The EPA’s Methane Madness

[eagle1462010]

The EPA’s Methane Madness

These days the EPA is on a tear to regulate mercury and methane. It claims that its mercury air and toxics rule would produce $53 billion to $140 billion in annual health and environmental benefits. That is so absurd it defies the imagination. It is based on the EPA’s estimated benefits from reducing particulates that are—wait for it—already covered by existing regulations!

Regarding the methane reduction crusade the EPA has launched, Thomas Pyle, president of the Institute for Energy Research, says “EPA’s methane regulation is redundant, costly, and unnecessary. Energy producers are already reducing methane emissions because methane is a valuable commodity. It would be like issuing regulations forcing ice cream makers to spill less ice cream.”

“The Obama administration’s latest attack on American energy,” said Pyle, “reaffirms that their agenda is not about the climate at all—it’s about driving up the cost of producing and using natural gas, oil, and coal in America. The proof is the EPA’s own research on methane which shows that this rule will have no discernible impact on the climate.”

S. Fred Singer, founder and Director of the Science and Environmental Policy Project as well as a Senior Fellow with The Heartland Institute says “Contrary to radical environmentalists’ claims, methane is NOT an important greenhouse gas; it has a totally negligible impact on climate. Attempts to control methane emissions make little sense. A Heartland colleague, Research Fellow H. Sterling Burnett, says “Obama is again avoiding Congress, relying on regulations to effectively create new laws he couldn’t legally pass.”

As Larry Bell noted, even by the EPA’s own calculations and estimates, the methane emissions limits, along with other limits on so called greenhouse gases “will prevent less than two-hundredths of a degree Celsius of warming by the end of this century.”

That’s a high price to pay for the loss of countless plants that generate the electricity on which the entire nation depends for its existence. That is where the EPA is taking us.

Nothing the government does can have any effect on the climate. You don’t need a PhD in meteorology or climatology to know that.

 

[eagle1462010]

 

[Mr. H.]

Remind me again why the EPA Witch Hunt on hydrocarbons?
Fucking retard Liberal agenda.

 

[saveliberty]

Another executive branch agency run amuck. Every agency should have to justify its existence to Congress each year.

 

[Old Rocks]

Methane and the greenhouse-gas footprint of natural gas from shale formations - Springer

Abstract
We evaluate the greenhouse gas footprint of natural gas obtained by high-volume hydraulic fracturing from shale formations, focusing on methane emissions. Natural gas is composed largely of methane, and 3.6% to 7.9% of the methane from shale-gas production escapes to the atmosphere in venting and leaks over the life-time of a well. These methane emissions are at least 30% more than and perhaps more than twice as great as those from conventional gas. The higher emissions from shale gas occur at the time wells are hydraulically fractured—as methane escapes from flow-back return fluids—and during drill out following the fracturing. Methane is a powerful greenhouse gas, with a global warming potential that is far greater than that of carbon dioxide, particularly over the time horizon of the first few decades following emission. Methane contributes substantially to the greenhouse gas footprint of shale gas on shorter time scales, dominating it on a 20-year time horizon. The footprint for shale gas is greater than that for conventional gas or oil when viewed on any time horizon, but particularly so over 20 years. Compared to coal, the footprint of shale gas is at least 20% greater and perhaps more than twice as great on the 20-year horizon and is comparable when compared over 100 years.

So let us have a look at what real scientists have to say.

 

[Old Rocks]

Relative contributions of greenhouse gas emissions to global warming


DANIEL A. LASHOF* & DILIP R. AHUJA†‡



*Natural Resources Defense Council, 1350 New York Avenue, Northwest Washington, DC 20005, USA
†Tata Energy Research Institute, New Delhi 110003, India
‡Present address: The Bruce Company, Suite 215, 1100 6th Street, Southwest Washington, DC 20024, USA

IN the past few years, many workers have noted that the combined effect on climate of increases in the concentrations of a large number of trace gases could rival or even exceed that of the increasing concentration of carbon dioxide1–3. These trace gases, principally methane, nitrous oxide and chlorofluorocarbons, are present at concentrations that are two to six orders of magnitude lower than that of carbon dioxide, but are important because, per molecule, they absorb infrared radiation much more strongly than carbon dioxide. Indeed a recent study4 shows that trace gases are responsible for 43% of the increase in radiative forcing from 1980 to 1990 (Fig. 1). An index to compare the contribution of various 'greenhouse' gas emissions to global warming is needed to develop cost-effective strategies for limiting this warming. Estimates of relative contributions to additional greenhouse forcing during particular periods do not fully take into account differences in atmospheric residence times among the important greenhouse gases. Here we extend recent work on halocarbons5,6 by proposing an index of global warming potential for methane, carbon monoxide, nitrous oxide and CFCs relative to that of carbon dioxide. We find, for example, that methane has, per mole, a global warming potential 3.7 times that of carbon dioxide. On this basis, carbon dioxide emissions account for 80% of the contribution to global warming of current greenhouse gas emissions, as compared with 57% of the increase in radiative forcing for the 1980s.

Relative contributions of greenhouse gas emissions to global warming

From Nature.

 

[eagle1462010]

Methane and the greenhouse-gas footprint of natural gas from shale formations - Springer

Abstract
We evaluate the greenhouse gas footprint of natural gas obtained by high-volume hydraulic fracturing from shale formations, focusing on methane emissions. Natural gas is composed largely of methane, and 3.6% to 7.9% of the methane from shale-gas production escapes to the atmosphere in venting and leaks over the life-time of a well. These methane emissions are at least 30% more than and perhaps more than twice as great as those from conventional gas. The higher emissions from shale gas occur at the time wells are hydraulically fractured—as methane escapes from flow-back return fluids—and during drill out following the fracturing. Methane is a powerful greenhouse gas, with a global warming potential that is far greater than that of carbon dioxide, particularly over the time horizon of the first few decades following emission. Methane contributes substantially to the greenhouse gas footprint of shale gas on shorter time scales, dominating it on a 20-year time horizon. The footprint for shale gas is greater than that for conventional gas or oil when viewed on any time horizon, but particularly so over 20 years. Compared to coal, the footprint of shale gas is at least 20% greater and perhaps more than twice as great on the 20-year horizon and is comparable when compared over 100 years.

So let us have a look at what real scientists have to say.

And forget to go through Congress again................

 

[saveliberty]

Gee Old Rocks, I've been telling you methane was a bigger problem than CO2 and you said I was ignorant. Maybe you've just been a liar the whole time.

 

[Old Rocks]

Venting and leaking of methane from shale gas development response to Cathles et al. - Springer

Abstract
In April 2011, we published the first comprehensive analysis of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from shale gas obtained by hydraulic fracturing, with a focus on methane emissions. Our analysis was challenged by Cathles et al. (2012). Here, we respond to those criticisms. We stand by our approach and findings. The latest EPA estimate for methane emissions from shale gas falls within the range of our estimates but not those of Cathles et al. which are substantially lower. Cathles et al. believe the focus should be just on electricity generation, and the global warming potential of methane should be considered only on a 100-year time scale. Our analysis covered both electricity (30% of US usage) and heat generation (the largest usage), and we evaluated both 20- and 100-year integrated time frames for methane. Both time frames are important, but the decadal scale is critical, given the urgent need to avoid climate-system tipping points. Using all available information and the latest climate science, we conclude that for most uses, the GHG footprint of shale gas is greater than that of other fossil fuels on time scales of up to 100 years. When used to generate electricity, the shale-gas footprint is still significantly greater than that of coal at decadal time scales but is less at the century scale. We reiterate our conclusion from our April 2011 paper that shale gas is not a suitable bridge fuel for the 21st Century.

