PSE Study on EDF Greenwashing of Methane
|Views: 155
|Likes: 1
Published by James "Chip" Northrup
Role of methane in global warming
Role of methane in global warming
More info:
Availability:
See more
See less
Page 1 of 5
For Immediate ReleaseSeptember 16, 2013Contact:
Seth B. Shonkoff, PhD, MPHExecutive Director Physicians Scientists & Engineers for Healthy Energy (PSE)(510) 899-9706sshonkoff@psehealthyenergy.org
GAS INDUSTRY STUDY:NEW EDF AND GAS INDUSTRY METHANE EMISSION STUDY IS NOTREPRESENTATIVE OF US NATURAL GAS DEVELOPMENT, NOT THE PROMISEDDEFINITIVE STUDY
The study, “Measurements of Methane Emissions at Natural Gas Production Sites in the UnitedStates” by David T. Allen and colleagues will be published in the Journal,
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
at 3pm EST on Monday, September 16, 2013. TheEnvironmental Defense Fund (EDF) together with many oil and gas companies funded andsupported this research effort.This new study of methane leakage appears fatally flawed. This important research bears directlyon the powerful GHG/global warming effects of methane and thus the implications for regulationand continued widespread development of shale gas. But it has concluded that methane leakageat well sites, selected in time and location by industry participants, is so low as to be nearlytrivial. This is a finding at odds with other researchers’ work that shows much higher rates.Allen and colleagues conclude that upstream (at the well site) methane emissions from thenatural gas industry amount to just 0.42% of gross annual domestic production of associated (oilwells) and non-associated (gas wells) natural gas.
i
However, the study - much like its widely-criticized predecessor, (EPA/GRI 1996)
ii
, which this study seems to closely follow – is based ona small sampling of hydraulically fractured wells which may not adequately represent nationaloil and gas activity and the variability within and across production basins. Furthermore, thefugitive losses reported by Allen and colleagues are 10 to 20 times lower than those calculatedfrom more complete (field-level) measurements. Allen and colleagues do not address this largediscrepancy or even reference these other studies.
Page 2 of 5
Based on the study’s text (supplemental information was not available at the time of this pressrelease), we identified a number of methodological issues - including some of the samecriticisms launched against the EPA/GRI study - that render this study incomplete and problematic in terms of it being representative of well site methane emissions in the real world:1.
The study sites selected are not likely representative of typical gas development
A very small sample size
The study measured emissions from just 489 gas wells and only 27 hydraulic fracturingevents. These measurements represent just 0.11% of the total (conventional andunconventional) gas wells in the United States. EPA/GRI (1996) sampled a similarly smallsubset of the nation’s wells (0.14%).
Non-random choice of sites
The study’s results, much like those of the earlier EPA/GRI (1996) study, are based onevaluations of sites and times selected by the oil and gas industry rather than random andindependent sampling of sites. Thus, this study must be viewed as a best-case scenario, basedupon wells selected by industry, a party undoubtedly interested in a particular outcome (i.e.low methane loss from gas development).As stated in the paper,
“The uncertainty estimate does not include factors such asuncertainty in national counts of wells or equipment and the issue of whether thecompanies that provided sampling sites are representative of the national population.”
Unfortunately, these are exactly the most important parameters on which to base a trulyrepresentative, nation-wide assessment. And it is exactly the many co-authors of the paper who are employed by the gas industry who should have been in best position to know wellcounts, the equipment deployed at each, and whether the very few wells sites they used inthis paper were truly representative.
Type of gas wells sampled for flowback measurements is not clear and the results might say little about shale gas
Geological formation type has a significant impact on methane emissions during post-fracturing flowback. For example, industry data indicate
completion emissions from tight-sand and shale wells may be up to 10 times higher than those of coalbed methane orconventional wells
(Howarth, Santoro et al. 2011;
Pétron, Frost et al. 2012
; Karion, Sweeneyet al. 2013). However, Allen and colleagues do not address this critical point and it is unclear whether the 27 wells sampled during flowback are shale, tight-sand, coalbed methane, or acombination of well types. Based on the wide range of non-captured or flared emissionsreported, it does seem that both lower pressure wells (e.g. coalbed methane) and high pressure wells (e.g. shale) were included in the sampling, yet transparency of the distributionof the sampling across formation types is also omitted. If multiple formation types wereindeed sampled, simply averaging all measurements, without weighting them for differencesin formation type, biases the results.
Page 3 of 5
2.
The study only takes upstream (at the well pad) emissions into account: it is not acomplete life-cycle emissions study
By design, only upstream (at the well pad) emissions were included in this study. Methane isalso emitted as gas travels to consumers through compression, processing, storage,transmission, and distribution sectors (i.e. full lifecycle). Independent scientific research hasindicated that these additional emissions are larger than previously thought (Peischl 2013;Phillips, Ackley et al. 2013). Presumably these other emission sources will be assessed infuture papers, but
it must be clearly understood that emissions reported by Allen andcolleagues in this paper reflect a very small subset of sources at a single stage of a multi-stage industrial process.3.
Ignoring conflicting results in the literatureMethane emission estimates from Allen et al. are substantially lower thanmeasurements taken by independent scientists.
Other published emission studies andmany more underway and presented at national scientific meetings have used techniques thatmeasure field-level emissions and
do not require industry permission to sample
(See asummary of all estimates to date athttp://psehealthyenergy.org/data/PSE_ClimateImpactsSummaryUPDATED_12Sep20132.pdf )
. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has been a veryimportant player in this work, but other labs including many academic institutions have also pursued this line of research.
All of these studies report field-level emissions from naturalgas production that are 10 to 20-fold higher than what Allen and colleagues estimatebased on extrapolated data.
Some of these other studies combine upstream with somemidstream emissions, so more study will be needed to identify contributions from each phase. Nevertheless, methane emissions of this magnitude for only upstream and somemidstream components of the life-cycle should alarm anyone who cares about global climatechange.
A fatal flaw in the study by Allen and colleagues is that they make no attempt to discussthese conflicting results, nor do they even reference these other studies as relevantevidence to uncertainty.
How might one explain this huge discrepancy in measuredemissions?
Possible explanation #1 for discrepancy: industry well selection
While it is possible that the gas industry can produce gas with relatively low associatedemissions at the well site, this is likely not now the norm nationally, regionally, or evenwithin a single production play. It is in the interest of industry to select lower emitting wellsfor sampling. Studies carried out by NOAA and other independent researchers which reportsignificantly higher rates of emissions rely on atmospheric measurements and chemicalanalysis of atmospheric samples to assess emissions across the entirety of a production fieldrather than a small subset of selected wells. As such, these studies are more likely to reflectaccurately real-world emissions from the industry as a whole.
Activity (4)
Filters
1 thousand reads
Reply
dreamwvr added this note
The lethal flaws of gas industry sponsored studies, the EPA published several years ago that billions of cubic feet of fugitive methane gas is released annually via the entire gas fracking processes.
1 hundred reads
dreamwvr liked this
