much less carbon-intensive than coal. Even McKibben undercuts the Howarth paper by admitting the carbon footprint of gas is “not as high as coal.”

Now, let’s tackle McKibben’s distorted representation of IEA forecasts. The way McKibben tells it, IEA is saying the world needs less gas, not more, to lower GHG emissions. But that’s simply not true. The IEA predicts the world needs 26 percent more natural gas, along with increases in other low-carbon energy sources, to stabilize atmospheric CO2 concentrations at 450 parts per million and limit the worldwide average temperature increase to 2 degrees Celsius:

“In the 450 Scenario, global energy-related CO2 emissions peak before 2020 and then decline… The share of fossil fuels in the global energy mix falls from 81% in 2009 to 62% in 2035. … By contrast, natural gas demand grows by 26%…” (IEA factsheet, p. 2) 

To get around this forecast, McKibben gets creative – opting to manipulate and contort a special “what-if” scenario that’s completely separate from IEA’s regular energy and environmental forecasts. That hypothetical scenario assumes massive increases in worldwide natural gas production (larger than anyone believes are possible) and rules out the possibility of carbon capture and storage (CCS) ever being available as a useable technology. So instead of assuming the construction of between 65 and 130 carbon-capture plants by 2035, as the IEA does in its standard scenario, this scenario pessimistically assumes zero will be built: 

“Widespread deployment in gas applications for power generation and industry of technologies, such as carbon capture and storage (CCS), has the potential to reduce emissions from gas consumption significantly in the long term, which could result in stabilization at lower levels, but [the scenario] does not allow for this…” (IEA report, p. 120)

That would be big news to the Obama administration, which is working on as many as 10 carbon-capture demonstration projects at present: 

“Up to ten integrated CCS demonstration projects supported by DOE are intended to begin operation by 2016 in the United States. These demonstrations will integrate current CCS technologies with commercial-scale power and industrial plants to prove that they can be permitted and operated safely and reliably.” (White House CCS report, p. 10)

It would be even bigger news to the folks in Beulah, North Dakota, who work at a plant that’s capturing carbon dioxide right now, today:

“Dakota Gas captures and sells CO2 produced at the plant to two customers and transports it through a 205-mile pipeline to Saskatchewan, Canada, to be used for enhanced oil recovery in the Weyburn and Midale fields. The first CO2 was sent to Canada in October 2000.” http://goo.gl/dRHgg

But even under the pessimistic scenario that McKibben relies on, IEA still says the world needs more natural gas to bring down GHG emissions: 

“[N]atural gas has an important role to play in complementing low-carbon energy solutions by providing the flexibility needed to support a growing renewables component in power generation.” (IEA report, p. 43)

So, according to the IEA, the U.S. and the rest of the world needs more natural gas, not less, to cut GHG emissions and add large numbers of solar panels, wind turbines and other low-carbon electricity sources to the power grid. Sound familiar? It should, because that’s what McKibben said he believed – and what he was willing to be arrested for – back in 2009. He restated that belief in his 2010 book, and still again on the publicity tour for that book. 

But that was before environmental activists grew bored with the talking points they cribbed from Al Gore’s 2006 movie, “An Inconvenient Truth,” and found in Gasland a new way to demonize the energy development that supports the American way of life (which they despise). These days, the really inconvenient truth is that America has an abundant, affordable supply of natural gas which will bolster the nation’s energy security and is already cutting GHG emissions from the nation’s power plants.

Sadly, environmentalists who accept these facts now find it harder to grab headlines, get their face on TV, raise money, secure research grants, or even sell books. The path of least resistance, and greatest reward, is pandering to the most extreme voices of the environmental movement. 

Times change, and apparently McKibben has decided he must change with them. But the facts have not changed – they’re still the facts. In a rational world, that would matter. In McKibben’s world, though, it’s all about McKibben.

*UPDATE* Cornell Veterinarians Go Into “Beast Mode” on Shale
When it comes to the issue of responsibly developing oil and natural gas resources from shale, we’ve seen a lot of wacky things come out of Ithaca, New York over the past couple years. So it was no surprise when a pair of veterinarians associated with Cornell wrote an article attacking shale development...

