1

Facts on Natural Gas from Shales

December 2013

Exploring Emissions

32

PART 1 Summary of Concerns: Do greenhouse gas emissions increase because of shale gas?

U.S. results demonstrate the contrary: natural gas production from shale lowers countries’ greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

Energy production from natural gas, whether conventional or from shale, are emitting significantly lower levels of pollutants and GHGs than coal when burned in power plants to generate electricity. Thanks to the confluence of hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling technologies, the consumption of natural gas in the U.S. has increased, often displacing coal, thus slowing down the growth of GHG emissions from power generation. As a result, the U.S. has been able to cut its carbon emissions faster than any other nation.

Key Facts:yy When burned, natural gas emits less CO2 and local pollutants than other fossil fuels.

yy The U.S. has reduced its CO2 emissions by 200 million tons due to the production of domestic natural gas from shales, while CO2 emissions have increased outside the U.S.

yy The U.S. EPA revised downward the amount of methane that is estimated to leak from natural gas production systems.

yy Most global and national institutions agree that natural gas is the preferred option in the transition to a low-carbon economy and complements rather than competes with renewable energy sources.

Examples of emissions management for natural gas production:Industry has accumulated a great deal of experience with the safe and environmentally sound management of natural gas operations. This has resulted in a long list of recommended practices to limit GHG emissions, including:

yy Leak detection surveying and inefficient pipe replacement;

yy Plunger lift, flare, and natural gas recovery system installation to reduce vented CH4;

yy Replacement of natural gas-fired pneumatic pumps with solar-powered pumps;

yy Replacement of older and less efficient compressors;

yy Reduced emission completions that flare rather than vent gas during the completion flowback process; and

yy Green completions that neither vent nor flare gas during the completion flowback process.

Key Benefits: The production of shale gas enables economies to use natural gas for power generation, which is among the cheapest and fastest ways to reduce CO2 emissions and other air pollutants from energy production.

Frankel, Harvard University’s Kennedy school of Government; Frack to the Future; 2013. http://www.project-syndicate.org/blog/frack-to-the-future

54

Part 2 Detailed Information of Greenhouse gas emissions decrease because of shale gas production.

Public Concerns:The public concern regarding GHG emissions from shale gas operations started with a publication in 2011 that concluded the lifecycle GHG emissions from shale gas may be larger than conventional natural gas, oil, or coal when used to generate heat and viewed over the time scale of 20 years (Howarth et al, 2011).

However, to quote a report entitled The Shale Gas Shock by The Global Warming Policy Foundation (Ridley, 2011) “[Howarth’s conclusion] requires unrealistic assumptions about: the quantity of methane that leaks during fracking, production and transport; the lack of methane leaks from coal mines; the residence time of methane in the atmosphere; and the greenhouse warming potential of methane compared with carbon dioxide. … And Howarth gets his numbers on high gas leakage from shale gas wells from unreliable sources, his numbers on gas leakage from pipelines from long Russian pipelines, and assumes that ‘lost and unaccounted for gas‘ is actual leakage rather than partly an accounting measure. He also fails to take into account the greater generating efficiency of gas than coal.”

In addition, several noted science organizations such as the U.S. National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL), Council on Foreign Relations, and Carnegie Mellon University have published papers demonstrating that natural gas has significantly lower global warming potential than coal. To quote a report from the European Commission (DG CLIMA, AEA/R/ED57412, 30 July 2012) “the majority of studies to date suggest that emissions from shale gas are lower than coal, but higher than conventional gas.”

Secondly, environmental groups have used the momentum of the Howarth, 2011 study to further push their ideology of a ‘carbon-free’ economy (now), onto the political agenda. See quote from Friends of the Earth (FoE website, 2013) below: “Relying on shale gas would lock countries into an ongoing dependence on fossil fuels, requiring a new generation of gas-fired power plants.” (note: Friends of the Earth, “Unconventional and Unwanted”, 2012 report refers to the Howarth, 2011 claims; whereas, the 2013 Friends of the Earth reports have steered away from claiming shale gas is as polluting as coal.)

