New Study Says Fracking Doesn’t Contribute to Global Warming

A groundbreaking study eases fears that the process at the heart of the U.S. energy booms contributes significantly to climate change.

FILE - This Tuesday, Aug. 25, 2009 file photo shows capped wells in the foreground as Anadarko Petroleum Corp., drills a series of wells on a pad on a Weld County farm near Mead, Colo. in the northeastern part of the state. The drilling process called hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, is shaking up world energy markets from Washington to Moscow to Beijing. Some predict what was once unthinkable: that the U.S. won't need to import natural gas in the near future, and that Russia could be the big loser. 
AP
Coral Davenport
Sept. 16, 2013, 11 a.m.

Frack­ers, re­joice.

A new study in the Pro­ceed­ings of the Na­tion­al Academies of Sci­ence con­cludes that hy­draul­ic frac­tur­ing—the con­tro­ver­sial tech­nique be­hind the na­tion’s re­cent oil and gas boom—doesn’t ap­pear to con­trib­ute sig­ni­fic­antly to glob­al warm­ing, as many en­vir­on­ment­al groups have warned.

It’s great news for oil and gas com­pan­ies such as Ex­xon Mo­bil, Shell, and Chev­ron, which have re­lied on break­throughs in so-called frack­ing tech­no­logy to cheaply un­lock vast new re­serves of do­mest­ic oil and nat­ur­al gas that had been trapped un­der­ground in shale-rock form­a­tions.

Hy­draul­ic frac­tur­ing in­volves crack­ing open shale rock by in­ject­ing a cock­tail of sand, wa­ter, and chem­ic­als un­der­ground. Many en­vir­on­ment­al groups fear that the pro­cess can con­tam­in­ate un­der­ground wa­ter sup­plies—and also that it re­leases un­der­ground stores of meth­ane, a po­tent green­house gas that can have 20 times more im­pact on glob­al warm­ing than car­bon di­ox­ide.

“It’s very good news,” said Richard Keil, a spokes­man for Ex­xon Mo­bil, of the study. “This is a ground­break­ing sur­vey. It’s the most ex­tens­ive one that’s been done yet, and it serves to add im­port­ant new evid­ence that hy­draul­ic frac­tur­ing does not con­trib­ute to cli­mate change—it does not con­trib­ute meth­ane emis­sions at levels high­er than those set by the En­vir­on­ment­al Pro­tec­tion Agency.”

The study is also good news for the Obama ad­min­is­tra­tion, which is ex­pec­ted this week to re­lease one in a series of new glob­al-warm­ing reg­u­la­tions on coal-fired power plants, the na­tion’s chief con­trib­ut­or to glob­al warm­ing. White House of­fi­cials con­tend that the cli­mate-change rules aren’t likely to hurt the eco­nomy, in part be­cause the coal power can be re­placed by the new glut of cheaply fracked nat­ur­al gas, which pro­duces just half the car­bon pol­lu­tion of coal. However, if fears that nat­ur­al-gas frack­ing con­trib­uted ma­jor green­house-gas meth­ane emis­sions proved true, it could have frozen the nat­ur­al-gas boom and made it far more dif­fi­cult for the Obama White House to rein in cli­mate pol­lu­tion without see­ing spikes in en­ergy costs.

The White House and EPA “have ex­pressed great in­terest in the find­ings,” said Dav­id Al­len, a pro­fess­or of chem­ic­al en­gin­eer­ing at the Uni­versity of Texas and the lead au­thor of the study. Al­len has been in­vited to brief EPA and oth­er ad­min­is­tra­tion of­fi­cials on the re­search.

It’s ex­pec­ted that the study’s res­ults could also be taken in­to ac­count as EPA and In­teri­or De­part­ment look to­ward craft­ing new reg­u­la­tions on frack­ing.

“This is the first data ever col­lec­ted from un­con­ven­tion­al oil and gas de­vel­op­ment. With good data, you can make good policy,” said Mark Brown­stein, as­so­ci­ate vice pres­id­ent and chief coun­sel for the En­vir­on­ment­al De­fense Fund’s U.S. cli­mate and en­ergy pro­gram.

“People have rightly raised the is­sue—is nat­ur­al gas bet­ter for the cli­mate than coal or oil? This is a first step to get­ting bet­ter in­form­a­tion to an­swer that ques­tion.”

The study con­cluded that the ma­jor­ity of hy­draul­ic­ally frac­tured nat­ur­al-gas wells have sur­face equip­ment that re­duces on-the-ground meth­ane emis­sions by 99 per­cent, al­though it also found that else­where on frack­ing rigs, some valves do al­low meth­ane to es­cape at levels 30 per­cent high­er than those set by EPA. Over­all, however, the study con­cludes that total meth­ane emis­sions from frack­ing are about 10 per­cent lower than levels set by EPA.

