Wednesday, August 14, 2013

Science, well sort of…the final definitive answer on fracking

Wait, what was the question?  Oh right… some months ago I undertook a journey seeking to answer the question, is fracking, and the resulting increase in the availability and use of natural gas, on balance a ‘good thing’ as it relates to climate change. In other words, will fracking result in a meaningful reduction in GHG’s, and will the associated risks/costs be worth that reduction?  I started this quest for two reasons...one to get some clarity in my own mind on the issue, but more importantly, I hoped the exercise would serve as a model to show how we each come to our own conclusions on what to believe on sciency issues.  If you are just catching up, you can follow the journey here ('The experiment begins''Fracking open my brain', 'Midterm').  My governing theory behind all this, which frankly I’m coming to doubt more and more as time passes, is that by illuminating how we come to our beliefs, we all might have a better shot at doing so accurately…honestly…scientifically…and most important to me for some reason, non-ideologically.
Ok, here goes…the definitive answer to the question posed is… yes. Everyone cool with that?  Shockingly, I’m guessing not.  So now for the one caveat and then my rationale.
The caveat for the answer is simply that it is mine.  It’s the answer I came to after my own exploration.  It is not absolute, it is no doubt based in some significant part on my own biases as I sought to parse the fine points that lie between the debates, and it is subject to revision as time goes by.  I had originally thought I would seek out two experts on either side of the debate to help me decide, but after digging in deeper, I realized I could just as easily read their work, and frankly, once things got technical, I would have to defer to my own judgment in any case.  So the answer is yes….here’s how I came to my conclusion.

I will stipulate that there are indeed risks posed by fracking…but I did not set out to see if it was safe, rather, to find out if the benefits outweigh the risks.  In my judgment they do.  The risks come in two categories, localized and global.  The localized risks include groundwater contamination, earthquakes and other general environmental disturbances that come with the drilling of wells.  In my review, while there are anecdotal examples for all of the above, and always will be, I could not find any data supporting systemic impacts for any of these risks.  Some argue that the absence of evidence of risk is not evidence that there is no risk, and I get that.  But so far, if we follow the data available, this is where we are.  My bet is that more studies will not materially alter this conclusion….Biased?

The global risks are twofold…the release of methane during the drilling and fracking process, and the broad question of what does natural gas replace.  Several years ago claims were made that the release of extra methane during fracking would overwhelm the benefits of using natural gas in place of coal.  This idea gained a lot of traction and its authors were widely cited.  The problem is, there is now a pretty clear consensus that they were just plain wrong. The methane release debate is insanely complex, as all these things are, but I was persuaded by the preponderance of evidence at this point that methane leaks are not a material problem.

The policy and market driven question of what does natural gas replace is for me the biggest one.  This is where the critics of fracking make the most compelling points.  If the increase in cheap locally sourced natural gas does not replace higher carbon energy sources as it is deployed, the argument goes, we’re screwed.  So don’t spend time on it, and move straight to zero carbon alternatives.  In a perfect world I vote for this too…but, well, you know…so living in this world we need to look at what is possible now.  We have to set policies that will still push for the rapid deployment of all zero carbon energy sources.  We have to price carbon so that the market works more efficiently to encourage lower or no carbon alternatives.  We need to move away from coal, globally and fast.  Natural gas, which is essentially methane by the way, has about half the CO2 of coal, and if it is locally sourced and used, has an added benefit of a lower end to end carbon footprint.   It’s not perfect, but it’s a hell of a lot better and has contributed in a marked reduction of US CO2 output.  Is it enough? No.  Is it on balance worth continuing to develop more natural gas by fracking? Yes.

A friend and colleague used the analogy that if you’re driving towards a cliff at 60 mph, you need to do more than slow to 50… Agreed.  But to get to a stop, you have to slow to 50 first along the way.  In my judgment fracking can have that effect….so, what do you believe?

PS…I purposely did not include any citations to my sources to avoid clutter, and because I am lazy.  However, if you have doubts about my conclusions, I’ll point you to how I got there in the comments.