Food for thought

 

[Old Rocks]

Methane and the greenhouse-gas footprint of natural gas from shale formations - Springer

Abstract
We evaluate the greenhouse gas footprint of natural gas obtained by high-volume hydraulic fracturing from shale formations, focusing on methane emissions. Natural gas is composed largely of methane, and 3.6% to 7.9% of the methane from shale-gas production escapes to the atmosphere in venting and leaks over the life-time of a well. These methane emissions are at least 30% more than and perhaps more than twice as great as those from conventional gas. The higher emissions from shale gas occur at the time wells are hydraulically fractured—as methane escapes from flow-back return fluids—and during drill out following the fracturing. Methane is a powerful greenhouse gas, with a global warming potential that is far greater than that of carbon dioxide, particularly over the time horizon of the first few decades following emission. Methane contributes substantially to the greenhouse gas footprint of shale gas on shorter time scales, dominating it on a 20-year time horizon. The footprint for shale gas is greater than that for conventional gas or oil when viewed on any time horizon, but particularly so over 20 years. Compared to coal, the footprint of shale gas is at least 20% greater and perhaps more than twice as great on the 20-year horizon and is comparable when compared over 100 years.

So let us have a look at what real scientists have to say.

And forget to go through Congress again................

And just what the hell is that supposed to mean?

 

[eagle1462010]

Methane and the greenhouse-gas footprint of natural gas from shale formations - Springer

Abstract
We evaluate the greenhouse gas footprint of natural gas obtained by high-volume hydraulic fracturing from shale formations, focusing on methane emissions. Natural gas is composed largely of methane, and 3.6% to 7.9% of the methane from shale-gas production escapes to the atmosphere in venting and leaks over the life-time of a well. These methane emissions are at least 30% more than and perhaps more than twice as great as those from conventional gas. The higher emissions from shale gas occur at the time wells are hydraulically fractured—as methane escapes from flow-back return fluids—and during drill out following the fracturing. Methane is a powerful greenhouse gas, with a global warming potential that is far greater than that of carbon dioxide, particularly over the time horizon of the first few decades following emission. Methane contributes substantially to the greenhouse gas footprint of shale gas on shorter time scales, dominating it on a 20-year time horizon. The footprint for shale gas is greater than that for conventional gas or oil when viewed on any time horizon, but particularly so over 20 years. Compared to coal, the footprint of shale gas is at least 20% greater and perhaps more than twice as great on the 20-year horizon and is comparable when compared over 100 years.

So let us have a look at what real scientists have to say.

And forget to go through Congress again................

And just what the hell is that supposed to mean?

You know exactly what that means..............

How about passing the regulations instead of pissing on the Constitution.

 

[saveliberty]

Your better off using coal.

 

[Old Rocks]

Gee Old Rocks, I've been telling you methane was a bigger problem than CO2 and you said I was ignorant. Maybe you've just been a liar the whole time.

Maybe you have not looked at the amount of warming that each have caused thus far. The amount for CO2 is far greater than the amount for CH4. That does not mean that the amount for CH4 is negligable, only that it is much smaller than that of CO2.

 

[Old Rocks]

Methane and the greenhouse-gas footprint of natural gas from shale formations - Springer

Abstract
We evaluate the greenhouse gas footprint of natural gas obtained by high-volume hydraulic fracturing from shale formations, focusing on methane emissions. Natural gas is composed largely of methane, and 3.6% to 7.9% of the methane from shale-gas production escapes to the atmosphere in venting and leaks over the life-time of a well. These methane emissions are at least 30% more than and perhaps more than twice as great as those from conventional gas. The higher emissions from shale gas occur at the time wells are hydraulically fractured—as methane escapes from flow-back return fluids—and during drill out following the fracturing. Methane is a powerful greenhouse gas, with a global warming potential that is far greater than that of carbon dioxide, particularly over the time horizon of the first few decades following emission. Methane contributes substantially to the greenhouse gas footprint of shale gas on shorter time scales, dominating it on a 20-year time horizon. The footprint for shale gas is greater than that for conventional gas or oil when viewed on any time horizon, but particularly so over 20 years. Compared to coal, the footprint of shale gas is at least 20% greater and perhaps more than twice as great on the 20-year horizon and is comparable when compared over 100 years.

