Endorsements

"probably the most prolific anti frack website in the UK"
- Ken Wilkinson - prominent pro-fracking activist and industry supporter (Yes we know , he doesn't know what "prolific" means does he)

Defend Localism!

Take the advice of Greg Clark, ex-Secretary of State for the Department for Communities and Local Government

Greg Clark

"Those who are prepared to organise to be more effective and more efficient should be able to reap substantially the rewards of that boldness ...

Take power now. Don’t let yourself, any longer, be ruled by someone else"

How many wells?

PNRAG Wells
Click the image from more information on Cuadrilla's plans for PEDL 165

Fracking Employment

From the Financial Times 16 October 2013

AMEC forecast just 15,900 to 24,300 nationwide - direct & indirect

Jobs would typically be short term, at between four and nine years

Only 17% of jobs so far have gone to local people

Rubbish!

Looking for misinformation, scaremongering, lies or stupidity?

It's all on this website (but only on this one post ) featuring the Reverend Mike Roberts.

(Oops - there's more! )

Here though is our favourite Reverend Roberts quote of all time - published in the Lancashire Evening Post on 5th August 2015

"If you dare oppose fracking you will get nastiness and harassment whether on social media, or face-to-face"

Yes you!

"Unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot, nothing's going to get better. It's not." - Dr Seuss

We are not for sale!

England is not for sale!

Wrongmove

Join the ever growing number of households who have signed up to the Wrongmove campaign!

Tell Cuadrilla and the Government that your house is "Not for Shale"

Wrongmove

Be a flea

"Many fleas make big dog move"
Japanese Proverb quoted by Jessica Ernst

No to Fracking

Love Lytham Say No to Fracking

Make sense?

The Precautionary Principle

When an activity or occurrence raises threats of serious or irreversible harm to human health or the environment, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically.

Contact Us

Click here to contact us by email
Private Eye

How can I help?

Find out here

Email updates

Subscribe to our mailing list

Follow us on Twitter

Our Tweets

Myth 6 – Methane is less harmful to the atmosphere than other fossil fuels

We keep being told by the shale gas apologists that shale gas (methane) is less harmful to the atmosphere than other fossil fuels. They tell us this because one of the central planks of their case is that we need methane as what is called a bridging fuel – i.e. a fuel that will help us move towards a greener power generation base whilst allowing us to maintain our existing lifestyles.

For this to be the case they need to persuade us that methane is “greener” than the existing “conventional” gas or the coal it would “replace”. (We have put the “replace” in inverted commas because in the real world it doesn’t actually replace the coal, it just means the coal gets burned somewhere else. Guess who is now a major customer for the coal the US is so proud of not burning? Yes, got it in one. The UK)

Is it better than “conventional” gas?

Unfortunately it isn’t as the “Climate impact of potential shale gas production in the EU” report shows very clearly:

GHG emissions per unit of electricity generated from shale gas were estimated to be around 4 to 8% higher than for electricity generated by conventional pipeline gas from within Europe. These additional emissions arise in the pre-combustion stage, predominantly in the well completion phase when the fracturing fluid is brought back to the surface together with released methane. If emissions from well completion are mitigated, through flaring or capture, and utilised then this difference is reduced to 1 to 5%. The analysis suggests that the emissions from shale gas generation (base case) are 2 to 10% lower than emissions from electricity generated from sources of conventional pipeline gas located outside of Europe (in Russia and Algeria), and 7 to 10% lower than that of electricity generated from LNG imported into Europe.

However, under our ‘worst’ case shale gas scenario, where all flow back gases at well completion are vented, emissions from electricity generated from shale gas would be similar to the upper emissions level for electricity generated from imported LNG and for gas imported from Russia.

Given that there is no onus on the fracking companies to invest in the technology to minimise emissions it would be naive in the extreme to expect them to do it. They are, after all, there to make a profit for their shareholders.

It would be fair to say therefore that shale gas is in no way greener than imported LNG or gas imported from Russia.

So what about coal – it must be better than dirty old coal surely?

We’re afraid there is no let-off for the frackers here either

Robert Howarth from Cornell University in Ithaca, US told the BBC News

We have used the best available data [and] the conclusion is that shale gas may indeed be quite damaging to global warming, quite likely as bad or worse than coal

the same article on the BBC goes on to say :

Greenhouse gas emissions from shale gas are predominantly down to two things: carbon dioxide produced when the gas is burned, and methane that leaks out while the well is being exploited.

Figures from the US government and industry indicate that at least a third more methane leaks from shale gas extraction than from conventional wells – and perhaps more than twice as much.

Figures from this research team indicate that over a 20-year period, the net warming impact of using shale gas is worse than coal – and, perhaps more surprisingly, that conventional gas may be worse than coal as well.
….
Over a 100-year timeframe, conventional gas is almost certainly better than coal – but shale gas could be worse.

The precise numbers depend most on leakage rates. Dr Howarth’s group used “best practice” estimates; in the real world, therefore, the leakage and the climate impact could be even worse.

