ADVERTISEMENT
  About the SA Blog Network













Plugged In

Plugged In


More than wires - exploring the connections between energy, environment, and our lives
Plugged In HomeAboutContact

On environmentalism and ‘frackademia’

The views expressed are those of the author and are not necessarily those of Scientific American.


Email   PrintPrint



It’s sad that the biggest takeaway from the UT Austin/Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) study on methane emissions from upstream shale gas production has been the involvement of industry. The discussion is now how much influence oil & gas companies wielded over scientists; chasing bogeyman instead of learning from the data. This is unfortunate because there is actually a lot of important information in the study that will inform public policy for years to come.

My read on the study is that it’s sound science and effective. Let’s unpack what the UT/EDF actually reports and then return to the criticism.

  1. Two-thirds of wells studied had what’s called “green completion” technology installed. This tech captures methane that comes up with water after shale rock is fractured. Without this tech methane gas would escape to the atmosphere. For the wells with green completion tech, 99% percent of methane was captured.

    This is the same technology that will be required when the US EPA’s new source performance standards go into effect in 2015 and it’s good to have data about how effective this regulation can be when implemented.

  2. Methane leakage from pumps and compressors is 30% higher than current EPA estimates. Presumably these data can be used to either improve regulations or improve industry practices. The point is that we have actual field data for this process instead of engineering estimates.
  3. The overall measured leakage rate (0.42%) track with EPA’s own estimates (0.53%). This is a good barometer. The higher pump leakage offsets gains from the wellhead. Good to know.
  4. This is not a full on lifecycle analysis. This is one of 16 studies looking at each stage of shale gas production.

Most of the criticism I have read focuses on industry involvement with the study. Steve Horn at DeSmogBlog dismisses the study as “another case of “frackademia” or industry-funded ‘science’ dressed up to look like objective academic analysis.”

The thinking is that because industry partners provided funding and access to scientists that they wielded control over the study’s results. I disagree. EDF has been clear with its decision to work with major oil and gas producers: it needs access to these facilities for measurements. I also think it’s in the interest of oil and gas companies to have objective data about fracking in the public sphere.

Could UT Austin have done a better job at disclosing potential conflicts of interest? Probably. Does that discredit the study? I don’t think so.

I’m not as quick to pull the trigger on drawing conclusions on whether a study was tainted by money or not based on people’s affiliations. I think that gets messy. All I can do is trust what researchers publish (in a peer reviewed process, nonetheless) as a work of academic integrity. Maybe Im wrong on this UT Austin study. If so, I’ll eat my hat.

I want to bring up a larger point, and it’s this: it seems to me the environmental community is missing the boat. Instead of saying “stop fracking at all costs”, I think a more productive approach is “what are the appropriate environmental controls for technology X?” EDF is taking a modern environmental practical approach that brings industry, its own environmentalists, and scientists to the same table, but they’re getting lambasted for it.

Update: Andy Revkin at DotEarth brings up an important point in the comments below. Posted here so you don’t miss it:

The same phenomenon has happened with oil pipelines. The Pulitzer-winning team that dug in on pipeline problems in the Midwest said nobody in enviro community wanted to hear their prescription for improving pipeline safety, integrity because that would enable building more… Here’s an excerpt from relevant Dot Earth piece, “Pipelines, Pulitzers and Independent Online Journalism” http://nyti.ms/XJhj8a :

One of my questions:

“Is the solution to ban pipelines or to have more rigorous oversight?”

Susan White [one of the journalists] replied:

“The idea that we’re building pipelines using rules and regulations that are out of date is appalling. Forget whether you want pipelines or you want Canadian crude oil. That’s a separate debate…. More than 10,000 miles of new or repurposed pipelines are planned for the United States in the next few years. Why aren’t we making sure that they’re safer?”

I noted that it appeared to me that prominent environmental groups don’t want to discuss safer pipelines:

“As soon as you say you want to make it safer you’re basically saying it’s okay.”

David Wogan About the Author: An engineer and policy researcher who writes about energy, technology, and policy - and everything in between. Based in Austin, Texas. Comments? david.m.wogan@gmail.com Follow on Twitter @davidwogan.

The views expressed are those of the author and are not necessarily those of Scientific American.





Rights & Permissions

Comments 3 Comments

Add Comment
  1. 1. Chris Clarke 4:24 pm 09/18/2013

    “for decades the environmental movement has been dominated by a hardline oppositional approach.”

    I wish this were true. It may be true of the grassroots end of the movement, but the Big Green groups have gotten so dependent on foundation funding since the mid-1980s that they are far more forgiving of corporate policies than would make sense. Witness the Sierra Club’s promotion of natural gas as a bridge fuel concurrent with its funding from Chesapeake, ended only when they got caught.

    Link to this
  2. 2. M Tucker 5:42 pm 09/18/2013

    Well, it seems to me there are also other environmental concerns besides leaking methane. For me the big question is do we really want to invest into a long term commitment to this fossil fuel, developing new pipeline infrastructure and building new power plants. The NG industry will not want to see a decline in demand after only 20 or 30 years. The utility company will not want to shutter its new plants after 20 years. And you must admit that as long as we burn this stuff CO2 will only keep going up.

    I guess David it comes down to what you expect for the future. Do you think it is possible to have a carbon neutral future in 20 to 30 years or are you going to be happy with just a slower increase in atmospheric CO2?

    I would hope for the carbon neutral future but everything is see and hear from the energy community is a commitment to ever increasing CO2 albeit at a slower rate.

    Let’s not forget the other concerns that come with cheap NG: the industry’s willingness to burn the stuff for free without the benefit of having it do work. No one benefits and the industry is happy with that. “North Dakota producers flared off roughly 30 percent of all natural gas coming out of the ground – a loss of $1 billion in fuel and the GHG emissions of adding 1 million cars to the road…” How many homes could have been provided with NG? No one cares because it is so ridiculously cheap compared with crude. Either a million cars worth of pollution is significant or it isn’t worth mentioning. And I guess all those folks that have experienced drinking water problems are an insignificant minority.

    The thing is as long as industry is in charge and the environment is considered last we will have folks pushing NG as the “low carbon techno solution” to climate change. Don’t think about it too much or you will discover it is no solution at all.

    Link to this
  3. 3. revkin 4:24 pm 09/19/2013

    The same phenomenon has happened with oil pipelines. The Pulitzer-winning team that dug in on pipeline problems in the Midwest said nobody in enviro community wanted to hear their prescription for improving pipeline safety, integrity because that would enable building more… Here’s an excerpt from relevant Dot Earth piece, “Pipelines, Pulitzers and Independent Online Journalism” http://nyti.ms/XJhj8a :

    One of my questions:

    “Is the solution to ban pipelines or to have more rigorous oversight?”

    Susan White [one of the journalists] replied:

    “The idea that we’re building pipelines using rules and regulations that are out of date is appalling. Forget whether you want pipelines or you want Canadian crude oil. That’s a separate debate…. More than 10,000 miles of new or repurposed pipelines are planned for the United States in the next few years. Why aren’t we making sure that they’re safer?”

    I noted that it appeared to me that prominent environmental groups don’t want to discuss safer pipelines:

    “As soon as you say you want to make it safer you’re basically saying it’s okay.”

    Link to this

Add a Comment
You must sign in or register as a ScientificAmerican.com member to submit a comment.

More from Scientific American

Scientific American Dinosaurs

Get Total Access to our Digital Anthology

1,200 Articles

Order Now - Just $39! >

X

Email this Article

X