Geology Reference
In-Depth Information
The industry has been working hard to reduce emissions, in part to build public
acceptance of hydrofracking but also because every methane leak represent a loss
of lucrative product.
In April 2013, the EPA dropped a bombshell of sorts, announcing that it had
dramatically reduced its estimate of the amount of methane the gas industry leaks.
Although gas production has grown 40 percent since 1990, thanks to hydrofrack-
ing, the EPA found that tighter pollution controls—from better equipment, main-
tenance, and monitoring—resulted in an average decrease of 41.6 million met-
ric tons of methane annually between 1990 and 2010, or over 850 million metric
agency's previous estimates.
Both advocates and opponents erupted at the EPA announcement. “The methane
'leak' claim just got a lot more difficult for opponents,” blogged Steve Everly, of
Cornell University who authored a celebrated methane study critical of hydrofrack-
ing, flatly stated, “The EPA is wrong.” Howarth and researchers at the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) had recently published a new
study detailing huge methane leaks from gas-drilling sites in Colorado and other
western states. He said the EPA was “ignoring the published NOAA data,” and
called for “an independent review of (EPA's) process.”
63
A leading environmentalist says the latest fracas misses the larger point. “We
need a dramatic shift off carbon-based fuel: coal, oil and also gas,” Bill McKibben,
founder of the climate group 350.org, told the Associated Press. “Natural gas
provides at best a kind of fad diet, where a dangerously overweight patient loses a
few pounds and then their weight stabilizes; instead, we need at this point a crash
diet, difficult to do” but necessary to limit the impact of global warming.
64
The EPA says that despite its revised estimate, natural gas operations remain the
country's leading cause of methane emissions. The agency has vowed to continue
collecting data and researching the subject, and may change its conclusions again.
The acquisition of shale gas is depicted by the energy industry as an unquestion-
ably good idea in a time of economic uncertainty: a vast, clean, 100-year supply
of energy. In coming years, hundreds of thousands of new wells across the United
States and, perhaps, around the world will be hydrofractured. But the true environ-
mental and health costs of this method of extracting natural gas and oil are not well
understood, and have many—even some who support hydrofracking—concerned.