So let us have a look at what real scientists have to say.

And forget to go through Congress again................

And just what the hell is that supposed to mean?

You know exactly what that means..............

How about passing the regulations instead of pissing on the Constitution.

How about you guys electing some people to Congress that are not bone ignorant and whores for the enegy companies.

 

[Mr. H.]

Methane and the greenhouse-gas footprint of natural gas from shale formations - Springer

Abstract
We evaluate the greenhouse gas footprint of natural gas obtained by high-volume hydraulic fracturing from shale formations, focusing on methane emissions. Natural gas is composed largely of methane, and 3.6% to 7.9% of the methane from shale-gas production escapes to the atmosphere in venting and leaks over the life-time of a well. These methane emissions are at least 30% more than and perhaps more than twice as great as those from conventional gas. The higher emissions from shale gas occur at the time wells are hydraulically fractured—as methane escapes from flow-back return fluids—and during drill out following the fracturing. Methane is a powerful greenhouse gas, with a global warming potential that is far greater than that of carbon dioxide, particularly over the time horizon of the first few decades following emission. Methane contributes substantially to the greenhouse gas footprint of shale gas on shorter time scales, dominating it on a 20-year time horizon. The footprint for shale gas is greater than that for conventional gas or oil when viewed on any time horizon, but particularly so over 20 years. Compared to coal, the footprint of shale gas is at least 20% greater and perhaps more than twice as great on the 20-year horizon and is comparable when compared over 100 years.

So let us have a look at what real scientists have to say.

Are you saying that I'm not a real scientist?

http://energyindepth.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/EID_MethaneMvF.pdf

 

[Old Rocks]

Your better off using coal.

The best thing for this nation and, indeed, the whole world would be for there not to be a single coal generation plant operating anywhere in the world in a decade. Given that wind is now far cheaper than coal, and solar soon will be, there is no economic reason for this not to be the case.

 

[Old Rocks]

An interesting study from the U of T.

FAQ About the University of Texas Methane Study Environmental Defense Fund

Why is the University of Texas (UT) study important?
Methane, the primary component of natural gas, is a powerful greenhouse gas — at least 84 times more potent than carbon dioxide over a 20-year time frame. The largest single source of U.S. methane emissions is the vast network of infrastructure that supplies natural gas. These emissions, if not controlled, pose a significant risk to the climate. In the near term, the opportunity to maximize the lower carbon characteristics of natural gas compared to other fossil fuels rests on whether methane emissions are well understood and whether they can be sufficiently controlled.

This is important work and what seems like small changes in percentages can have a large impact. For example, EPA currently estimates methane escaping during development and delivery of natural gas to be 1.5 percent of total U.S. production, including associated gas from oil wells. Getting that number down to one percent — controlling just a third of the emissions — would have the same climate benefit over the next 20 years as retiring another 10 percent of U.S. coal generation. That's a big deal, and it's possible. A key takeaway of the UT study is that emission control technologies, such as so-called green completions (see below), are available and effective at reducing methane emissions.

Do the UT results indicate no further regulation of the oil and gas industry is required?
No. Some emission sources in the UT study are shown to emit more methane than current EPA estimates and point to potential opportunities where EPA can strengthen NSPS and facilitate additional methane reductions. In the production sector this includes replacing higher emitting pneumatics with low-bleed devices (pressurized controllers used for routine functions at a well pad designed to emit the least methane); regularly inspecting for leaks at wellheads and other equipment used in production and quickly repairing those leaks; and using best available technologies and maintenance practices to minimize emissions from compressors and other equipment. For well completions, where regulations only apply to new hydraulically fractured wells, an opportunity also exists to close the regulatory gaps to ensure producers control all well emissions, including those from oil wells and hybrid oil and gas wells.

What do the results suggest about the climate benefit of natural gas?
Whether natural gas can provide a climate benefit relative to other fossil fuels over the short to medium term depends on how much methane is lost, as gas moves from the well to our homes and businesses. Uncontrolled venting and leaks across the natural gas supply chain can eliminate the potential climate benefits of substituting natural gas for coal or oil for some period of time. The UT study measured methane emissions for some key sources associated with the production of gas at the well pad, but not for the gathering, processing, storage, local delivery or transportation use of this fuel. Until emissions from the entire supply chain have been measured, no definitive conclusions can be drawn about the climate benefit of natural gas relative to other fossil fuels. We expect to be in a better position to answer this question when the entire scientific body of work that EDF and its partners have underway is finished — including studies that will go beyond the UT study to shed additional light on production sector emissions.

If forthcoming studies of other phases of the natural gas supply chain also bring results similar to EPA estimates, that would mean that the nation's methane leakage rate could amount to roughly 1.5% of total U.S. production, not including emissions from end uses including those in homes, businesses, and natural gas fueling stations and vehicles. According to a recent paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, a leak rate of 1.5% would mean that switching from coal to natural gas in the generation of electricity is immediately beneficial for the climate, but switching from diesel to natural gas fueled vehicles would produce climate damage for decades.

 

[Mr. H.]

An interesting study from the U of T.

FAQ About the University of Texas Methane Study Environmental Defense Fund

Why is the University of Texas (UT) study important?
Methane, the primary component of natural gas, is a powerful greenhouse gas — at least 84 times more potent than carbon dioxide over a 20-year time frame. The largest single source of U.S. methane emissions is the vast network of infrastructure that supplies natural gas. These emissions, if not controlled, pose a significant risk to the climate. In the near term, the opportunity to maximize the lower carbon characteristics of natural gas compared to other fossil fuels rests on whether methane emissions are well understood and whether they can be sufficiently controlled.

This is important work and what seems like small changes in percentages can have a large impact. For example, EPA currently estimates methane escaping during development and delivery of natural gas to be 1.5 percent of total U.S. production, including associated gas from oil wells. Getting that number down to one percent — controlling just a third of the emissions — would have the same climate benefit over the next 20 years as retiring another 10 percent of U.S. coal generation. That's a big deal, and it's possible. A key takeaway of the UT study is that emission control technologies, such as so-called green completions (see below), are available and effective at reducing methane emissions.

Do the UT results indicate no further regulation of the oil and gas industry is required?
No. Some emission sources in the UT study are shown to emit more methane than current EPA estimates and point to potential opportunities where EPA can strengthen NSPS and facilitate additional methane reductions. In the production sector this includes replacing higher emitting pneumatics with low-bleed devices (pressurized controllers used for routine functions at a well pad designed to emit the least methane); regularly inspecting for leaks at wellheads and other equipment used in production and quickly repairing those leaks; and using best available technologies and maintenance practices to minimize emissions from compressors and other equipment. For well completions, where regulations only apply to new hydraulically fractured wells, an opportunity also exists to close the regulatory gaps to ensure producers control all well emissions, including those from oil wells and hybrid oil and gas wells.

What do the results suggest about the climate benefit of natural gas?
Whether natural gas can provide a climate benefit relative to other fossil fuels over the short to medium term depends on how much methane is lost, as gas moves from the well to our homes and businesses. Uncontrolled venting and leaks across the natural gas supply chain can eliminate the potential climate benefits of substituting natural gas for coal or oil for some period of time. The UT study measured methane emissions for some key sources associated with the production of gas at the well pad, but not for the gathering, processing, storage, local delivery or transportation use of this fuel. Until emissions from the entire supply chain have been measured, no definitive conclusions can be drawn about the climate benefit of natural gas relative to other fossil fuels. We expect to be in a better position to answer this question when the entire scientific body of work that EDF and its partners have underway is finished — including studies that will go beyond the UT study to shed additional light on production sector emissions.

If forthcoming studies of other phases of the natural gas supply chain also bring results similar to EPA estimates, that would mean that the nation's methane leakage rate could amount to roughly 1.5% of total U.S. production, not including emissions from end uses including those in homes, businesses, and natural gas fueling stations and vehicles. According to a recent paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, a leak rate of 1.5% would mean that switching from coal to natural gas in the generation of electricity is immediately beneficial for the climate, but switching from diesel to natural gas fueled vehicles would produce climate damage for decades.

Where are the studies related to the other 80% of methane emissions in this country?

 

[Old Rocks]

There is much study on that.

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00748775

Abstract
The impact of development of land for agriculture and agricultural production practices on emissions of greenhouse gases is reviewed and evaluated within the context of anthropogenic radiative forcing of climate. Combined, these activities are estimated to contribute about 25%, 65%, and 90% of total anthropogenic emissions of CO2, CH4, and N2O, respectively. Agriculture is also a significant contributor to global emissions of NH3, CO, and NO. Over the last 150 y, cumulative emissions of CO2 associated with land clearing for agriculture are comparable to those from combustion of fossil fuel, but the latter is the major source of CO2 at present and is projected to become more dominant in the future. Ruminant animals, rice paddies, and biomass burning are principal agricultural sources of CH4, and oxidation of CH4 by aerobic soils has been reduced by perturbations to natural N cycles. Agricultural sources of N2O have probably been substantially underestimated due to incomplete analysis of increased N flows in the environment, especially via NH3 volatilization from animal manures, leaching of NO 3 -, and increased use of biological N fixation.

The contribution of agriculture to radiative forcing of climate is analyzed using data from theIntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)(base case) and cases where the global warming potential of CH4, and agricultural emissions of N2O are doubled. With these scenarios, agriculture, including land clearing, is estimated to contribute between 28–33% of the radiative forcing created over the next 100yr by 1990 anthropogenic emissions of CO2, CH4, and N2O. Analyses of the sources of agriculturally generated radiative climate forcing show that 80% is associated with tropical agriculture and that two-thirds comes from non-soil sources of greenhouse gases. The importance of agriculture to radiative forcing created by different countries varies widely and is illustrated by comparisons between the USA, India, and Brazil. Some caveats to these analyses include inadequate evaluations of the net greenhouse effects of agroecosystems, uncertainties in global fluxes of greenhouse gases, and incomplete understanding of tropospheric chemical processes.

 

[eagle1462010]

Methane and the greenhouse-gas footprint of natural gas from shale formations - Springer

Abstract
We evaluate the greenhouse gas footprint of natural gas obtained by high-volume hydraulic fracturing from shale formations, focusing on methane emissions. Natural gas is composed largely of methane, and 3.6% to 7.9% of the methane from shale-gas production escapes to the atmosphere in venting and leaks over the life-time of a well. These methane emissions are at least 30% more than and perhaps more than twice as great as those from conventional gas. The higher emissions from shale gas occur at the time wells are hydraulically fractured—as methane escapes from flow-back return fluids—and during drill out following the fracturing. Methane is a powerful greenhouse gas, with a global warming potential that is far greater than that of carbon dioxide, particularly over the time horizon of the first few decades following emission. Methane contributes substantially to the greenhouse gas footprint of shale gas on shorter time scales, dominating it on a 20-year time horizon. The footprint for shale gas is greater than that for conventional gas or oil when viewed on any time horizon, but particularly so over 20 years. Compared to coal, the footprint of shale gas is at least 20% greater and perhaps more than twice as great on the 20-year horizon and is comparable when compared over 100 years.

So let us have a look at what real scientists have to say.

And forget to go through Congress again................

And just what the hell is that supposed to mean?

You know exactly what that means..............

How about passing the regulations instead of pissing on the Constitution.

How about you guys electing some people to Congress that are not bone ignorant and whores for the enegy companies.

How about actually getting these new regulations approved by Congress.............