76

KEY Fact 1 When burned, natural gas emits less CO2 and local pollutants than other fossil fuels. The amount and type of pollutants emitted by electricity generation vary from technology to technology, as summarized from the EPA Emissions and Generated Resources Integrated Database (2013) below.

According to the EPA, 2013: “Compared to the average air emissions from coal-fired generation, natural gas produces half as much carbon dioxide, less than a third as much nitrogen oxides, and one percent as much sulfur oxides at the power plant.” As a result, the use of natural gas for power generation is among the cheapest and fastest ways to reduce emissions (and reach Kyoto Protocol goals).

Nitrogen oxides (lb/MWh)

Sulfur oxides (lb/MWh)

CO2 (lb/MWh)

Natural gas 1.7 0.1 1135

Coal 6 13 2249

Oil 4 12 1672

Nuclear None None None

Municipal solid waste combustion 5.4 0.8 2988

Hydroelectricity Negligible Negligible Negligible

Solar Negligible Negligible Negligible

Wind Negligible Negligible Negligible

Geothermal Negligible Negligible Negligible

Biomass: Biomass power plants emit nitrogen oxide, a small amount of sulfur dioxide, and carbon dioxide. The amounts emitted depend on the type of biomass that is burned and the type of generator used and the amount of coal used to co-fire.

Landfill gas: Burning landfill gas produces nitrogen oxides emissions as well as trace amounts of toxic materials. The amount of these emissions can vary widely, depending on the waste from which the landfill gas was created.

Summary from: http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-and-you/affect/air-emissions.html

Multiple organizations have modeled lifecycle GHG emissions from shale gas compared to other energy sources. Below are two examples of research results:

1. Lifecycle emissions from coal and gas-fired electricity generation (DG CLIMA, report for the European Commission, 2012)

2. Mass of carbon dioxide emitted per quantity of energy for various fuels (Voluntary Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Program, U.S. Energy Administration, 2009)

Mass of carbon dioxide emitted per quantity of energy for various fuels

Fuel Name CO2 emitted (lbs/106 Btu) CO2 emitted (g/MJ Btu)

Natural Gas 117 50.30

Liquefied Petroleum Gas 139 59.76

Propane 139 59.76

Aviation Gasoline 153 65.78

Automobile Gasoline 156 67.07

Kerosene 159 68.36

Fuel Oil 161 69.22

Tires/Tire Derived Fuel 189 81.26

Wood and Wood Waste 195 83.83

Coal (Bituminous) 205 88.13

Coal (Sub-Bituminous) 213 91.57

Coal (Lignite) 215 92.43

Petroleum Coke 225 96.73

Tar-sand Bitumen

Coal (Anthracite) 227 97.59

98

KEY Fact 2 The U.S. has dropped CO2 emissions by 200 million tons while the global CO2 emissions increased.The International Energy Agency (IEA) released a report (Redrawing the energy climate map, 2013) finding that even as global CO2 emissions increased by 1.4 percent, emissions from the U.S. dropped by 200 million tons, or 3.8 percent. CO2 emissions in the United States have declined four of the last five years. The 2012 level was last seen in mid-1990s. One of the key reasons has been the increased availability of natural gas, linked to the shale gas revolution, which has led to lower prices and increased competiveness of natural gas versus coal in the U.S. power sector. The large availability of spare capacity facilitated this quick transformation. In 2011, when the share of natural gas had already increased significantly, the utilization rate of combined-cycle gas turbines was still below 50% (IEA, 2013b). Gas-fired combined-cycle plants produce, on average, half the emissions per kilowatt hour than conventional coal-fired generation.

U.S. Energy-related carbon dioxide emissions declined 3.8 percent in 2012:yy The 2012 downturn means that emissions in the U.S, are at their lowest level since 1994 and more than 12

percent below the recent 2007 peak.

yy After 1990, only the recession year of 2009 saw a larger percentage emissions decrease than 2012.

yy Energy-related CO2 emissions have declined in 4 of the last 5 years.

Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, Monthly Energy Review (September 2013), Table 12.1.