UPDATE (4/6/2012, 1:15pm ET): Some intrepid research by the EID team has uncovered a meaningful critique of the Bamberger-Oswald paper, and the source is no slouch: Dr. Ian Rae, a professor at the University of Melbourne in Australia and a Co-chair of the Chemicals Technical Options Committee for the United Nations Environment Programme, says the paper is “an advocacy piece” that suffers from poor referencing, and the authors themselves “cannot be regarded as experts” in the field in which they are commenting. Rae’s full comments about the paper can be found here, but we’ve excerpted the most significant items below:

—Original post from January 11, 2012—

When it comes to the issue of responsibly developing oil and natural gas resources from shale, we’ve seen a lot of wacky things come out of Ithaca, New York over the past couple years.

The primary recipient of millions of dollars every year of anti-shale advocacy provided by the Park Foundation (also based in Ithaca), Cornell University has become to anti-energy activists what “Linebacker U” was once to Penn State — with the debunked-ad-nauseum Howarth paper on shale emissions serving as the movement’s main playbook. Ithaca also happens to be the place from which outlets like the New York Times pull “data” on mineral leasing, notwithstanding the fact that no actual Marcellus development even takes place there.

So it was no surprise when a pair of veterinarians associated with Cornell wrote an article attacking shale development for its supposed link to animal health impacts. (One of the authors, Robert Oswald is a professor at Cornell’s College of Veterinary Medicine; the other, Michelle Bamberger, received her doctorate from Cornell.)

Now, needless to say, we don’t have any bones to pick with veterinarians, and in fact the scientific research they provide on a daily basis is without question critical to us better understanding the natural world (plus, we love dogs). But the authors here did not produce a scientific assessment, a fact they freely admit in their article. Instead, Oswald and Bamberger chose to highlight a handful of personal testimonials that cannot be independently assessed or verified because they decided to keep all relevant details anonymous. Thus, we’re left with a 27-page unscientific article making bold assertions about oil and gas development, without a single shred of data or independent corroboration to back any of it up.

While the article contains many flaws, we’ve highlighted a few of the key problems below, all of which should raise serious doubts about the “scientific” nature of this particular article.

Calling for a ban on responsible oil and gas development without any scientific basis? Wait, we’ve heard this one before…

Again, those interested in the supposed health impacts of developing natural gas from shale should reference this assessment from October, in which two public health professionals studied conditions in the Barnett shale region of north Texas. Their conclusion? Even though the area has been one of the highest gas producing regions of the country, “key indicators of health improved across every major category.” That followed a study from last summer for the city of Fort Worth which “did not reveal any significant health threats” from shale development.

There They Go Again: Latest Cornell Paper Just More of the Same
It was touted by their PR consultants in a media advisory sent around this week as “a major new paper” in response to the mountain of criticism that has accumulated since the release of their initial study last April (that is, after the first one the year before was retracted).

It was touted by their PR consultants in a media advisory sent around this week as “a major new paper” in response to the mountain of criticism that has accumulated since the release of their initial study last April (that is, after the first one the year before was retracted). But read through the “new” document released by Cornell professors Robert Howarth and Anthony Ingraffea on Thursday, and you quickly come to the following realization: Not only don’t these guys offer a credible response to any of their critics, they don’t even acknowledge that they exist.

Last April, EID took the lead on pointing out some of the more obvious errors in the Cornell GHG report, eventually (and happily!) making way for the cavalcade of academics, government agencies and even environmental groups that followed – each one successively identifying a new and seemingly more obvious and/or egregious miscalculation that, taken on its own, would render the entire thesis unacceptable.

Of course, because none of those basic errors were either corrected or acknowledged in the latest iteration of the Howarth paper, there’s just not a whole lot of new material for us to rebut. Still, a couple of points are probably worth making for those genuinely interested in understanding what’s going on here.

Point #1: The “new” Howarth paper attempts to justify its previous conclusions based on what it says are “new” emissions data from EPA.

The problem?

Point #2: Just like last time, Howarth et al. assume that virtually all methane produced during the “flowback” phase of operations is simply vented into the atmosphere – not captured or burned.

The problem?

Point #3: Howarth and his team refuse to acknowledge that their previous assumptions on lost-and-unaccounted for gas were incorrect, even in the face of a direct response/refutation by the U.S. Department of Energy.

