Understanding the Risks of Cheap Natural Gas and Hydraulic Fracking
This introduction delves into the multifaceted risks associated with the exploitation of cheap natural gas and hydraulic fracking. Covering climate risks, economic consequences of petro-states, direct GHG risks, and local environmental risks, the content underscores the complex challenges and implications of these practices. Issues such as displacement of alternative energy, CO2 and methane leakage, aquifer pollution, economic dependencies, and regulatory shortcomings are explored, urging a critical examination of the long-term impacts of these energy extraction methods.
Download Presentation
Please find below an Image/Link to download the presentation.
The content on the website is provided AS IS for your information and personal use only. It may not be sold, licensed, or shared on other websites without obtaining consent from the author. Download presentation by click this link. If you encounter any issues during the download, it is possible that the publisher has removed the file from their server.
E N D
Presentation Transcript
AN INTRODUCTION TO THE RISKS OF CHEAP NATURAL GAS AND HYDRAULIC FRACKING EDWARD P. RICHARDS, JD, MPH DIRECTOR, PROGRAM IN LAW, SCIENCE, AND PUBLIC HEALTH CLARENCE W. EDWARDS PROFESSOR OF LAW LSU LAW SCHOOL HTTP://BIOTECH.LAW.LSU.EDU HTTP://SSRN.COM/AUTHOR=222637
THE RISKS Climate Risks Local Environmental Risks Economic Consequences of Petro-states
ECONOMIC CLIMATE RISKS Displacement of alternative energy, including nuclear Reduction of incentives for energy efficiency Development of energy intensive industries dependent on cheap energy Co2 Leakage
DIRECT GHG RISKS CO2 LEAKAGE Methane (CH4) is the second most prevalent GHG emitted in the US by human activities. Much more powerful than CO2, but shorter lived 20 X more effective than CO2 over 100 years 72 X over 20 years Leakage is estimated to be as low as 1.5% and as high as 6.2% 11.7% (NOAA study - ref 1) Over 20 years, a 1.5% leakage makes methane worse for the climate than coal. Higher leakage levels do progressively more damage.
WHY WOULD WE WASTE METHANE? 1) Methane is not valuable right now, so engineering controls can cost more than the incremental value of the gas lost. Smaller companies value short term return more than the long term value of the field Huge infrastructure compared to traditional drilling, which will be very expensive to close out and maintain when the fields are depleted No effective mechanism to assure long term responsibility since many fields are developed by small producers No effective monitoring and regulation of CH4 so little incentive to prevent leakage. 2) 3) 4) 5)
LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL RISKS Aquifer pollution by fracking fluids, either directly or through injection wells Surface water pollution by fracking fluids through improper disposal Noise and air pollution. All of these are preventable through best practices All subject to same economic factors and failed regulation. The history of the oil and gas business is not one of everyone using best practices and cleaning up after production is over.
ECONOMIC CONSEQUENCES OF PETRO-STATES Dependence on low skills jobs. A few engineers and a lot of lower skilled workers Exacerbates income inequality Reduces support for education and preparation for a high skilled global economy Highly cyclical, with downturns doing massive economic damage.
INTRODUCTORY BIBLIOGRAPHY Karion, A. et al. Methane emissions estimate from airborne measurements over a western United States natural gas field. Geophysical Research Letters (2013). 1. 2. methane leakage from natural gas infrastructure. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 109, 6435 6440 (2012). Alvarez, R.A., Pacala, S.W., Winebrake, J.J., Chameides, W.L. & Hamburg, S.P. Greater focus needed on 3. Environmental Earth Sciences 1 15 (2013). Lange, T. et al. Hydraulic fracturing in unconventional gas reservoirs: risks in the geological system part 1. 4. drinking-water? Environmental Earth Sciences 1 19 (2013). Gordalla, B.C., Ewers, U. & Frimmel, F.H. Hydraulic fracturing: a toxicological threat for groundwater and 5. Thompson, H. Fracking boom spurs environmental audit. Nature 485, 556 557 (2012). 6. Bateman, C. & Fair, V. A Colossal Fracking Mess. Vanity Fair 21, 1 5 (2010). 7. 182, 20 25 (2012). Ehrenberg, R. The facts behind the frack: Scientists weigh in on the hydraulic fracturing debate. science news 8. ISS, I.T. Drinking water quality near Marcellus shale gas extraction sites. PNAS 110, 11213 11214 (2013). 9. Public Health Policies. ISRN Public Health 2013, (2013). Finkel, M.L., Hays, J. & Law, A. Modern Natural Gas Development and Harm to Health: The Need for Proactive 10. extraction. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 110, 11250 11255 (2013). Jackson, R.B. et al. Increased stray gas abundance in a subset of drinking water wells near Marcellus shale gas 11. public health implications. Environ Health Perspect 121, A292 A293 (2013). Down, A., Armes, M. & Jackson, R. Shale gas extraction in North Carolina: research recommendations and 12. and petroleum geology 37, 1 6 (2012). Davies, R.J., Mathias, S.A., Moss, J., Hustoft, S. & Newport, L. Hydraulic fractures: How far can they go? Marine 13. 882 (2012). Myers, T. Potential contaminant pathways from hydraulically fractured shale to aquifers. Ground Water 50, 872 14. aquifers in Pennsylvania. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 109, 11961 11966 (2012). Warner, N.R. et al. Geochemical evidence for possible natural migration of Marcellus Formation brine to shallow
