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.'"

8 of 127 comments (clear)

  1. 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.
  2. 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.

  3. 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 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.

  4. 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.

  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.