14 comments:

  1. Alex,

    I think the correct answer to your question is "it's too soon to tell". You needn't come to a firm conclusion before all the data are in, and we're just now collecting better data on leakage. These new data show high leakage rates (http://climatecrocks.com/2013/08/07/oops-methane-leakage-from-fracked-wells-alarmingly-high/)
    What you can say is that we need to know more to answer the question you asked, but can also start to measure, regulate, and require disclosure of various heretofore unknown things (like leakage and the contents of fracking fluids, which some companies claim as a trade secret--sorry, you shouldn't be allowed to keep as a trade secret poisons that could destroy underground aquifers forever. That's a nasty externality if ever I saw one.).

    The fact that the industry is doing everything possible to prevent people with direct knowledge of the harm fracking is doing from saying anything about it (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/08/02/2401591/frack-gag-for-kids/) should give you pause as well. Lots of what we'd need to know to answer your question is simply not known at this point--more investigations are needed.

    So I think you have jumped the gun here.

    Jon

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks Jon...always value your perspective. In fact in my midterm report I was in large part influenced by your point that we don't have enough information. On one level you are of course right, that we need more information to make better and more informed decisions. But I felt for the purpose of this exercise I needed to take what was available to me now. I did hedge to say my conclusion was based on current knowledge.

      Re your specific points, I would only say there seems to be as much data pointing the other way. Re methane release, the EPA is reducing it estimates,and I understand up upcoming studies will support that. Secondly, the consequence of methane release is better understood now, and contrary to earlier reports, is not as bad as had been feared. Finally, re the make up of the fracking liquids,I would point you to a new partnership in Pennsylvania that includes the Environmental Defense Fund and industry that seems to be a very good approach to dealing with your concerns...again,fracking per se is not perfectly safe and extra methane is bad, period. But in my judgement relative to burning coal and based on my admittedly amateur understanding of the data available today, I'm comfortable with my conclusion.

      Thanks again for taking the time to stick with me during this process...cites supporting my points below

      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/28/epa-fracking-environment-climate-change_n_3174590.html

      http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/08/01/two-climate-analysts-fault-gas-leaks-but-not-as-a-big-warming-threat/

      http://green.tmcnet.com/topics/green/articles/2013/03/21/331433-passing-gas-new-center-certify-standards-shale-development.htm

      Delete
    2. Alex, thanks for this piece of work, its been really interesting to read. My big question with your conclusion is the assumption that fracking will mainly be used to extract natural gas. All I've read about the tar sands in Alberta and the XL Pipeline implies that the goal is to extract oil, then send it by pipeline to the West Coast or to the Gulf to be processed. So no local fuel source there, plus burning all that coal seems like it won't be reducing carbon emissions much. Do I have these assumptions wrong?
      China

      Delete
    3. Hey China...my review was limited to the question of increased natural gas from fracking...yes fracking has and will be used for oil extraction, so the extent to which this will lead to more carbon release, this is very bad. That's why I continue to advocate for pricing carbon and setting policies to create incentives for more zero carbon energy sources. But I think it would be a mistake to draw a straight line between fracking for natural gas in the US and Canadian Tar sands, and therefore Keystone XL...different issues in my view.

      Delete
  2. Alex,
    Thank you for sharing your thoughts. A couple of things:
    First, I like the "slowing the car to 50" metaphor, but wonder if it would be more accurate to consider "buying a new car that will only travel 50, putting resources into and emitting GHGs to make the car, building a new road for it to travel on, and entering into a 30 year lease, all knowing that slowing to 50 isn't good enough, anyway." For me, this is closer to the picture because of the tremendous capital investment in drilling equipment, pipelines, LNG terminals, power plants to burn the gas, etc. People don't like to strand their investments in these things and most of these things are built to last 30 or 40 years. We can't keep burning natural gas for that long and still save the planet the way we like to have it.