Substitution of natural gas for coal in power generation helped lower emissions in 2012:Because the generation of electricity is an important source of emissions, declines in the carbon intensity of electricity generation lowers emissions throughout the economy.

yy The increased availability of natural gas has led to lower prices and increased competiveness of natural gas versus coal in the U.S. power sector.

yy The increase in natural gas-fired generation, while coal-fired generation decreased, substantially reduced the carbon intensity of electricity generation in 2012.

yy While there was an increase in wind generation, hydropower generation declined from 2011 by over twice the increase in wind generation.

yy Despite the overall decline in renewables from 2011, the carbon intensity of power generation still fell by 3.5 percent, due largely to the increase in the share of natural gas generation relative to coal generation.

Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, Monthly Energy Review (September 2013), Table 7.2b.

1110

KEY Fact 3 EPA revised downward the amount of methane that is estimated to leak from natural gas production systems. Tighter pollution controls and technologies (see examples below) instituted by the industry resulted in an average annual decrease of 41.6 million metric tons of methane emissions from 1990 through 2010, or more than 850 million metric tons overall. That’s about a 20 percent reduction from previous estimates. The EPA converts the methane emissions into their equivalent in CO2, following standard scientific practice. The EPA revisions came even though natural gas production has grown by nearly 40 percent since 1990. EPA Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2011.

A 2013 joint study from the University of Texas, the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) and a number of leading operators looked at 190 onshore natural gas production sites in the United States (see Appendix for report reference). During completion activities (including hydraulic fracturing), the authors found that direct measurements of emissions were “nearly 50 times lower than previously estimated by the Environmental Protection Agency.” Based on its findings, the researchers estimate that total annual methane emissions are “comparable” to EPA’s revised estimates.

The UT-EDF study’s findings (along with data from the latest EPA Greenhouse Gas Inventory) suggest a leakage rate of only about 1.5 percent, if not less than that. That rate is comfortably below the threshold required for shale to maintain its obvious and significant climate benefits.

Examples of emissions management for gas productionyy Reduced emissions completions that flare rather than vent gas during the completion flowback process,

thereby avoiding unnecessary methane emissions;

yy Green completions that neither vent nor flare gas during the completion flowback process;

yy Vapor Recovery Units on tanks and separators during both production and the completion flowback process;

yy Installation and retrofit of gas-operated low-bleed pneumatic controllers or instrument air pneumatic controllers at production facilities;

yy Routine leak detection technology and repair at production facilities; and

yy Installation of plunger lift systems to unload liquids from gas wells.

KEY Fact 4 Most global and national institutions agree that natural gas is the preferred option in the transition to a low-carbon economy and complements rather than competes with renewable energy sources.“Low-priced natural gas and clean renewable resources are complementary, not competing, resources to displace other fuels over the long term … this is possible because, despite competition, there is a strong complementary relationship between natural gas and renewables. Not only may increasing concerns about air pollution and associated health and environmental consequences create additional costs for coal-fired generation, but natural gas-fired generation also matches much better with intermittent renewable generation from solar and wind projects than do coal-fired power plants.” Dr. Jurgen Weiss Texas Clean Energy Coalition; Partnering Natural Gas and Renewables in ERCOT; June 2013

“There’s increasing sensitivity to carbon emissions. [Natural] gas is much cleaner so it will be the fuel of choice at these prices for power generation. Solar or wind energy can complement gas-fired generation by running when available” according to the Director of the International Renewable Energy Agency; interview with Bloomberg; 2013.

According to the European Commission, 2011 “[Natural] gas will be critical for the transformation of the energy system. Substitution of coal (and oil) with gas in the short to medium term could help to reduce emissions with existing technologies until at least 2030 or 2035.”

“Against all expectations, American emissions of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, since peaking in 2007, have fallen by 12 percent, back to 1995 levels … one can virtually prove that shale gas is the major factor behind the fall in U.S. emissions. Natural gas, especially when burnt in combined-cycle gas turbine power plants, emits only half as much GHG as coal.” (Jeffrey Frankel, a professor at Harvard)

Further information on how natural gas could be the needed complementary base load to alternative energy is detailed in another information document.