The problem?

Given the lack of substantive response to these and several other important points highlighted in the Cathles paper, it’s understandable that Howarth and his team didn’t receive quite the same volume and intensity of press coverage this time around relative to their first effort back in April.

Unfortunately, though, much of the coverage they did get seeks to advance the simple narrative that this whole thing is just a friendly dust-up among faculty at Cornell – with Howarth and Ingraffea on one side, and Cathles, Larry Brown and Andrew Hunter on the other. This Bloomberg lede is typical of the approach: “Two groups of Cornell University researchers have split over the contribution to global warming by rising extraction of natural gas from shale beds through a process known as fracking.” (Bloomberg, Jan. 20, 2012)

Of course, the reality of the situation is quite a bit different. Actually, it’s Howarth and Ingraffea on one side, and the rest of the intelligent world on the other. In the nine months since their initial paper was published, detailed responses have been compiled and released by no fewer than a dozen separate academic, government and non-governmental institutions (a quick list of those is available here and here). In a study commissioned by the Sierra Club, one researcher even went so far as to call the Howarth data biased: “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.”

Of course, over on Planet Ithaca, not only don’t any of these criticisms hold merit – according to the Cornell research team, they don’t even exist. In an online chat hosted by the Syracuse Post-Standard in September, Prof. Ingraffea provided the following answer when asked how he’s dealing with the all the controversy that his paper has engendered: “We have not received any of what we would consider intense peer criticism.” Which we guess is true. Just so long as you continue to believe it.

Another “Peak” Performance
It’d be easy to analogize the small group of analysts who continue to believe the world is imminently running out of oil and natural gas to the stranded Imperial Japanese soldiers who, upon being discovered in the jungles of Guam and Indonesia in the 1970s, refused to accept that the second World War had decades earlier come to a close.

It’d be easy to analogize the small group of analysts who continue to believe the world is imminently running out of oil and natural gas to the stranded Imperial Japanese soldiers who, upon being discovered in the jungles of Guam and Indonesia in the 1970s, refused to accept that the second World War had decades earlier come to a close.

Easy – but not entirely accurate. One of the key differences between these two groups is that the media actually take seriously the serial skepticism of the first, often parroting with QED-certainty the notion that America has only “three percent” of the world’s oil, for example, notwithstanding a growing and increasingly definitive body of evidence indicative of an American resource base of enormous, potentially even singular proportions.

But if you take a closer look at the arguments that undergird the peak-oil philosophy, you find an interesting and under-reported aspect that lies at its core: In most cases, these folks don’t actually argue that the world is physically short on oil and natural gas. They argue that these resources, even if they do in fact exist, can’t be produced economically over the long-term. Of course, whether the energy isn’t there or is — and just can’t be developed under a reasonable cost scenario – the skeptics often arrive at the same conclusions: we’re running out of the stuff, they say — at least the “easy” stuff — and thus need to restructure our entire economy in anticipation of that crash.

Thanks to the emergence of “tight” oil and natural gas reserves as an important source of U.S. fossil energy, though, the peak energy community finds itself today back on the defensive side of the ball. Plainly put, these guys simply weren’t prepared (in truth, were any of us?) for what would become possible virtually overnight, with plays such as the Haynesville going from a daily yield of precisely zero BCF in 2007 to more than 5.5 BCF a day today. In 2005, Pennsylvania produced less than 0.5 BCF a day despite drilling 3,600 new wells. In 2011, only 2,800 new wells were drilled – and only about half of them were actually brought online. And despite all that, the state produced more than 3.0 BCF a day of natural gas in 2011. Six times the volume of 2005, with 23 percent fewer wells drilled – all thanks to the Marcellus.

Of course, you won’t find any of this data in the article that appeared this week on Slate.com. The thesis of that piece, written by peak-oil exponent Chris Nelder – co-author of an entire book on all the great investment opportunities that will exist someday soon in a world without oil — is that projections of abundance associated with the development of natural gas from shale are overblown. In support of that position, he borrows heavily from the playbook of peak-oil analyst Arthur Berman, someone well known within the industry prior to this year, but whose status got a major boost this summer after The New York Times ran his research (and his quotes) on its front-page.