    Second, you have a good caveat above when you talk about locally sourced and used gas. But with the level of production we now can anticipate, pressure has been enormous to approve LNG export terminals. LNG has a much higher carbon footprint than domestically-produced and used gas. And then there is the fracking-derived gas that isn't being used at all. Look, for instance, at the fracking sites in North Dakota, with oil being the target. Shameful amounts of gas are being flared and (at least as I have heard - no citation) apparently not burned very well, so that in addition to a tremendous amount of wasted CO2, there are also methane releases occurring.

    The third of my couple of things: artificially cheap gas is swamping renewables, making it that much harder to invest in infrastructure that will avoid GHG releases. I say artificially cheap because externalities are not included in the producer's cost or the consumer's price.

    Finally, the most recent research I read about found disturbingly high methane levels in the air over one drilling site. Not a scientifically-significant sample, but certainly a red flag.

    I have enormous respect for the exercise you have undertaken and appreciate the opportunity to chime in.
    Steve

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Damn Steve, great points all. I have zero quarrel with your first point. In that perfect world we seek, we need to stop emitting carbon yesterday. But that simply will not happen, so we are left with what is possible. I purposely placed a narrow frame on my question, but one area I did not explore is the point you raise about added externalities of long term natural gas use. Let me ask you this, if that long term investment led to the end of the US coal industry, would you take that tradeoff? Again, all of the is is vexingly complex and there are no simple answers, but I think an analysis of your first point is worth doing.

      And I completely agree that it would be bad if natural has is "swamping" renewables...but is it? Any reliable cites for that?

      Finally, extra methane release is a technological and regulatory problem that is very fixable. And the latest research indicates overall it is much less than claimed or feared, but again, needs to be dealt with.

      Have look here for the EPA on GHG's over the last 10 years..http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/usinventoryreport.html

      Again Steve, great points all...very much appreciate your input.

      Delete
    2. Alex,
      Thank you for your reply to the reply, and for furthering this conversation. Here is what I meant by gas "swamping" renewables. Most of the renewable power under development is pursuant to state renewable portfolio standards mandating a certain level of renewables use by a specified date. But most of the programs let the utilities off the hook if renewables are too expensive. Almost invariably, the benchmark is the price of natural gas. So downward pressure on gas prices puts the renewable energy programs at risk. The swamping I so poetically referred to is in terms of price competition and the viability of renewable energy mandates, rather than statistically-proven effects to date.

      Great question about whether I would worry less about the natural gas infrastructure commitment if fracking killed off the coal industry. Not an easy yes or no on that one. I lack confidence that our increased natural gas use is making a dramatic difference in GHG emissions. You mentioned that methane releases are a technologically-fixable problem. True, but so are other GHG releases. We can fix the problem by electrifying transportation and other oil consumption and switching to carbon-free power sources, or capturing carbon and sequestering it. It's just that we aren't doing those things in sufficient quantities. So should I be sanguine about the potential to eliminate methane leaks at wellheads and throughout the delivery system? If not, I am not sure how much better natural gas is than coal in terms of GHG emissions.

      No easy answers, just a lot of questions.
      Steve

      Delete
    3. Steve,

      Just building on your comment...

      Lower NG prices have reduced coal us in the US, but has simply shifted where the coal is burned. US coal industry is simply shipping the stuff over seas to China and other nations that need power, regardless of environmental toxicity. In the Pacific Northwest, the coal industry is trying to open up about 10 sea port coal terminals so they can export. Once China burns that, it ends up in the atmosphere and effects us as if we burned it here.

      Lower NG prices don't stop the coal industry, they just change the burn location.

      Also, keep in mind, and I know you know this, but it is worth repeating: The market price for NG and coal don't reflect the real cost. See my comment on Carbon Tax elsewhere in this blog post comment thread. NG is not as cheap is it appears. Even so, Solar PV is now cheaper than diesel in India, and falling fast. We have an honest accounting of real fossil fuel costs, and need to implement that on the world markets, to level the playing field.