Industry has accumulated a great deal of experience with the safe and environmentally sound management of shale gas operations in the U.S. This has resulted in a long list of shale operations recommended practices to limit GHG emissions, including:

yy Leak detection surveying and inefficient pipe replacement;

yy Plunger lift, flare, and natural gas recovery system installation to reduce vented CH4;

yy Replacement of natural gas-fired pneumatic pumps with solar-powered pumps;

yy Replacement of older and less efficient compressors; and

yy See appendix for further research material.

1312

Key Resources: DG CLIMA, AEA/R/ED57412, 30 July 2012. http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/eccp/docs/120815_final_report_en.pdf

EPA, 2013 (summary of the Emissions and Generated Resource Integrated Database)

http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-and-you/affect/air-emissions.html

U.S. Energy Information Administration, U.S. Energy-Related Carbon Dioxide Emissions for 2012, published Oct 2013.

http://www.eia.gov/environment/emissions/carbon/pdf/2012_co2analysis.pdf

International Energy Agency, Redrawing the energy climate map, 2013.

http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/media/weowebsite/2013/energyclimatemap/RedrawingEnergyClimateMap.pdf

Interview with International Renewable Energy Agency, 2013.

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2013/01/irena-shale-gas-boom-can-complement-renewables-to-cut-coal?cmpid=rss

European Commission, Energy Roadmap 2050, COM(2011) 885/2, 2011.

http://ec.europa.eu/energy/energy2020/roadmap/doc/com_2011_8852_en.pdf

Ridley, The Global Warming Policy Foundation; GWPF Report 2 The Shale Gas Shock; 2011. http://www.thegwpf.org/images/stories/gwpf-reports/Shale-Gas_4_May_11.pdf

Mauter, Meagan S., Vanessa R. Palmer, Yiqiao Tang, and R. Patrick Behrer. “The Next Frontier in United States Unconventional Shale Gas and Tight Oil Extraction: Strategic Reduction of Environmental Impact.” Discussion Paper 2013-04, Energy Technology Innovation Policy research group, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard Kennedy School, March 2013.

David T. Allen1, Vincent M. Torres1, James Thomas1, David Sullivan1, Matthew Harrison2, Al Hendler2, Scott C. Herndon3, Charles E. Kolb3, Matthew Fraser4, A. Daniel Hill5, Brian K. Lamb6, Jennifer Miskimins7, Robert F. Sawyer8, and John H. Seinfeld9. “Measurements of Methane Emissions at Natural Gas Production Sites in the United States”. 2013.

1Center for Energy and Environmental Resources, University of Texas at Austin, 2URS Corporation, 3Aerodyne Research, Inc, 4School of Sustainable Engineering and the Built Environment, 5Department of Petroleum Engineering, Texas A&M University, 6Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering, Washington State University, 7Department of Petroleum Engineering, Colorado School of Mines, 8Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of California, 9Department of Chemical Engineering, California Institute of Technology.http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2013/09/10/1304880110

Appendix – Supporting DocumentationSummary of scientific research on emissions from shale gas operations

Total emissions measured and estimated from shale gas production

1. Measurements of Methane Emissions at Natural Gas Production Sites in the United States. David T. Allen1, Vincent M. Torres1, James Thomas1, David Sullivan1, Matthew Harrison2, Al Hendler2, Scott C. Herndon3, Charles E. Kolb3, Matthew Fraser4, A. Daniel Hill5, Brian K. Lamb6, Jennifer Miskimins7, Robert F. Sawyer8, and John H. Seinfeld9.

1Center for Energy and Environmental Resources, University of Texas at Austin, 2URS Corporation, 3Aerodyne Research, Inc, 4School of Sustainable Engineering and the Built Environment, 5Department of Petroleum Engineering, Texas A&M University, 6Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering, Washington State University, 7Department of Petroleum Engineering, Colorado School of Mines, 8Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of California, 9Department of Chemical Engineering, California Institute of Technology. http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2013/09/10/1304880110

Summary: The study measured emissions at 190 onshore natural gas production sites in the United States, measuring a leakage rate of only about 1.5 percent.

