Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

EPA Report That Lowers Methane-Leak Estimates Further Divides Fracking Camps

Posted by samzenpus on from the good-and-bad dept.

gmfeier writes "The EPA has significantly lowered its estimate of how much methane leaks during natural gas production. This has major implications for the fracking debate, but puts the EPA at odds with NOAA. From the article: 'The scope of the EPA's revision was vast. In a mid-April report on greenhouse emissions, the agency now says that tighter pollution controls instituted by the industry resulted in an average annual decrease of 41.6 million metric tons of methane emissions from 1990 through 2010, or more than 850 million metric tons overall. That's about a 20 percent reduction from previous estimates. The agency converts the methane emissions into their equivalent in carbon dioxide, following standard scientific practice.'"

18 of 127 comments (clear)

  1. Change in Protocol by jasnw · · Score: 2

    They stopped counting methane released by all that fracking flatulance from the industry's employees.

  2. What 2 camps? by slashmydots · · Score: 2, Funny

    They should take all their fracking gear, fracking sell it, and build some fracking wind turbines, solar towers, and solar panel arrays. That's really the only camp out there, assuming everyone allowed to go camping has a basic understanding of chemistry and the atmosphere.

    1. Re:What 2 camps? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Don't worry. The economics of solar and wind will crush gas, natural gas and coal.

    2. Re:What 2 camps? by Blaskowicz · · Score: 2

      But you can't store the power delivered by those turbines, towers and panels. Can't run a truck on it. Nor can you even use the power you get when suddenly wind power dumps a lot of electricity, close to their max power (which is rare btw) whereas the hour before you were getting squat shit from it.

      Barring some ill-defined or expensive solution, all these "renewable" energies require near-line power plants that burn, you name it, frackin' natural gas.

    3. Re:What 2 camps? by mellon · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Of course you can store the power. What an absurd assertion. We may not have the storage set up right now, but it is eminently storable. You can't run a truck on it, but you certainly _can_ run trains on it.

    4. Re:What 2 camps? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      It's imminently storable, but it's not eminently storable. You have no concept of the magnitude of power used in the western world. It's just not plausible with current technology to store enough solar energy for use overnight. There are also some severe scale problems with replacing diesel vehicles with electricity. Large numbers are a bitch, and physics still wins.

    5. Re:What 2 camps? by Dutchmaan · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Why does everyone assume that renewable energy is an all or nothing thing. Think about when the Wright brothers first flew, you'd have people out there saying things like:

      "Yes, let's just transport thousands of people around the world daily on your little flying contraption!" /sarcasm

      The *goal* is to make a system that doesn't rely on depletable resources, especially with a population that is continually expanding... you have to start somewhere.

    6. Re:What 2 camps? by snowjest · · Score: 2

      Yes you can store the power. All you need to do is convert the energy into some other form when the sun is shining and release that energy when it is not. Something like the Dinorwig power station in North Wales, UK. Whilst that was built for something very different, (to supply power for short surge demands), the principle holds for storing renewable power. The reason it isn't currently done for renewable power is because the generators get more money from replacing fossil fuel based power generation, than they would do from shifting mega tonnes of water. If there were no fossil fuel based power generation then that would no longer be true. Burning fracked gas is not an option, the long term cost from global warming will be bigger than huge. As for your truck, all it takes is a bit of imagination. Use overhead power cables on the main routes, like trolley buses do, and then run on batteries for the last few miles to your house (I'm guessing you don't live in the wilds as you have access to the Internet - but then again, maybe you're using satellites)

  3. Industry says don't worry by mspohr · · Score: 3, Insightful

    From the AP article:
    "The EPA said it made the changes based on expert reviews and new data from several sources, including a report funded by the oil and gas industry. But the estimates aren't based on independent field tests of actual emissions, and some scientists said that's a problem."
    So... the industry produced a report which claimed it has really cleaned up its act... and we should believe them?

    --
    I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
    1. Re:Industry says don't worry by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "The EPA said it made the changes based on expert reviews and new data from several sources, including a report funded by the oil and gas industry.

      Note the "several sources" and "a report funded by the oil and gas industry".

      So, no, it's not just an industry report behind this. It might be *gasp* actual science.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    2. Re:Industry says don't worry by jamstar7 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No, not science... just speculation. They specifically said that they didn't measure actual field emissions (that's the science part).

      The EPA didn't. They took somebody's word that they did the measurements and accepted the results on face value. Considering the main thrust of this is from an industry-backed report, I find it very suspicious.

      --
      Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
    3. Re:Industry says don't worry by nametaken · · Score: 2

      So, no, it's not just an industry report behind this. It might be *gasp* actual science.

      Fracking is a bullshit political issue now, not a technology issue. Nobody is interested in real information anymore... only rhetoric.

  4. Less methane? So fracking what? by danaris · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So there's less methane being released. OK, that's good and all--but it still doesn't address the several other really important problems with fracking.

    Like the fact that the toxic chemicals they use to force apart the shale layers are a) basically unknown, b) often left down there, and c) known to be contaminating groundwater in some instances. Or the fact that the gas companies come in, tear up the countryside, create an ecological disaster, make vast amounts of money, and then, when they decide it's no longer worth their time--they just pack up and leave. And the local communities get to deal with the mess for the next 100 years or so.

    The basic problem is that there's insufficient regulation here. Preventing companies from exploiting natural resources for tremendous profit while leaving behind a horrific environmental mess--and, in general, preventing privatized profits with socialized costs--is precisely what regulation is best for. The market not only will not deal with these issues, it cannot. It has no way of taking account of the externalities associated with hydrofracking.

    Put in place some good common-sense regulation of hydrofracking, with enough teeth to make it actually mean something, and then we can talk about allowing it to happen within 100 miles of my house.

    And yes, I live in the northernmost extension of the Marcellus shale in upstate NY, so this issue does affect me personally.

    Dan Aris

    --
    Fun. Free. Online. RPG. BattleMaster.
    1. Re:Less methane? So fracking what? by flyingfsck · · Score: 2

      Ground water for human consumption comes from the upper 100 meters or so. Gas is produced fro a depth of more than 2000 meters. The water down there is undrinkable toxic brine. Adding some more salts to it makes no big difference and it stays down there, it is not produced to the surface.

      --
      Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
    2. Re:Less methane? So fracking what? by sribe · · Score: 4, Informative

      The chemical that they use in fracking is well know. It is very dangerous...

      Oh yeh, the chemical they pump into the ground that my friend delivers is commonly known as dihydrous-oxide..

      Bull. Fucking. Shit. They add all sorts of chemicals into that water before they pump it into the ground.

    3. Re:Less methane? So fracking what? by sribe · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Oh no, not chemicals! The vast, vast majority of what is pumped is water.

      Are you that fucking stupid??? Yes, there's only about 0.5% chemical additives, yes the "vast majority" is water (if you exclude the propants, which are pretty benign). But some of the chemicals are highly toxic, and there's millions of gallons used per fracturing, so you're talking about thousands of gallons of toxic chemicals being pumped into the ground every time.

      Widespread contamination has not been demonstrated, but there is as-yet unquantified risk--and examples of contamination.

      So to say "it's just water" is either gross ignorance, or lying. Maybe I should visit you and offer you a drink, with the assurance that you'll be fine because it's 99.5% water ;-)

    4. Re:Less methane? So fracking what? by sribe · · Score: 2

      Underground gasoline storage tanks are banned????

      Not all of them, just the type prone to leakage.

      I'd better go tell my every gas station in the US, they're got a problem!

      Well, as a matter of fact this was a problem for them. Many smaller stations that did marginal volume were forced out of business.

      As far as your claim that you can't quantify the risks, why don't you try and do so? Here's a hint: It's doable. There are several ways you can do it, either from a geology direction (Hint: what are the characteristics of a hydrocarbon reservoir?) or from a public safety direction (Perhaps deaths and injuries/year? It's not like we don't have a massive amount of field testing from the past two decades.... Just to be fair, do a comparison to a comparison to the technology that cheap gas is reducing, which is coal).

      OK, the question "stupid, or industry shill?" has been answered. There are problems with the industry's claims about the geology, and it's not all replacing coal.

      You should note that I would not advocate for a ban, but rather much stricter oversight, which I'm sure you'll deride as unnecessary.

  5. Drops in buckets by Ol+Biscuitbarrel · · Score: 2

    Gas has been flared in parts of Nigeria for over 40 years, 24/7/365. I've wondered how that stacks up against the more intensive drilling going on in NA. The energy industry does some remarkably odious things outside of the jurisdiction of the developed world.

    I also see that plans are underway for Nigeria to reduce gas flaring to two per cent by 2014, and supposedly they've already gone from 30% in 2010 to only 11% now, so they're on their way to making this a moot point/non-issue - supposedly. I wonder how the rest of Nigeria's notoriously awful fossil fuel extraction is coming along, assuming this isn't all propaganda/lies.