      For an excellent example of how the fossil fuel industry is trying to mislead on the actual cost of renewables, see Amory Lovins analysis of fossil fuel industry disinformation campaign aimed at solar: http://blog.rmi.org/blog_2013_07_31_debunking_renewables_disinformation_campaign

      Jay Kimball
      8020 Vision

      Delete
  3. Hi Alex, I second Jonathan Koomey's comment and would ad that, because of the risk, we should wait to frack until clean safe fracking fluids are in place. As you may know, several innovators have claimed clean safe fracking fluids, and have shown their execs drinking them at trade shows and such.

    Second, the market always favors the lowest cost sources of energy (coal). To accelerate the transition to renewables, we need to get a fair carbon tax on coal, gas and oil to make sure we are pricing a truer cost of emitting CO2. Something in the range of $45 to $90 per ton. As with the early days of tobacco industry, fossil fuel industry is privatizing their profit and passing the social costs on to us. That is not fair market policy. If they can't do business with an honest accounting,... We should take the carbon tax revenues and use that to accelerate the transition to clean safe renewable energy. Tax what kills us and incentivize what helps us.

    This makes strategic sense, since the Energy Returned on Energy Invested (ERoEI) is rising exponentially for fossil fuels, as we get into more and more exotic extraction methods. The easy stuff is gone. Yes, technology will find new ways to drill deeper and extract every last drop, but at what cost? As is often said, the stone age didn't end because we ran out of stones. We don't want to extract every last drop. We need to transition to clean energy ASAP. We are long past the time to do that.

    For those readers interested in learning more about fracking, I encourage you to check out the documentaries Gasland and Gasland 2. Though less science centered, Gasland 2 especially does a nice job of citing state of the art references on well leakage and raising important questions worth looking at. Check out their excellent website for those citations.

    The fossil fuel industry (about 200 businesses) spends about $500 million lobby congress each year for favorable policy on all this. That represents about 9 minutes of their annual revenue. We have the best congress money can buy, and it is in all our interests to dig deep and make sure we err on the side of care for the health and wellbeing of our world. As with tobacco and climate change, many studies are funded by special fossil fuel interests, and it will take time for a clear picture to emerge on how fracking will impact our precious water and atmosphere. A good read on this is "Doubt is Their Product" an excellent look at how tobacco and toxic industries foster doubt to slow transitions to cleaner healthier public policies. Several of the PR guys who pioneered the big tobacco denial campaigns are now working for big oil and big coal.

    Jay Kimball
    8020 Vision

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks so much Jay...good points. As I've said above, I'm with you on the need for carbon pricing...we need to do it.

      Re Gasland, I've purposely not watched it, just like I did not use industry sources for my research.

      And yes, the strategies employed by some, particularly climate denial interests, tracks closely with the those previously employed by the tobacco folks, but that is is a separate issue from the one I was exploring.

      Thanks again for taking the time to read and comment!

      Delete
    2. Thanks Alex. I appreciate your sharing your thoughts.

      I would suggest that the denial campaigns mounted by the fossil fuel industry are very relevant. Since you are posting a "Definitive Answer" on fracking, it would be good to know upon what sources your are forming your belief. As with Tobacco, asbestos, and climate change, etc. Many scientists supported the industry view, based upon bogus industry sponsored science. It would be good to know more about what sources lead you to your conclusion and why.

      For more on the conflict of interest between science and industry, here's one recent example: http://news.sciencemag.org/people-events/2012/12/wake-scathing-review-fracking-report-university-texas-revises-conflict

      Jay Kimball
      8020 Vision

      Delete
  4. Alex,

    How far away is that cliff? It seems to me we should be turning the car around towards solar, wind, Geothermal, tidal, etc.

    Mark

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This is the existential question, and I have no idea. Many whom I respect and trust say we have already driven off the cliff. Others say there is hope.

      The truth is likely an unknowable thing, given the complexity of the systems at work and their interactions.

      So in any case, there is no debate that we seek to turn the car around. The open question is whether the increased use of natural gas helps or slows that process. As I have narrowly framed the question, in my judgement presently it is helping on balance...but again, I do not argue that this is by itself sufficient to "stop the car".

      Delete
  5. Sorry, i meant burning all that oil.
    china

    ReplyDelete