RICHARD A. MULLER AND ELIZABETH A. MULLER SUMMARY
Environmentalists who oppose the development of shale gas and
fracking are making a tragic mistake.
Some
oppose shale gas because it is a fossil fuel, a source of carbon
dioxide. Some are concerned by accounts of the fresh water it needs,
by flaming faucets, by leaked “fugitive methane”, by pollution
of the ground with fracking fluid and by damaging earthquakes.
These concerns are either largely false or can be addressed by
appropriate regulation.
For
shale gas is a wonderful gift that has arrived just in time. It can
not only reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but also reduce a deadly
pollution known as PM2.5 that is currently killing over three
million people each year, primarily in the developing world.
his
air pollution has been largely ignored because PM2.5 was an
unrecognised danger until recently; only in 1997 did it become part
of the US National Ambient Air Quality Standards. It is still not
monitored in much of the world.
Greenhouse warming is widely acknowledged as a serious long-term
threat, but PM2.5 is currently harming more people.
Europe shares an ironic advantage with China – the high price paid
for imported natural gas, typically US$10 per million BTU (compared
to US$3.50 in the US). At those prices, the cost of shale drilling
and completion can be much higher and still be profitable. Europe
can therefore be the testing and proving ground where innovative
technology can be tried and perfected while still profitable.
As both global warming and air pollution can be mitigated by the
development and utilisation of shale gas, developed economies should
help emerging economies switch from coal to natural gas. Shale gas
technology should be advanced as rapidly as possible and shared
freely.
Finally, environmentalists should recognise the shale gas revolution
as beneficial to society – and lend their full support to
helping it advance.
1
REDUCING PM2.5 AND GREENHOUSE GASES
PM2.5:
the
dirty
secret
PM2.5 refers to particulate matter 2.5 microns or smaller,
microscopic dust particles created directly from burning fuel but
also by secondary chemical reactions from emitted sulphur and
nitrous oxides (SOx and NOx). These particulates are so tiny
that they penetrate deep into human lungs where they are absorbed
into the blood and lead to cardiorespiratory disease. The US
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimates PM2.5 is responsible
for about 75,000 premature deaths per year in the United States,1
even though US measured air quality levels are typically
ranked in the good to moderate
categories, with an AQI (air quality index) of 0 to 100.
[EPA 2010; Lepeule 2011].
To put
this in perspective, yearly automobile deaths in the US in 2012 were
less than half of that. European air pollution deaths were estimated
at 400,000 per year by the European Environment Commissioner,
more per person than in the US because the PM2.5 levels are
significantly higher. [El Pais 2013].
It is not
just PM2.5 that kills, but larger particles (PM10), ozone, sulphur
and nitrous oxides and other pollutants. But the Air Quality Index
(AQI) round the world is usually dominated by PM2.5.2 But US and
European pollution levels are small compared to those in the
developing world. In
1 The
EPA
number
is
63,000
to
88,000
at
95%
confidence.
See
EPA
2010,
Appendix
G
page
2.
2 The
AQI
is
defined
separately
for
each
pollutant,
based
on
its
estimated
health
effects.
But,
by
convention,
the
total
AQI
is
set
to
that
of
the
leading
component
for
the
location.
Recently
that
has
almost
always
been
PM2.5.
early 2013, the level in Beijing soared to an AQI of 866, far above
the nominal hazardous3
threshold of 300. As we write this (November 2013) the
level in Delhi India is 817. On 21 October 2013, Harbin, a city in
northern China with 11 million people, turned on its centralised coal
system and the pollution level surged off scale at 1,000. The city’s
official news site said, “You can’t see your fingers in front of
your face.” [NYT 2013]. Airport visibility dropped below 10 metres.
The government shut schools, airports and many highways, and told people to stay at home.
You can look up current PM2.5 levels on the internet.4
On the day we are writing this, most of the US is
“good” (less than 50), most of the UK is “moderate” (50 to
100), Paris is “unhealthy for sensitive groups” at 114, and Vienna is “unhealthy” at 161.PM2.5 is a horrific environmental problem. The Health Effects
Institute estimated that air pollution in 2010 led to 3.2 million
deaths that
3 Pollution
categories
for
air
quality
and
the
colours
used
to
depict
them
on
maps
are
- good: green, AQI 0-50, PM2.5 concentration 0-12
µg/m3
- moderate: yellow, AQI 51-100, PM2.5 12-35 µg/m3
- unhealthy for sensitive groups: orange, AQI 101- 150, PM2.5 35-55 µg/m3
unhealthy:
red,
AQI
151-200,
PM2.5
55-150
µg/m3
- very unhealthy: purple, AQI 201-300, PM2.5 151- 250 µg/m3
- hazardous: brown, AQI above 301, PM2.5 above 250 µg/m3
Note:
for
PM2.5
above
500,
AQI
and
PM2.5
are
essentially
identical.
4 For
China
and
India,
see
aqicn.org
(also
try
the
map
link);
for
Europe,
see
aqicn.org/map/europe/;
for
the
US
see
airnow.gov
(with
many
map
choices)
or
commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Pm25-24a-
super.gif.
year, including 1.2 million in China and 620,000 in India. [O’Keefe
2013, Yang 2013]. And the pollution is getting worse as global use
of coal continues to grow.
The most dramatic and compelling new result linking coal pollution
to death comes from the Huai River Study. [Chen 2013]. In this
investigation, scientists took advantage of a Chinese government
policy that for 30 years supplied free coal north of the Huai River
for heating and cooking, and forbade such coal in homes south of the
river. The study determined that the 250 million people who live
north of the river were exposed, on average, to an additional 184
µg/m3
of particulates, and that they lost, on average, 5.5
years of life from the extra pollution. As a rule of thumb, they
estimate that each average added exposure of 100 µg/m3
will reduce average lifetime by three years. From this
we can calculate that the level reached in Harbin, an AQI of 1000
(which for such high levels also means 1000 µg/m3)
should
lead
to
a
thousand
excess
deaths
from
just
one
day
of
exposure.5
China not only has the greatest yearly death toll from air
pollution, but is also key for mitigating global warming. China
surpassed the US in CO2
production in 2006; growth was so rapid that by late
2013, China’s CO2
emissions are nearly twice those of the US. If its
growth continues at this rate (and China has averaged 10% GDP
growth per year for the
5 For
30
years
of
exposure
of
100
µg/m3,
based
on
the
Huai
River
study,
we
expect
3
years
lost
per
person.
For
one
day
at
1000
µg/m3,
we
expect
3x10/30/365
=
0.0027
years
lost
per
person.
For
11
million
people,
that
is
30,000
person-years
lost.
If
the
average
premature
death
takes
place
at
age
35,
then
that
amounts
to
860
deaths.
If
the
average
premature
death
takes
place
at
age
50
(loss
of
life
of
20
years
per
affected
person)
then
1500
deaths
are
expected.
past 20 years) China will be producing more CO2
per person than the US by 2023. If the US were to
disappear tomorrow, Chinese growth alone would bring worldwide
emissions back to the same level in four years. To mitigate global
warming, it is essential to slow worldwide emissions, not just
those in the developed countries. And we feel this must be done
without slowing the economic growth of the emerging world.
It is amazing that PM2.5 levels are not more widely addressed by
environmentalists, by political leaders, by journalists, and by the
general public. They should not, cannot, be ignored. PM2.5 kills
more people per year than AIDS, malaria, diabetes or tuberculosis.
We must do something. But what?
- Energy conservation
The most effective way to keep pollution out of the air is to leave
it underground, buried with the original coal. That can be done by
using less energy – energy conservation – and that can be
achieved without any lowering of productivity, comfort, or perceived
standard of living, primarily by improving efficiency. Indeed,
European nations, the US, China and other countries are working hard
to do this.
China’s official goal is to have energy use grow at a rate 4%
slower than that of their economy. That is a challenging but
realistic goal; the US improved its energy conservation by 5% per
year in the decade following the 1973 OPEC oil embargo, through
higher miles-per-gallon for cars, better insulation in homes and
buildings, and improved efficiency in engines and appliances.
The reason that such yearly improvement is feasible is that
conservation can be highly profitable. In the US, homeowners who
invest in conservation typically achieve a payback time
of five to ten years. If you think of it as an investment, then a
five-year payback is a 20% annual return. A 10-year payback is a 10%
return. And it is a tax-free return; you don’t pay taxes on money
not spent. Energy conservation is so profitable that it is worth
doing regardless of its mitigation of air pollution and global
warming [Muller, 2012].
However,
if the prodigious growth rate of the Chinese economy continues, then
even if they meet their conservation goals, their energy use will
increase 6% per year. If they stick with coal, then their PM2.5 and
greenhouse emissions will grow too. In 2013, China’s economic
growth slowed to between 7% and 8% per year. Even if that lower rate
continues, slowing energy growth will not be enough by itself to
stop the rapid rise of pollution. Energy conservation is an
essential part of China’s programme, perhaps the most important
part, but it is far from sufficient.
- Renewables
Two facts about China are often put forth to express optimism about
renewables. One is that 20% of China’s electric power already
comes from renewables, and the other is that China’s solar
capability is growing rapidly: seven gigawatts (GW) capacity was
added just last year. Thus China is a leader, setting an example
that the rest of the world can follow.
We tend to think of renewables as environmentally benign, but
according to the US Energy Information Administration (EIA), 86%
of China’s renewable energy in 2011 came from hydroelectric dams.
The rest came from wind (9%), biomass (4%), with only 0.4% from
solar.
Is more hydropower environmentally desirable? In China the recently
completed Three Gorges Dam displaced 1.2 million people
(“voluntarily”, the government says), obliterated 1,350
villages,
140 towns, and 13 cities. China is already planning extensive new
dams on the Mekong River, with disastrous ecological impacts
expected, not only in China but also Burma, Laos, Thailand,
Cambodia, and Vietnam.
In 2012, there were 76 GW of wind capacity in China, but because of
variability, the average power delivered was 22 GW, that is, about
a 29% capacity factor. That amounted to 1.5% of China’s
electricity generation. The intermittency can be tolerated when wind
is a small portion of total power generation, but it becomes a major
problem when used on a large scale. Energy storage is still
expensive, and so large-scale wind is not likely to do more than
supplement coal, hydro, and other more reliable alternatives.
Biomass is a renewable, good for global warming, but it too produces
PM2.5. Other renewables (geothermal, tidal, wave) offer little hope
of significant coal displacement in China [Muller 2012].
Solar, at 0.4% of China’s electricity, is far behind other
renewables. The recent addition of 7 GW solar capacity is easily
misinterpreted. Capacity refers to peak power, the power that can be
delivered when the sky is clear and the sun is directly overhead.
Average in night and day, and you lose half the output. Grazing
light at dawn and dusk halves output again. Finally, experience in
US and China indicates that cloudy weather halves output yet
again; it will be worse in cloudy parts of the UK and Europe. This
means that in 2012 China produced an average
solar capacity under 1 GW. And that production rate may
decrease now that Wuxi Suntech Power, the major Chinese producer,
defaulted on a $541 million bond and was placed into insolvency in
March 2013.
Compare that 1 GW of new solar to the expansion of Chinese coal,
which has added an average capacity of 50 GW per year over
the past several years, a gigawatt per week, enough added each year
to power seven new New York cities. Solar is being left in the dust
by coal.
Nuclear power is not a renewable, but like wind and solar, it
produces essentially no PM2.5 or CO2.
China is currently planning 32 new nuclear plants. But these require
high capital investment, and that makes them less attractive for
rapid large-scale deployment in the developing world.
The developed world has the financial resources to subsidise solar
and wind, at least for peak power purposes in their own countries.
But developing countries are not wealthy enough to do that, and yet
their expected energy growth is too big for the developed world to
subsidise. The recent retreats from subsidising renewables in Spain
and Germany demonstrate how fragile and fickle government support
can be. There is a general rule which is especially true for
developing economies: If
it
isn’t
profitable,
it
isn’t
sustainable.
- Scrubbers
In principle, scrubbers in coal smokestacks can remove many
of the pollutants, and they are widely but not universally used
in the US and Europe. US regulation requires them eventually to be
installed, but retrofitting and operating such scrubbers has often
proven more expensive than simply shutting down the coal plants and
switching to natural gas. A 2008 report from the China Energy Group
at MIT illustrates the severity of the cost problem in the
developing world. Even when scrubbers have been installed, local
coal power plant operators in China consistently turn them off
because of the expense of operation. [Steinfeld 2008].
- Shale gas
Natural gas offers a practical and relatively quick way to stem the
rise of PM2.5 air pollution. At the same time, as an alternative to
coal, it offers an important opportunity to significantly slow the
growth of CO2
emissions.
Shale
gas
is natural gas, mostly methane, tightly trapped inside
shale rock. Conventional
natural gas is the small fraction that has slowly leaked
out of the shale over millions of years and became concentrated in
easily reached geologic pockets. But shale gas is the source,
and as such is much more abundant than conventional gas. Its
existence has been known for a long time, but most geologists
thought its extraction was economically unfeasible, until recently.
Over the past two decades, geologists discovered they can release
it in vast quantities by using horizontal drilling (which can follow
a deeply-buried thin shale bed for over a mile) and multi-stage
fracking
(hydraulic fracturing – pumping water into the rock at
pressures of a thousand atmospheres). In the US, shale gas
production has grown by a factor of 17 in the last 13 years. It now
supplies 35% of US natural gas.
In the US, substitution of shale gas for coal power was driven in
large part by the fact that old coal plants needed to be retrofitted
with expensive scrubbers; it was often cheaper to decommission them
and build a new combined cycle gas plants instead. The
cleanliness shale gas delivers is intrinsic. Compared to coal, shale
gas results in a 400- fold reduction of PM2.5, a 4,000-fold
reduction in sulphur dioxide, a 70-fold reduction in nitrous oxides
(NOx), and more than a 30-fold reduction in mercury. [EIA 1999, EIA
2009]. As a result of this coal-to-gas transition, over the last 15
years, the electric power derived from coal in the US has dropped by
1/3, replaced by
shale gas power. This reduction, in turn, is responsible for much of
the unanticipated drop in US greenhouse gas emissions during that
same period. [Hausfather, 2013].
China
became a net importer of natural gas in 2007, and by 2012 the imports
grew to 29% of its gas consumption. [EIA 2013]. And yet it is
believed that China has enormous reserves of shale gas, perhaps 50%
larger than those of the US. [EIA 2011]. If that shale gas can be
utilised, it offers China a wonderful opportunity to mitigate air
pollution while still allowing energy growth.
And shale gas can help address the global warming issue too. When
burned to produce energy, natural gas produces typically half the CO2
of coal (depending on the grade).6
In addition, when the heat energy is used to produce
electricity, natural gas can produce electricity with 50% higher
efficiency than can coal, even when the coal is burned in the most
efficient way, in a pulverised supercritical power station. The net
result is that CO2
produced per kilowatt-hour of electricity from gas is
only one third to one half that of coal. And, the capital cost of
such a gas-fired plant
is much less than that of a similarly sized coal- fired plant.
6 The
CO2
produced
in
burning
coal
depends
on
the
grade,
that
is,
on
how
much
of
the
coal
is
carbon
and
how
much
is
complex
hydrocarbons.
Natural
gas
consists
primarily
of
methane,
CH4,
and
when
methane
is
burned
more
than
half
of
the
energy
comes
from
the
hydrogen
which
burns
into
harmless
H2O
–
water.
(Although
H2O
is
a
greenhouse
gas,
the
amount
produced
is
overwhelmed
by
natural
H2O.)
In
contrast,
when
carbon
burns,
all
the
energy
comes
from
creating
carbon
dioxide.
IS SHALE GAS ENVIRONMENTALLY BENIGN?
Despite the immense potential environmental value of shale gas, the
list of potential environmental negatives is also significant. We
need to sort out which threats are real and which ones are based on
misunderstanding; the rapid development of shale gas has been matched
by an equally rapid growth of misinformation about the potential
dangers. The following paragraphs go through these one by one and
explain why, although all of them must be addressed, none of them are
showstoppers.
- Shale gas production depletes limited supplies of fresh water
A large amount of fresh water is normally used in US fracking
operations, typically about a 1 gallon of water for each million BTUs
of shale gas produced. (1 million BTUs of energy requires 1,000 cubic
feet of gas, or about 30 cubic metres.) For a single well, that can
amount to two to five million gallons of water, enough to fill
several Olympic-sized swimming pools.
Yet viable alternatives exist. Virtually all of the shale gas regions
have abundant resources of deep brines – salty water – well below
the shallow depths where fresh water is found. This is not
accidental; the same sedimentary geology that trapped shale gas
provides barriers that trap rainfall. Potable water is typically
found from the surface to a depth of about 100 metres; below that,
the water is too salty for any commercial purpose – other than
fracking. At 300 to 500 metres, still relatively shallow compared to
the shale layers, abundant saline water can be extracted. Moreover,
most of the water that flows back from the well can be treated and
reused.
A gas and oil company named Apache has been on the forefront of
reducing fresh water
use. They first did this at the Horn River formation in Canada where
brines proved not only practical but cheaper than use of fresh
water. Then they eliminated fresh water use in fracking operations
in Irion County, Texas; this year they have used only recycled
produced water from fracking operations and oil fields together with
brackish water obtained from the Santa Rosa formation at 800 to 900
feet depth [Reuters 2013]. In all of Apache’s hydraulic fracturing
operations in the Permian Basin, more than half the water is
sourced from non- fresh water sources, about 900 wells.
In the US, many farmers and ranchers prefer that fresh water be
used since they can make additional income by selling it. Saline
water requires different additives to address viscosity, corrosion,
scaling, and bacteria, but the required chemicals are not
substantially more expensive than those for fresh water. In his book
on shale gas, Vikram Rao, the former CTO at Halliburton, recommends
that brines completely replace fresh water for fracking operations.
[Rao 2012].
- Flaming faucets! Fracking pollutes ground water
The famous “flaming faucets” shown in the movie Gasland
(and on YouTube)
were not due to fracking, despite what that movie suggests. The
accounts were investigated by state environmental agencies, and
in every case traced to methane-saturated ground
water produced by shallow bacteria. Indeed,
coming from the wells, it has not come from the fracking (which
typically takes place at depths of two to four kilometres), but from
improper wastewater disposal or from leaking shallow casings in old
drill holes. Properly designed drilling, fracking, and completion
regulations, coupled with effective monitoring, can ensure that
shale gas production has small or zero detrimental effect on the
environment.
This leakage issue is not particularly linked to shale gas wells;
the same dangers occur for conventional gas and oil wells. The
reason for legitimate concern is that with shale gas, the number of
wells in a region can be large, so the risk of contamination is
higher.
The solution lies in regulating shale at least as stringently as
conventional oil and gas. If ground water contamination occurs,
fine the perpetrator enough to make it highly unprofitable.
Monitoring can be done both through government and community
inspections; the threat of stiff fines will drive all operations to
use industry best practice.
- Fugitive methane – a powerful greenhouse gas
Methane, the dominant component in natural gas, is a much more
powerful greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. The initial scare of
the danger of “fugitive” (leaked) methane came from mistaken use
of the fact that its “greenhouse potential” is 83 times that of
CO2,
8
the
movie
FrackNation
includes
a
clip
in
which
kilogram per kilogram.
That makes it seem
the Gasland
producer, writer, and star Josh Fox admits that flaming
faucets were common long before fracking was ever tried.
Nonetheless, there have been suggestive correlations between local
water contamination and well locations. In cases in which
contamination has been documented as
that even 1% leakage would undo its
advantage over coal. But if you take into account
the fact that methane is rapidly
8 This
value
and
the
subsequent
values
are
the
those
used
in
the
latest
report
of
the
International
Panel
on
Climate
Change.
The
value
83
is
for
a
20
year
time
frame.
destroyed in the atmosphere (with a much shorter lifetime than CO2),
then the potency is reduced to about 34 times. And the fact that
methane weighs less (molecule per molecule) than CO2
means that leaked methane is only 12 times more potent
for the same energy produced.9
Because natural gas power plants are more efficient
than those of coal, even with leakage rate of up to 17% (far higher
than even the most pessimistic estimates), natural gas still
provides a greenhouse gas improvement
over coal for the same electricity produced. [Muller, 2013; Cathles
et al. 2011].
How much
methane leaks in actual practice? Initial analysis by Howarth [2011]
suggested that it might be as high as 8%. That is well below the
coal equivalent percentages, but it certainly makes natural gas less
attractive from a global warming perspective. However, Howarth’s
original work made assumptions for parameters that were not directly
measured, and many of these were “conservative estimates” –
which means prejudicial against natural gas. It took two years, but
finally a calibrated study of 190 wells showed that the leakage from
shale gas production averaged about 0.4%. [Allen, 2013; Hausfather &
Muller 2013]. If we add in leakage in pipelines and storage, the
maximum is still only 1.4%, and the greenhouse advantage over coal
is large. A recent report by Miller et al. [2013] suggests the
rate could be twice that; but even if this new report is more
accurate than the EPA value, fugitive methane is still a vast
greenhouse gas improvement compared to coal.
9 A
kilogram
of
methane
produces
2.75
kg
of
CO2
when
burned.
That
means
that
to
calculate
what
happens
if
methane
leaks,
we
have
to
compare
the
potency
of
1
kg
of
methane
to
the
potency
of
the
2.75
kg
of
CO2
that
otherwise
would
have
been
put
into
the
atmosphere.
That
reduces
the
ratio
from
30
to
30/2.75
=
11.
In retrospect, that low number of 1.4% for leakage is not
surprising. Any producer who leaks 8% of his gas (the Howarth
number) is throwing away 8% of the revenue, and a much larger
percentage of the profit.
- Poisoning the ground with fracking fluid
A few years ago, one of the competitive secrets to fracking was
in the choice of chemical additives to the fracking water.
Environmentalists worried about the potential harm that such
additives could do to the underground rocks and if accidently
released to the surface and mixed with groundwater.
To alleviate concerns, over 55,000 wells in the US are now
disclosing the fluids they use; the compositions are published
online at fracfocus.org. Additives include friction reducers, oxygen
scavengers, corrosion and scale inhibitors, and biocides. Some
companies have gone further: executives of the firms have drunk
fracking fluid at press conferences to demonstrate how harmless it
is.
The concern of harming the ground needs to be put in perspective.
The shale is already full of nasty chemicals, including the very
hydrocarbons the drillers are trying to obtain (gasoline, kerosene),
carcinogenic compounds known as PAHs, as well as arsenic and heavy
metals including mercury and lead.
Nobody drinks the flowback water. It is bad stuff, due to what comes
out of the ground rather than what was pumped down, and it must be
handled appropriately. About 30% of the water injected into the
ground comes back, a combination of fracking fluid and produced
water from the ground. At least 90% of this water can be recycled
and put back into future wells. That leaves 3% or less to be
disposed of. Regulation should require that residual waste water not
be released into the surface environment, but be trucked away;
if liquid,
then buried in disposal wells. Such practices are already in use
in the US as well as in Sichuan Province of China. Southwestern
Energy, one of the largest US shale gas companies, states on its
website that it recycles 100% of its waste water.
- Earthquakes induced by fracking
Injecting water into the ground can induce earthquakes. In 2011, a
magnitude 5.6 earthquake triggered by water injection in Oklahoma
destroyed 14 homes and injured two people. A good review was
recently published in Science.
[Ellsworth, 2013].
No large earthquakes have been associated with fracking but rather
with “disposal wells”. There are about 30,000 such wells in the
US, most used for conventional oil and gas wastewater burial. Of
these, most show no injection-induced seismicity; the ones that do
are the ones that dispose of very large volumes or dispose of water
directly into faults.
Fracking does not inject similarly huge amounts of water, and for
that reason has not been the cause of large earthquakes. Typical
earthquakes generated directly by fracking are magnitude one to two,
too small for a human to feel although detectable by seismometers.
The energy factor for a one-magnitude difference is typically 30, so
a magnitude two fracking earthquake is smaller than a magnitude five
disposal earthquake by 30x30x30 = 27,000 times, the same energy
ratio as for a match compared to ten pounds of TNT.
We can prevent disposal earthquakes by recycling water to minimise
injection volumes and by taking care in the choice of disposal well
locations.
- Shale gas is a fossil fuel
True. And as such, it contains substantial amounts of carbon, and
eventually we need to stop injecting CO2
into the atmosphere. But the increases in atmospheric
CO2
that we are observing is coming largely from expanding
coal use in developing countries. If their increased energy needs
can be met from natural gas instead of coal, we can slow global
warming by a factor of two to three. That means that instead of
having 30 to 50 years before we reach twice the preindustrial carbon
dioxide levels in the atmosphere, we might have 60 to 100 years or
more. In that time, the cost of solar, wind, energy storage and
nuclear could drop to a level at which they can be afforded by the
developing world; we may even have fusion energy, or something we
have yet to dream of. In fact, with the hoped for economic growth,
there may be little of developing world that is undeveloped in 50
years, and the whole world could afford to use zero carbon energy
sources even if the cost of solar and wind were to remain high.
- Cheap natural gas will slow the development of solar and wind
If natural gas is available, then it reduces the pressure to develop
inexpensive renewable technologies. For some environmentalists, this
is their most serious concern. With natural gas providing a cheap
alternative, the pressure to produce cheap solar and wind is
reduced.
Yet cheap natural gas can also make it easier for solar and wind
energy to further penetrate electricity markets by providing the
rapid back-up that those intermittent sources require. In
addition, natural gas is the only base load fuel that can be
downscaled into microgrids and distributed generation networks to
provide that same flexibility and reliability for solar energy
on rooftops and in
buildings, expanding the market for urban solar systems.
Particularly for areas focusing on distributed generation, natural
gas can be an enabler of wind and solar.
And there is a real danger that if shale gas is not developed, then
the main competition to solar and wind will be cheap coal. That is
difficult to avoid even in the developed world. Because of
Fukushima, Japan is shutting down many of its nuclear plants. As a
result it expects to expand its coal use by 23% in 2014. Ironically,
one of the larger coal plants it will open is in Fukushima. In
Germany, also shutting down nuclear, the greatest energy
expansion is coming in coal. In 2012, coal accounted for 45% of
Germany’s electric power, and in 2013 it has already grown to 50%.
Solar in Germany is at 14%. Moreover, if it is to grow
substantially and supply more than just peak power needs, solar
needs good energy storage systems. Letting a perfect renewable
future be the enemy of a good short- to medium-term transition from
coal to gas would probably result in a world with more overall
greenhouse gas emissions and deaths from air pollution.
- Shale Gas Development Industrialises Rural Lands
The
large-scale and long-term structures used to deliver solar and wind
power are much more likely to interfere with the local environment.
Many people are already complaining about “industrializing the
landscape” with wind turbines. Wind farms off the coast of Cape
Cod in the US have been opposed by environmentalists who considered
them unsightly and worry that they interfere with sea life.
In contrast, the drilling derrick for a natural gas well is normally
portable, and is in place for only one to three months. Then it is
replaced with a much smaller work-over rig for a few weeks, and
then replaced with a small
“Christmas tree” of pipes, valves, and gas/liquid separator in a
fenced platform about 30 metres square. In China, half of the
concrete drilling platform is removed when production starts, and
recovered land is restored to agriculture and homes. A single well
can extract gas from a mile of shale, and multiple wells (different
underground locations and depths) are now being drilled from a
single platform both in the US and in China, and that reduces the
number of platforms needed in a given area.
A serious but temporary local impact can come from the heavy
truck traffic needed to bring in pumps and materials, particularly
in areas where roads are poor. In China, local communities benefit
from the road improvements that the gas companies make to bring in
materials and equipment, and so they are tolerant of the temporary
disruptions. Indeed, agreements are negotiated between the gas
companies and the local communities.
- SHALE GAS CAN BE THE SOLUTION The argument up to now can be summarised as follows: shale gas is urgently needed to address the greatest human-caused environmental disaster of our time, rising levels of air pollution, currently causing over three million deaths per year worldwide. At the same time it can dramatically slow the rate of global warming, and, as a bridging fuel, provide the time we need to develop truly sustainable non-carbon energy sources. The main dangers of shale gas can all be addressed by regulation to ensure that development is done using industry best practice, with heavy fines for malefactors.
But why is shale gas needed in the developed world – a world that
can afford to pay the premium for solar and wind? The fundamental
reason is speed. Europe can develop shale gas far more rapidly than
it can move to solar and
wind, largely because of the low cost, the absence of an
intermittency problem, and good existing gas infrastructure. To the
extent that shale gas replaces coal, it will save hundreds of
thousands of deaths each year, lives that will be lost if we choose
the slower and more expensive transition to renewables. In addition,
shale gas can enable Europe to quickly follow the US lead to
lowering greenhouse gases. Coal use is still widespread in Europe.
In 2009, it produced 28% of the electric power in the UK, 56% in the
Czech Republic, and 42% (more recently up to 50%) in Germany.
Shale development in the US was facilitated by the fact that the US
is blessed with some geologic regions in which the underground
formations were most amenable to the new technology, not only in
Texas but also in Pennsylvania and North Dakota. Shale layers tended
to be at modest depths and unbroken by faults and other structures
that complicate the shale formations in China and Europe.
It is not just the presence of shale gas that determines economic
viability. Drilling a shale gas well is a complex operation. Each
well typically costs between US$3 million to US$6 million; initial
exploration wells can be twice as expensive. Even if they are
productive, the bottom line is whether they produce enough to yield
a profit. China and Europe have the “advantage” (for
development) that they are importing natural gas at a high price,
which makes locally produced shale gas competitive. (In the US,
facilities designed to import liquefied natural gas are now being
converted to export facilities.) China and Europe need inexpensive
gas if they are to substitute clean shale gas energy for coal.
In fact, a number of shale formations in the US were economic
failures. Many people have heard of the great successes: the
Barnett, the
Marcellus, the Bakken. But virtually nobody outside the shale gas
community knows of the Caney in Oklahoma, the Conesauga in Alabama,
the Mancos in New Mexico, the Mowry in Wyoming, or the Kreyenhagen
in California. These were failed efforts, sites that were drilled
but have not yet led to development.
Chinese shale gas development has been proceeding slowly, in part
because their geology is complex, and in part because of their
inexperience with free enterprise. China’s first attempts at
introducing competition, based on open bidding for shale gas leases,
have been very disappointing; many of the winning companies do not
have the technical or financial capability for the rapid and
innovative development that was needed. China has found it difficult
to decontrol prices, a key step towards making shale gas
competitive. Until China masters the free-enterprise system
(and it has a long way to go), rapid technological advances are far
more easily achieved in the West through competition and iteration,
and then exported to China.
Shale gas mining in the West is undergoing rapid technological
development that is bringing down the cost. We already mentioned the
use of brines in place of fresh water. Perhaps equally important is
the improvement of extraction efficiency. Industry experts believe
that the cubic metres of gas recovered from a given well can be
doubled in the near future by better design of the fracking stages
to match geologic formation characteristics. And they also believe
that number could double again in the next decade. Soon that will
mean four times the production for only a minor increase in cost.
Such an advance is expected to turn currently difficult fields into
major producers, to open up fields in China, Europe, and the US that
are currently unprofitable.
The main impediment to the advance of technology in the US is the low
price obtained for natural gas (under US$3.50 per million BTU, at the
time of writing). As a result, few new gas wells are being drilled;
emphasis is on wells that yield more valuable heavy hydrocarbons and
oil. The price is still low in the US because of limited demand
increase and the large number of shale gas wells already drilled and
producing – over 100,000. After an initial surge of production,
shale gas wells continue to produce at a low level for decades. But
demand is rising as more US coal plants switch to natural gas and as
the petrochemical industry moves back to the US (from places like
Qatar) because of the newly low price of feedstock. We can expect the
price to rise a bit (to US$4.50? US$5.00?) and that will encourage
additional innovation.
As
mentioned above, Europe shares the ironic advantage of China – the
high price it is accustomed to pay for imported natural gas,
typically US$10 per million BTU (compared to the US$3.50 in the US).
At those prices, the cost of shale drilling and completion can be
much higher and still be in the profitable range. That means that
Europe can be the testing and proving ground where innovative
technology can be tried and perfected while still profitable.
It is not just a matter of low cost and clean air, but an issue of
energy security. Europe is far more dependent on Russian gas than it
likes, and the Russian shutdown of the Ukrainian pipeline in 2009
clearly made Europeans recognise their vulnerability.
CONCLUSION
The air pollution crisis in China and in the rest of the developing
world is only beginning. We observed on recent trips to China that
many people mistakenly believe any level of pollution below an AQI
of 250 is just “haze” and rarely bother to put on masks. When
the PM2.5 levels rise above this, the government issues radio alerts
and most residents mask up. The average
AQI in
Beijing10
this
year has been 159, in the
unhealthy
range; the US mean is 45. As the pollution grows it will
soon be a mask day every day. Foreign businessmen who recently
flocked to China as the land of opportunity now spend as much of
their time as possible out of the country. Air pollution makes it an
unattractive place to raise a family. Chinese citizens who have the
capability of living abroad are doing so. The Chinese government
is deeply concerned about this brain drain. And their worst fear is
social disharmony, a force that could disrupt their very rule.
We must help the world switch from coal to natural gas. This is not
just a public heath issue but a humanitarian one. We need to advance
shale gas technology as rapidly as possible and to share it freely.
We are in the midst of the greatest environmental catastrophe of
modern times, but we are also in the midst of an energy revolution,
comparable in significance to the 1849 US gold rush. Shale gas, with
its near-total reduction of PM2.5 pollution provides a solution to
the pollution. It can be a clean technology, and even though it
will not halt global warming, only energy conservation offers a more
affordable way to slow it. Environmentalists should recognise the
shale gas revolution as beneficial to society and lend their full
support to helping it advance.
10
The
historic
Beijing
hourly
PM2.5
record
since
24
January
2013
has
been
recorded
by
Andy
Young
at
http://young-0.com/airquality/
REFERENCES
Allen, D. T. et al, 2013, Measurements of methane emissions at
natural gas production sites in the United States,
www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1304880110
Cathles, L. M., L. Brown, M. Taam, A. Hunter. 2011. A commentary on
“The greenhouse-gas footprint of natural gas in shale formations”
by R.W. Howarth, R. Santoro, and Anthony Ingraffea. Climatic
Change. DOI
10.1007/s10584-011-0333-0
Chen, Y., A. Ebenstein, M. Greenstone, H. Li, 2013, Evidence on the
impact of sustained exposure to air pollution on life expectancy from
China’s Huai River policy.
www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1300018110
EIA
1999.
Natural
Gas
1998,
Issues
and
Trends.
Energy
Information
Administration
document
DOE/EIA-
0560(98).
/pdf/it98.pdf
EIA
2009. Modern
Shale
Gas
Development
in
the
United
States
–
A
Primer.
United
States Energy
Information
Administration.
April
2009.
http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/oil-
gas/publications/epreports/shale_gas_primer_2009.pdf
EIA
2011.
World
Shale
Gas
Resources
–
An
Initial
Assessment
of
14
Regions
Outside
the
United
States.
US Energy Information Administration report, Washington DC, April
2011, available at www.eia.gov
EIA 2013. www.eia.gov/COUNTRIES/cab.cfm?fips=CH
El Pais, 12 November 2013. English edition available at:
http://elpais.com/elpais/2013/10/18/inenglish/1382105674_318796.html
Ellsworth, W.L., 2013. Injection-Induced Earthquakes. Science
341, 1225942 (2013). DOI: 10.1126/ science.1225942
https://www.sciencemag.org/content/341/6142/1225942.abstract
EPA
2010.
Quantitative
Health
Risk
Assessment
for
Particulate
Matter,
report
EPA-452/R-10-005.
Hausfather,
Z.,
2013.
Explaining
and
Understanding
Declines
in
U.S.
CO2
Emissions
Hausfather Z. and R. Muller, 2013, New EPA Report Reveals
Significantly Lower Methane Leakage from Natural Gas.
http://static.berkeleyearth.org/memos/epa-report-reveals-lower-methane-leakage-from-
natural-gas.pdf
Howarth,
R.
W.,
R.
Santoro,
A.
Ingraffea,
2011,
Methane
and
the
greenhouse-gas
footprint
of
natural
gas
from
shale
formations,
Climate
Change,
DOI
10.1007/s10584-011-0061-5.
For
a
discussion
of
this
paper,
see
http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/2011/05/coal-preferable-to-natural-gas-or-not/
International
New
York
Times,
22
October
2013,
page
1.
Lancet 2012, Global
Burden
of
Disease
Study. This
study consisted of seven Articles, which can be accessed at
http://www.thelancet.com/themed/global-burden-of-disease
Lepeule, J, F. Laden, D Dockery, J Schwartz, 2012. Chronic Exposure
to Fine Particles and Mortality: An Extended Follow-up of the Harvard
Six Cities Study from 1974 to 2009. Environmental
Health
Perspectives
vol. 120 | no. 7 | July 2012, pp 965-970.
Miller,
S.
A.
et
al.,
2013.
Anthropogenic
emissions
of
methane
in
the
United
States,
Proc.
US
National
Academy
of
Sciences,
www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1314392110
.
Muller,
R.
A.,
2012.
Energy
for
Future
Presidents
(Norton,
New
York).
Muller,
R.
A.,
2013.
Fugitive
Methane
and
Greenhouse
Warming,
Berkeley
Earth
memo.
http://static.berkeleyearth.org/memos/fugitive-methane-and-greenhouse-warming.pdf
O’Keefe, 2013.
www.healtheffects.org/Slides/AnnConf2013/OKeefe-Sun.pdf
Rao,
2012.
V.,
Shale
Gas,
The
Promise
and
the
Peril,
198
pages,
RTI
Press.
Reuters 2013. Fracking without freshwater at a west Texas oilfield.
http://in.reuters.com/article/2013/11/21/apache-water-idINL2N0J514J20131121
Steinfeld,
E.
S.,
R.
K.
Lester,
E.
A.
Cunningham,
2008.
Greener
Plants,
Grayer
Skies?
A
Report
from
the
front
lines
of
China’s
Energy
Sector.
Industrial
Performance
Center.
http://web.mit.edu/ipc/publications/pdf/08-003.pdf
Yang
G,
Wang
Y,
Zeng
Y,
et
al.
(2013).
Rapid
health
transition
in
China,
1990–2010:
findings
from
the
Global
Burden
of
Disease
Study
2010.
Lancet
2013;
381:
1987–2015.
This
paper
can
be
downloaded
(after
you
have
registered
for
free)
at:
http://download.thelancet.com/mmcs/journals/lancet/PIIS0140673613610971/mmc1.pdf?id=de2e5b4b1d4
61676:68d48003:142252c0c07:-26961383605243403
THE CENTRE FOR POLICY STUDIES
The Centre for Policy Studies is one of Britain’s best-known and
most respected think tanks. Independent from all political parties
and pressure groups, it consistently advocates a distinctive case for
smaller, less intrusive government, with greater freedom and
responsibility for individuals, families, business and the voluntary
sector.
Through our Associate Membership scheme, we welcome supporters who
take an interest in our work. Associate Membership is available for
£100 a year. Becoming an Associate will entitle you to all CPS
publications produced in a 12-month period; invitations to lectures
and conferences; advance notice by e-mail of our publications,
briefing papers and invitations to special events.
Please contact Jenny Nicholson, Deputy Director, Events and
Fundraising, for more details at the address below.
THE AUTHORS
Richard A Muller has been Professor of Physics at the University
of California, Berkeley since 1980. He is recognised as one of the
world’s leading climate scientists and is the co-founder and
scientific director of Berkeley Earth, a non-profit organization that
re-analysed the historic temperature record and addressed key issues
raised by climate sceptics. He is the author of Physics
for
Future
Presidents
and Energy
for
Future
Presidents
and six other books. He has founded two projects that
led to Nobel Prizes and was named by Foreign Policy as one of its
2012 Top 100 Global Thinkers.
Elizabeth A. Muller is co-founder and Executive Director of Berkeley
Earth, and founder and Managing Director of the China Shale Fund, an
investment fund that brings together the best geological minds for
innovation in shale gas in China. Previously, she was Director at
Gov3 (now CS Transform) and Executive Director of the Gov3
Foundation. From 2000 to 2005 she was a policy advisor at the
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). She has
advised governments in over 30 countries in both the developed and
developing world.
The
aim
of
the
Centre
for
Policy
Studies
is
to
develop
and
promote
policies
that
provide
freedom
and
encouragement
for
individuals
to
pursue
the
aspirations
they
have
for
themselves
and
their
families,
within
the
security
and
obligations
of
a
stable
and
law-abiding
nation.
The
views
expressed
in
our
publications
are,
however,
the
sole
responsibility
of
the
authors.
Contributions
are
chosen
for
their
value
in
informing
public
debate
and
should
not
be
taken
as
representing
a
corporate
view
of
the
CPS
or
of
its
Directors.
The
CPS
values
its
independence
and
does
not
carry
on
activities
with
the
intention
of
affecting
public
support
for
any
registered
political
party
or
for
candidates
at
election,
or
to
influence
voters
in
a
referendum.
ISBN 978-1-906996-80-2
Centre for Policy Studies, December 2013
57
TUFTON
ST
R
E
ET,
LOND
ON
S
W
1P
3Q
L
TEL:+4
4(0)
20
7222
44
88
FAX:+44(
0)
2
0
7222
4388
W
WW.CPS.ORG.U
K
An illustration depicts the possible extent of an ancient lake inside Gale Crater, where the Mars rover Curiosity landed on the Red Planet in August 2012. The $2.5 billion NASA mission set out to explore Gale Crater, which was thought to have once hosted flowing water. Curiosity found evidence of clay formations, or "mudstone," in the crater's Yellowknife Bay, scientists said in 2013. This clay may have held the key ingredients for life billions of years ago. It means a lake must have existed in the area.
The rover drilled this hole, in a rock that's part of a flat outcrop researchers named "John Klein," during its first sample drilling on Mars on February 8.
The latest self-portrait of the rover combines dozens of images taken by the rover's Mars Hand Lens Imager (MAHLI) on February 3.
NASA's Mars rover Curiosity has taken its first set of nighttime photos, including this image of Martian rock illuminated by ultraviolet lights. Curiosity used the camera on its robotic arm, the Mars Hand Lens Imager, to capture the images on January 22.
Another nighttime image includes this rock called Sayunei in the Yellowknife Bay area of Mars' Gale Crater. Curiosity's front-left wheel had scraped the rock to inspect for fresh, dust-free materials in an area where drilling for rock soon will begin.
An area of windblown sand and dust downhill from a cluster of dark rocks has been selected as the likely location for the first use of the scoop on the arm of NASA's Mars rover Curiosity.
Curiosity cut a wheel scuff mark into a wind-formed ripple at the "Rocknest" site on October 3, 2012. This gave researchers a better opportunity to examine the particle-size distribution of the material forming the ripple.
NASA's Curiosity rover found evidence for what scientists believe was an ancient, flowing stream on Mars at a few sites, including the rock outcrop pictured here. The key evidence for the ancient stream comes from the size and rounded shape of the gravel in and around the bedrock, according to the Jet Propulsion Laboratory/Caltech science team. The rounded shape leads the science team to conclude they were transported by a vigorous flow of water. The grains are too large to have been moved by wind.
This photos shows an up-close look at an outcrop that also shows evidence of flowing water, according to the JPL/Caltech science team. The outcrop's characteristics are consistent with rock that was formed by the deposition of water and is composed of many smaller rounded rocks cemented together. Water transport is the only process capable of producing the rounded shape of conglomerate rock of this size.
Curiosity completed its longest drive to date on September 26, 2012. The rover moved about 160 feet east toward the area known as "Glenelg." As of that day the rover had moved about a quarter-mile from its landing site.
This image shows the robotic arm of NASA's Mars rover Curiosity with the first rock touched by an instrument on the arm. The photo was taken by the rover's right navigation camera.
This image combines photographs taken by the rover's Mars Hand Lens Imager at three distances from the first Martian rock that NASA's Curiosity rover touched with its arm. The images reveal that the target rock has a relatively smooth, gray surface with some glinty facets reflecting sunlight and reddish dust collecting in recesses in the rock.
This rock will be the first target for Curiosity's contact instruments. Located on a turret at the end of the rover's arm, the contact instruments include the Alpha Particle X-Ray Spectrometer for reading a target's elemental composition and the Mars Hand Lens Imager for close-up imaging.
Researchers used the Curiosity rover's mast camera to take a photo of the Alpha Particle X-Ray Spectrometer. The image was used to see if it had been caked in dust during the landing.
Researchers also used the mast camera to examine the Mars Hand Lens Imager (MAHLI) on the rover to inspect its dust cover and check that its LED lights were functional. In this image, taken on September 7, 2012, the MAHLI is in the center of the screen with its LED on. The main purpose of Curiosity's MAHLI camera is to acquire close-up, high-resolution views of rocks and soil from the Martian surface.
This is the open inlet where powdered rock and soil samples will be funneled down for analysis. The image is made up of eight photos taken on September 11, 2012, by MAHLI and is used to check that the instrument is operating correctly.
This is the calibration target for the MAHLI. This image, taken on September 9, 2012, shows that the surface of the calibration target is covered with a layor of dust as a result of the landing. The calibration target includes color references, a metric bar graphic, a penny for scale comparison, and a stair-step pattern for depth calibration.
This view of the three left wheels of NASA's Mars rover Curiosity combines two images that were taken by the rover's Mars Hand Lens Imager on September 9, 2012, the 34th day of Curiosity's work on Mars. In the distance is the lower slope of Mount Sharp.
This view of the lower front and underbelly areas of NASA's Mars rover Curiosity was taken by the rover's Mars Hand Lens Imager. Also visible are the hazard avoidance cameras on the front of the rover.
The penny in this image is part of a camera calibration target on NASA's Mars rover Curiosity. The image was taken by the Mars Hand Lens Imager camera.
The rover captured this mosiac of a rock feature called 'Snake River" on December 20, 2012.
The reclosable dust cover on Curiosity's Mars Hand Lens Imager was opened for the first time on September 8, 2012, enabling MAHLI to take this image.
The Curiosity rover used a camera located on its arm to obtain this self-portrait on September 7, 2012. The image of the top of Curiosity's Remote Sensing Mast, showing the Mastcam and Chemcam cameras, was taken by the Mars Hand Lens Imager. The angle of the frame reflects the position of the MAHLI camera on the arm when the image was taken.
The left eye of the Mast Camera on NASA's Mars rover Curiosity took this image of the rover's arm on Wednesday, September 5, 2012.
Sub-image one of three shows the rover and its tracks after a few short drives. Tracking the tracks will provide information on how the surface changes as dust is deposited and eroded.
Sub-image two shows the parachute and backshell, now in color. The outer band of the parachute has a reddish color.
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