Now, news reported in January 2013 from the USA shows that:

new Colorado data that support the earlier work, as well as preliminary results from a field study in the Uinta Basin of Utah suggesting even higher rates of methane leakage — an eye-popping 9% of the total production. That figure is nearly double the cumulative loss rates estimated from industry data — which are already higher in Utah than in Colorado.

http://www.nature.com/news/methane-leaks-erode-green-credentials-of-natural-gas-1.12123

What does that mean in context? The same report goes on to say:

A great deal rides on getting the number right. A study published in April by scientists at the EDF and Princeton University in New Jersey suggests that shifting to natural gas from coal-fired generators has immediate climatic benefits as long as the cumulative leakage rate from natural-gas production is below 3.2%

Yes, those figures were 9% and 3.2%.

So, unfortunately for the frackers, (but of course also for the planet too), shale gas doesn’t come out as being less harmful than either coal or conventional gas. Its potential as a bridging fuel looks poor – in fact as the Tyndall Report from the University of Manchester points out, it is likely to have a negative impact as it may well divert resources from being invested in looking for less damaging renewable alternatives.

I think we can safely say that this myth has been well and truly debunked.

Kevin Anderson, from the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research certainly believes so – he told the BBC

Shale gas is the same as natural gas – it is a high-carbon fuel, with around 75% of its mass made of carbon. For the UK and other wealthy nations, shale gas cannot be a transition fuel to a low-carbon future. Anyone who says differently does not understand our explicit international commitments under the Copenhagen Accord, the Cancun Agreements – or, alternatively, is bad at maths.

The UK’s commitment to make our fair contribution to reduce emissions in line with keeping global warming below a 2C rise gives a very clear global carbon budget, and hence a UK budget: in other words, how much carbon we can put into the atmosphere over this century. Here the maths is unambiguous – we have insufficient budget for the carbon we are already emitting and by the time shale gas is produced in any quantity (five to 10 years), there will be no emissions space left for it. The maths is that simple, even if the conclusion is not what we want to hear.

Another fundamental mistake made by many experts on shale gas is that they assume it is lower-carbon than coal, but this is valid only if we don’t burn the coal. In a world that is hungry for energy, any UK shale gas used here will mean we import less gas and coal – gas and coal that will simply be burnt elsewhere.

The climate does not care from which country the carbon comes from – so burn shale gas here and UK emissions may go down but global emissions will go up. Shale gas is another high-carbon fossil fuel – it just adds to the problem – in the absence of a stringent limit on total carbon emissions it will not substitute for coal.

Finally, even if the technology of “carbon capture and storage” can be made to work with gas – the level of emissions reductions will not be enough to meet our international carbon commitments. In the UK and globally, we are now reaping the reward of a decade of hypocrisy and self-delusion on climate change. We pretend we are doing something ourselves, whilst blaming others for rising emissions.

The truth is out – it is a tragedy of the commons par excellence – we are all to blame and we have left it too late for a technical fix. We are heading towards a global temperature rise of 4C to 6C this century; if we want to get off this trajectory, shale gas needs to stay in the ground and we, in the wealthy world, need to consume much less energy – now.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-20758673

Of course we also need to think about the attendant pollution involved in getting the methane out of the ground in the first place.

According to Apache Corporation

A typical frack job in the Granite Wash play of Texas and Oklahoma can use around 36,000 gallons of diesel

http://fuelfix.com/blog/2013/01/07/fracking-with-natural-gas-to-trim-fuel-costs-40/

so we are talking about some serious and concentrated local pollution as well! According to Flyertalk.com a fully laden Boeing 777-200 could fly LHR-JFK return, and then to JFK *again* on just 32,100 gallons of aviation fuel! [http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/british-airways-executive-club/986273-concorde-fuel-usage-vs-744-777-a-2.html]

So, if we get to “enjoy” fracking in Lancashire, each time they do a frack job we’ll get the equivalent pollution from over 3 transatlantic jet flights, but all concentrated in one location and at ground level. That’s not what we would call clean energy!

One Response to Myth 6 – Methane is less harmful to the atmosphere than other fossil fuels

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

We’re not Backing Fracking

Not Backing Fracking
... but we love their web site

Drill or Drop

Drill or Drop
Drill or Drop is a "must read" resource for those wanting to keep up to date on the issues.

Fracking here’s a bad idea!

Who's fault?

"What you have to be able to do when you decide you want to hydraulic fracture is make sure there are no faults in the area. That's really very very important"

Professor Mike Stephenson - Director of Science and Technology - British Geological Survey

Fracking the UK

Fracking The UK

Fracking the UK Volumes I and II now available free from this site

"Untrustworthy, unbalanced and potentially brain washing." - Amazon Review
Yes the industry hated the first volume that much :-)

Both volumes now available as free downloads from this site Click here to download

Fracking in the Media

Campaign Groups


Frack Free Lancashire
Frack Free Lancashire
Preston New Road Action Group
Preston New Road Action Group

Roseacre Awareness Group
Roseacre Awareness Group

Refracktion
Refracktion

Defend Lytham
Defend Lytham

RAFF Group
RAFF Group

REAF Group

Ribble Estuary Against Fracking

Fracking Free Ireland
Fracking Free Ireland

Fracking Digest
Fracking Digest – a summary of the week’s news

Frack Free Balcombe
Frack Free Balcombe Residents Association

Frack Free Sussex
Frack Free Sussex

Frack Free York
Frack Free York

Halsall Against Fracking
Halsall Against Fracking

If you would like your group to be added please contact us

Other Groups

Categories