If you’ve never seen Mr. Berman present on this subject before, you don’t know what you’re missing. We had the privilege to sit right alongside him in a forum on shale organized last April by Cornell’s law school – and as this video will confirm (start at hour three), he’s very good at what he does. After his piece hit in the Times, we also had a chance to chat with him on the phone. He’s a good guy, and a smart guy. We think he’s wrong about shale. But the good news is: we won’t have to wait but two or three years to figure out who’s right.

As far as Berman’s argument goes, it tends to look a little like this: Data collected from the Barnett over the past 15 years suggests that not all shale wells are created equal; that some produce well-below their expected ultimate recovery (EUR) rates; and that optimistic projections about shale’s future contributions to U.S. energy supply will never be realized, in part because of the clash between low natural gas prices and high drilling and completion costs, and in part because the wells themselves, he argues, tend to peter-out after the first few years of production. Paradoxically, Mr. Berman appears to argue both that new shale wells won’t be productive, and that natural gas prices will remain at their historic lows. How both can be true, we’re not entirely certain of.

Unfortunately for the peak-oil crowd, these arguments tend to unravel pretty quickly when the scope of inquiry is broadened out to account for the performance of other shale plays (which isn’t to pay short shrift to the Barnett, which, at 5.0 BCF a day, is currently averaging more natural gas per month than at any point in its history). Notable in his Slate.com article, Nelder flatly ignores the volumes currently being produced in the Haynesville and Marcellus regions – suggesting that these plays aren’t sufficiently “mature,” and thus shouldn’t be included in his analysis.

But Art Berman hasn’t ignored the Haynesville. And to his credit, he’s been good enough to admit that his initial assessments of the play weren’t quite right, sort of. In April 2009, Berman wrote that it was “difficult to imagine that the Haynesville Shale can become commercial.” Only two months later, in June, Berman had changed his tune, saying that “I now think that the Haynesville Shale reserve estimates that I presented previously were too low.” Still, in a 2010 article, Berman suggested the Haynesville numbers were “disappointing.” In March 2011, the Haynesville became the top-producing onshore natural gas field in the United States, and now stands among the top five producing fields in the entire world. What a disappointment.

Despite holding firm to a less-than-sanguine view on the potential abundance of natural gas from shale, Nedler writes in his piece this week that “I am not anti-gas; neither is Berman.” And on that, we take a man at his word. Indeed, Berman wrote an entire post this summer laying out the reasons he supports the continued deployment of hydraulic fracturing.

But hey, it certainly didn’t escape our notice that this year’s annual conference of ASPO-USA (the trade association for peak-oil enthusiasts) in November hosted a panel discussion — moderated by Berman himself — featuring a who’s who line-up of anti-shale activists, including NRDC’s Amy Mall, Rob Jackson from Duke, and Tony Ingraffea and Bob Howarth from Cornell. ASPO member Roger Bezdek also presented at that conference; we had the pleasure of debating him in Miami back in Dec. 2010 (note: December in Miami > December in Washington). Peak oil guys like to say they’re not “anti-gas” – but Bezdek’s presentation, found on page 52 of this document, certainly seems to suggest otherwise, wouldn’t you say?!

Here’s the thing:  There’s nothing wrong with being a contrarian. Nothing wrong, or nefarious, or illegitimate, with offering up an alternative view on what the history might hold for shale. But there’s a big difference between forecasting that something won’t happen and actively working to ensure it doesn’t.

For those who continue to advance the view that natural gas from shale won’t pan-out as planned, professional reputations are at stake. To “win” this particular argument, peak energy proponents need the geology to turn out bad (that is, for oil and natural gas not to exist), or for the oil and natural gas that does exist to remain right where it is in the ground.

If these folks were confident of the first outcome, they wouldn’t need to involve themselves in the second. But they’re not. Which may be why you’re starting to see folks like Art Berman, a climate change skeptic, appear alongside environmentalist activists committed to stopping the development of shale wherever it’s being considered. At first glance, it would appear an unlikely association. But though the philosophies may differ, the end-goal of both groups is the same. To environmentalists, abundant natural gas from shale is a threat to renewables. And for the peakers, it’s a threat to the credibility of their prognostications. It’s really as simple as that.

