The EPA gas air rule blows still more big holes in Professor Howarth's discredited 2011 study that falsely implanted in the minds of many that "gas was as dirty or dirtier than coal" for global warming pollution.
First, while Professor Howarth assumed no green completions were used during flowback, EPA documents that green completions are currently used on 50% of gas wells. This fact alone destroys Professor Howarth's false methane leakage estimates that are at the heart of his paper.
Second, the current rate of green completions apparently is higher than the EPA had assumed, when arriving at the EPA 2.4% methane leakage rate. As a result, the EPA may lower its current methane leakage rate number, even before the green completion requirement takes effect in January 2015.
Third, to his credit, Professor Howarth himself said of the then proposed EPA green completion requirement: "Can shale-gas methane emissions be reduced? Clearly, yes, and proposed EPA regulations to require capture of gas at the time of well completions are an important step."
http://johnhanger.blogspot.com/2012/01/howarth-responds-to-cornell-and-other.html.
At this point, the EPA air rule is final; 50% of wells are already green completing; 100% of wells must flare in the period prior to January 2015 (Howarth assumed zero flaring too). Those facts alone destroy the conclusions of the Howarth paper.
But, in addition, Howarth stopped his "life cycle" analysis of emissions from carbon and gas prior to the combustion of both at power plants and rejected the IPCC's 100-year global warming potential factor in his analysis.
Will all that be enough to end the use of the Howarth paper in public processes and dialogue? Unfortunately probably not.
2015 seems like a lifetime away..since we have been breathing and drinking the results of gas extraction/production since 2008. Why not restrict new permits until all existing wells comply? No, we don't want to "kill the golden goose" quote from your senator White in 2008 at College Misercordia hearing...she believed the threats from the industry that they would pull our their rigs and go back to WV..Sad that we had to be experimented on, sad that safer technology did not have to be in place before thousands of permits were issues and many many wells drilled...it is only sad for us that live here...and we know very well that we are the sacfrifice.
ReplyDeleteobviously not a land owner.
DeleteWhy not find cleaner ways for energy. Landowners are getting screwed over
ReplyDeleteYou can buy renewable energy for your power. I buy 100% wind power for my home in Hershey. Go to www.choosepawind.com. Also solar prices have fallen so far and there is a 30% federal tax credit available that it is well worth asking a solar company to see your home or business is suitable for solar (No shade trees for the roof as one possible problem).
ReplyDeleteYes, clean renewable sources, combined with energy conservation and time-of-use rates guiding consumption habits to limit peaking generators, is the clear winner over operating ANY fossil-burning plant. We have to make it a goal to reduce consumption every year, no matter whether population increases or decreases. Energy companies will have to be dragged along with this, kicking and screaming. But they serve us, not the other way around (at least so long as their status as corporate persons under the US Constitution is limited to some degree). It's their job to provide the customer (us) with the best-engineered solution to a complex problem of cost, sustainability, and avoiding irreversible damage to ecosystems and climate systems.
DeleteLand-owner, driller, downstream landowner, downstream municipal water user... Regardless, the gas in the ground isn't going anywhere, and its value will only increase with time, as a) supplies of fossil fuels elsewhere become more scarce and more expensive to extract and process and b) the world smartens up and applies fees and regulations on the dirtiest of what's still available to burn. Landowners can only benefit from delays that allow us to set up a safe regulation system and working conditions. We're going to need revenue and jobs 20 years from now just as badly as we need them now. So let's get this right, the first time.
ReplyDelete