The $2.3 mil­lion study was con­duc­ted by sci­ent­ists at the Uni­versity of Texas, with fund­ing provided by nine en­ergy com­pan­ies, in­clud­ing Ex­xon Mo­bil, and one en­vir­on­ment­al group, the En­vir­on­ment­al De­fense Fund. A spokes­man for the Uni­versity of Texas said that while the com­pan­ies con­trib­uted money to the study, they had no in­put on the re­search or res­ults, which were sub­ject to in­de­pend­ent peer re­view be­fore be­ing pub­lished in the Pro­ceed­ings of the Na­tion­al Academies of Sci­ence, one the na­tion’s most pres­ti­gi­ous sci­entif­ic journ­als.

A 2011 study by Cor­nell Uni­versity re­search­ers ig­nited op­pos­i­tion to frack­ing when it con­cluded that meth­ane leaks from nat­ur­al-gas wells ac­tu­ally made nat­ur­al gas a more cli­mate-un­friendly en­ergy source than coal. Al­though Obama has cham­pioned nat­ur­al gas as a low-car­bon “bridge” fuel to the fu­ture, green groups cited the Cor­nell study as reas­on that nat­ur­al gas could be­come a cli­mate night­mare.

Uni­versity of Texas re­search­ers say their year­long study, which in­volved meas­ur­ing meth­ane emis­sions from 190 nat­ur­al-gas pro­duc­tion sites in the Gulf Coast, mid­con­tin­ent, Rocky Moun­tains, and Ap­palachia, is far more com­pre­hens­ive than the Cor­nell study, which re­lied on ex­ist­ing data rather than new field­work.

The study’s au­thors and spon­sors said that while the study is ro­bust and com­pre­hens­ive, more re­search on meth­ane emis­sions along the nat­ur­al-gas sup­ply chain is still needed. The En­vir­on­ment­al De­fense Fund in­tends to spon­sor more than a dozen such stud­ies in the com­ing years.

What We're Following See More »
TAKING A LONG VIEW TO SOUTHERN STATES
In Dropout Speech, Santorum Endorses Rubio
2 days ago
THE DETAILS

As expected after earlier reports on Wednesday, Rick Santorum ended his presidential bid. But less expected: he threw his support to Marco Rubio. After noting he spoke with Rubio the day before for an hour, he said, “Someone who has a real understanding of the threat of ISIS, real understanding of the threat of fundamentalist Islam, and has experience, one of the things I wanted was someone who has experience in this area, and that’s why we decided to support Marco Rubio.” It doesn’t figure to help Rubio much in New Hampshire, but the Santorum nod could pay dividends down the road in southern states.

Source:
‘PITTING PEOPLE AGAINST EACH OTHER’
Rubio, Trump Question Obama’s Mosque Visit
2 days ago
WHY WE CARE

President Obama’s decision to visit a mosque in Baltimore today was never going to be completely uncontroversial. And Donald Trump and Marco Rubio proved it. “Maybe he feels comfortable there,” Trump told interviewer Greta van Susteren on Fox News. “There are a lot of places he can go, and he chose a mosque.” And in New Hampshire, Rubio said of Obama, “Always pitting people against each other. Always. Look at today – he gave a speech at a mosque. Oh, you know, basically implying that America is discriminating against Muslims.”

Source:
THE TIME IS NOW, TED
Cruz Must Max Out on Evangelical Support through Early March
2 days ago
WHY WE CARE

For Ted Cruz, a strong showing in New Hampshire would be nice, but not necessary. That’s because evangelical voters only make up 21% of the Granite State’s population. “But from the February 20 South Carolina primary through March 15, there are nine states (South Carolina, Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Kentucky, Mississippi, and North Carolina) with an estimated white-Evangelical percentage of the GOP electorate over 60 percent, and another four (Texas, Kansas, Louisiana, and Missouri) that come in over 50 percent.” But after that, he better be in the catbird’s seat, because only four smaller states remain with evangelical voter majorities.

Source:
CHRISTIE, BUSH TRYING TO TAKE HIM DOWN
Rubio Now Winning the ‘Endorsement Primary’
2 days ago
WHY WE CARE

Since his strong third-place finish in Iowa, Marco Rubio has won endorsement by two sitting senators and two congressmen, putting him in the lead for the first time of FiveThirtyEight‘s Endorsement Tracker. “Some politicians had put early support behind Jeb Bush — he had led [their] list since August — but since January the only new endorsement he has received was from former presidential candidate Sen. Lindsey Graham.” Meanwhile, the New York Times reports that fueled by resentment, “members of the Bush and Christie campaigns have communicated about their mutual desire to halt … Rubio’s rise in the polls.”

Source:
ARE YOU THE GATEKEEPER?
Sanders: Obama Is a Progressive
1 days ago
THE LATEST

“Do I think President Obama is a progressive? Yeah, I do,” said Bernie Sanders, in response to a direct question in tonight’s debate. “I think they’ve done a great job.” But Hillary Clinton wasn’t content to sit out the latest chapter in the great debate over the definition of progressivism. “In your definition, with you being the gatekeeper of progressivism, I don’t think anyone else fits that definition,” she told Sanders.

×