So: Will the experts’ projections on shale end up translating into the type of real-world abundance that could help our country create thousands of family-supporting jobs, generate billions in taxpayer revenue, and deliver significant annual cost-savings to consumers? We hope it does, but we don’t know. Some in the peak energy community, it can be assumed, hope it doesn’t. But they don’t know either. If the point of the Slate article is to confirm this uncertainty, mission accomplished. But weren’t we all aware of that before the piece even ran?

Lights Out: Sierra Club-Funded Study Finally Puts Discredited Cornell Paper to Bed

Lead CMU researcher: “We don’t think they’re using credible data and some of the assumptions they’re making are biased”

Flashback

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

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

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

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

Dueling research converges on gas

By Talia Buford
POLITICO (subs. req’d)
August 24, 2011

“Carnegie Mellon assistant researcher Paulina Jaramillo said, the Cornell paper assumed that all pre-produced natural gas is vented, not flared, and if the fugitive emissions were at the rate the Cornell study suggests, natural gas companies would be losing the majority of their product.” …

“We don’t think they’re using credible data and some of the assumptions they’re making are biased,” [Jaramillo] said. “And the comparison they make at the end, my biggest problem, is wrong.” …

Russell Jones, senior economic adviser for American Petroleum Institute, called the Carnegie Mellon study “another solid report consistent with the other reliable reports out there.” He said the study gave a more complete picture of the full life cycle associated with natural gas, and used authoritative data from the Environmental Protection Agency and other sources. …

Ingraffea apparently the last to know: “You can get any answer you want based on modeling and assumptions,” said Anthony Ingraffea, one of the researchers for the Cornell study. “You have to decide who’s righter. Not right. But who’s righter.”

More from Ingraffea/Howarth on their own paper:

READ MORE

*UPDATE VI* Five Things to Know about the Cornell Shale Study

Almost year to the day after first attempt to smear shale gas fails, Howarth and crew back at it again in new report set for release this week

Call it an annual rite of spring for the community of Ithaca, N.Y. – finals, farmer’s markets, and the release of bite-sized “studies” by Cornell professors targeting the discovery, development and use of natural gas. Last spring, Prof. Robert Howarth got the ball rolling, putting out a two-page abstract that earned a splashy write-up in Reuters mere minutes after it was released, but one that was withdrawn quickly thereafter owing to basic errors in the professor’s calculations. Turns out, he didn’t know that methane emissions occurred during the production of coal. Pretty big mistake in a paper that’s supposed to be comparing emissions from coal to those from natural gas, isn’t it?

Once bitten but still not shy, Howarth would release two additional abstracts over the next 10 months. The first one, posted soon after the April version was retracted, ratcheted down its rhetoric quite a bit, suggesting only that coal emissions were “probably quite similar” to those from shale gas. Later this week, Howarth and Prof. Anthony Ingraffea, a rock-mechanics specialist, are set to release their latest iteration of the report – but you’ll be hard pressed to find much circumspection in this one. According to the professors: “Compared to coal, the footprint of shale gas is at least 20 percent greater and perhaps more than twice as great on the 20-year horizon.”

As for the paper itself, it hasn’t even been released yet (we expect a Wednesday publish date) but has still found a way to generate plenty of attention in the press – even nabbing a 27-graph write-up in The New York Times. Against that backdrop, here below: the first five things you need to know about the Cornell report (it probably won’t be the last five):

Thing #1: The study’s conclusions rely almost entirely on the application of a Global Warming Potential (GWP) factor that’s 45 percent higher for natural gas than the one cited by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 2007.

Thing #2: Even the study’s authors admit their data is “lousy.”

Thing #3: Lost-at-sea on L.U.G.

Thing #4: The authors’ estimates on pipeline leakage are based on data and assumptions that are completely irrelevant to the Marcellus Shale.

Thing #5: Could it be possible that – gulp! – politics played at least a small part in the process of assembling/directing this study?

UPDATE: (4/14/11, 10:34 a.m. EST)

Rare day indeed in which we find ourselves quoting NRDC, but specific to the question of Howarth’s use of that sneaky 20-year timeframe as part of his paper, interesting insights from Dan Lashof:

Read the entire post here.

UPDATE II: (4/15/11, 3:45 p.m. EST)

You’re probably not going to even believe this one, so we’re including a link to the video just to prove it’s legit. This clip comes from Wednesday’s evening news broadcast of WICZ-TV in Binghamton, N.Y. In it, Prof. Howarth does his best to explain why producers aren’t doing more to stop methane from leaking from their wells. His answer? Let’s roll the tape:

Howarth: “We’re estimating that almost two percent of the lifetime production of a well is leaked as methane in those first week [sic.] or two following the fracturing.”

Reporter: “Howarth says the gas industry hasn’t bothered to try to stop the gas loss because very little money is at stake.”

Howarth: “That’s right. I’ve calculated that, assuming $4 per million cubic feet, at that price it’s probably about $75 worth of lost gas at the wellhead. So it’s not a big economic loss; it’s a small loss. That’s why industry hasn’t worried about it.”

Read that again: Prof. Howarth just said that two percent of the production of a shale well — over its entire lifetime, remember – apparently only amounts to $75 worth of natural gas. By those calculations, that would put the total lifetime production value of a shale well right around $3,750. Jeez, that’s not a great ROI for a well that cost $5 million to drill, is it?

All kidding aside: Is this guy insane?

UPDATE III: (5/5/11, 8:45 a.m. EST)

The hits just keep on coming against the ill-fated Howarth/Ingraffea paper — that latest? A five minute take-down of the piece by former NY Times energy and environment reporter (but still recognized as an energy and climate mandarin) Andy Revkin, captured here in an online exchange with Abrahm Lustgarten of ProPublica (who, not for nuthin’, isn’t quite as sanguine on the Howarth paper as you might expect). Here below, some key excerpts:

Revkin: “One thing that disturbed me and  some of the scientists I consulted was the big gap in the definitiveness of [Howarth’s] abstract summary and the actual paper.  … I find that they are more value judgments than scientific judgments. As long as that’s expressly clear in the way that something is stated, but sometimes it’s not so clear. That bugs me a little bit.”

More Revkin: “It’s quite clear to me that if you have best practices for getting [natural gas] out of the ground, and I’ve seen them up close, that you can have a very valuable fuel that has a lot of attributes that will be favorable to people in the decades to come. ”

Heck, even Lustgarten himself piles on: “And Howarth, he’s alleging that gas might actually be dirtier than coal. He throws a whole bunch of assumptions into that. And  while it’s an interesting prospect, I don’t know yet if it can be said with any certainty.”

Full clip here.

UPDATE IV: (5/5/11, 12:17 p.m. EST)

Not to pile on here – ‘cuz we’d never think of doing such a thing! – but a new report released just this week by Wood Mackenzie identifies several other significant errors in the Howarth/Ingraffea paper, some of which we ourselves even missed on our first go-around. Below, we include a few key findings and excerpts from the study (we’ll toss up a link too as soon as it migrates from behind its pay-wall):

1)    The paper overestimates the average volume of natural gas vented during the completion and flowback stages by 60-65 percent.

2)    The report does not take into consideration recent industry trends such as green completions.

3)    The report uses “obsolete data” on emissions during well completions, may be off by up to 90 percent.

UPDATE V (5/9/11, 5:26 p.m. EST)

“Is the report wrong? Yes.”

We could end Update V with that, but that would discount all of the other accurate (and entertaining) points Navigant Consulting made on the Howarth study in their May edition of NGMarket notes. Other gems from Navigant’s Rick Smead include:

The Global Warming Policy Foundation jumped in on the facts too, releasing a report entitled The Shale Gas Shock. The author Matt Ridley writes this matter-of-factly:

“[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.”

At this rate, Update VI, VII and VIII may arrive in the next hour or so …

UPDATE VI (5/20/11; 12:45 p.m. EST)

Uh oh: The U.S. Department of Energy appears to have come out with its own detailed debunking of the Cornell paper — released just this week in the form of a PPT. Take a look for yourself here.

READ MORE

ICYMI: Criticism of Cornell shale paper “leaks” out from some unlikely places

Posted April 13th, 2011 by Dave McCabe, atmospheric scientist

Keep Reading »