2. Characterizing Pivotal Sources of Methane Emissions from Unconventional Natural Gas Production. T. Shires and M. Lev-on, URS Corporation and LEVON Group. September 21, 2012. http://www.api.org/news-and-media/news/newsitems/2012/oct-2012/~/media/Files/News/2012/12-October/API-ANGA-Survey-Report.pdf

http://www.ogj.com/articles/2012/06/survey-finds-methane-emissions-from-fracing-half-of-epa-estimates.html

Summary: Updated emission data gathering results from API and America’s Natural Gas Alliance on key natural gas production activities and equipment emission.

3. Shale Gas Production: Potential versus Actual Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Francis O’Sullivan, Sergey Paltsev. June 25, 2012. http://m.iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/7/4/044030/article

Summary: Assessed the GHG emission levels from 4,000 shale gas hydraulic fracturing wells in the United States in 2010.

4. Life-Cycle Analysis of Shale Gas and Natural Gas (ABK/ESD/11-11). C.E. Clark, et al., Center for Transportation Research. December 2011. http://www.transportation.anl.gov/pdfs/EE/813.PDF

Summary: This life-cycle analysis provides insight into the critical stages in the natural gas industry where emissions occur and where opportunities exist to reduce the greenhouse gas footprint of natural gas.

5. Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Marcellus Shale Gas. Mohan Jiang, et al. January 2011. http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/6/3/034014/fulltext/

Summary: Study that estimates the life cycle of GHG emissions from the production of Marcellus shale natural gas and compares its emissions with national average US natural gas emissions produced in the year 2008.

6. A Commentary on “The Greenhouse Gas Footprint of Natural Gas in Shale Formations”. R.W. Howarth, R. Santoro, A. Ingraffea. October 2011. (Howarth original paper included in reference section). http://cce.cornell.edu/EnergyClimateChange/NaturalGasDev/Documents/PDFs/FINAL%20Short%20Version%2010-4-11.pdf

Summary: A summary of arguments made on Howarth et al. Original paper can be found at the following link: http://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2Fs10584-011-0061-5.pdf

1514

Emissions/Climate change potential of shale gas compared to other energy sources

7. The Greenhouse Impact of Unconventional Gas for Electricity Generation. Nathan Hultman, Dylan Rebois, Michael Scholten, Christopher Ramig. November 2011. http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/linkableblob/4418886/data/professor-nathan-hultmane28099s-paper-data.pdf

Summary: Compares the GHG footprints of conventional natural gas, unconventional natural gas and coal in a transparent and consistent way, focusing primarily on the electricity generation sector.

8. Inventory of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions and sinks 1990-2011. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). April 2013. http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/Downloads/ghgemissions/US-GHG-Inventory-2013-Main-Text.pdf

Summary: This report provides an emissions inventory that identifies and quantifies a country’s primary anthropogenic sources and sinks of greenhouse gases is essential for addressing climate change

9. Climate Impact of Potential Shale Gas Production in the EU. (AEA/ED57412/Issue 2). Daniel Forster and Jonathan Perks. July 30, 2012. http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/eccp/docs/120815_final_report_en.pdf

Summary: This paper reviews existing estimates of GHG emissions from shale gas production, as well as potential options for abating emissions from the process.

Air quality reports near shale gas operations

10. Ambient Air Quality Study-Natural Gas Sites Cities of Fort Worth & Arlington, Texas. Barnett Shale Energy Education Council (BSEEC) July 2010. http://www.barnettshalenews.com/documents/ntxairstudy/Barnett%20Shale%20Ambient%20Air%20Quality%20Study%20Titan%20Engr%20BSEEC%20July%202010r.pdf

Summary: The study tested 10 natural gas sites, including two compressor stations on ambient air quality.

11. City of Fort Worth Natural Gas Air Quality Study. ERG, SAGE. July 2011. http://shaledigest.com/documents/2011/Air%20Quality%20Studies/Ft%20Worth%20Natural%20Gas%20Air%20Quality%20Study%20Final%20Report%20ERG%20Research%207-13-2011r.pdf

Summary: This study estimates emissions and evaluates air quality for 375 well pads, 8 compressor stations, one gas processing plant, a saltwater treatment facility, a drilling, fracturing and completion operation.

16