Blog Archive

Sunday, June 10, 2012

"Venting and leaking of methane from shale gas development: Response to Cathles et al.," by Robert W. Howarth, Renee Santoro and Anthony Ingraffea, Climatic Change 113; doi: 10.1007/s10584-012-0401-0

Climatic Change, 113 (2012) 537–549; doi: 10.1007/s10584-012-0401-0

Venting and leaking of methane from shale gas development: Response to Cathles et al.

Robert W. Howarth, Renee Santoro and Anthony Ingraffea


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

No comments: