Natural gas leakage 3%, gas better than coal, but may be leaking 12%

[mooncliff]

Since methane is a much more powerful greenhouse gas, this is interesting. At any rate, leaking at 12% is a huge waste.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/201...elds/%3Cbr%3E/

And even more issues in fracking leaking natural gas... lots of interesting issues, especially why do we expect the caps on the wells to exist for eternity?
http://www.newscientist.com/article/...l#.UglFURYyHlI

[c1ue]

Re: Natural gas leakage 3%, gas better than coal, but may be leaking 12%

Except that overall methane release is 5 times slower than predicted by the IPCC:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/1...the-ar5-draft/

[mooncliff]

Re: Natural gas leakage 3%, gas better than coal, but may be leaking 12%

I see. Anyway, I hadnt thought about leakage much, but if more than 10% is being lost, what a waste... and all that radon....

[c1ue]

Re: Natural gas leakage 3%, gas better than coal, but may be leaking 12%

Certainly it is waste, but I think the ultimate issue isn't the waste - it is the economic worth of the lost natural gas.

If you're drilling hundreds of wells in the middle of nowhere, there simply is no economic way to harvest and sell that gas. Nor is it possible to not release it - though GRG55 could probably speak to that better than I can.

If there were, I guarantee the well owners would be doing it. Thinkprogress is just beating on this subject for its usual propaganda purposes.

[mooncliff]

Re: Natural gas leakage 3%, gas better than coal, but may be leaking 12%

Well, but really, what we want to know is how much is being lost. It if it is 10% plus, it is.

[c1ue]

Re: Natural gas leakage 3%, gas better than coal, but may be leaking 12%

Well, but really, what we want to know is how much is being lost. It if it is 10% plus, it is.

Let me put it this way: why would any operator wish to lose 10% or more of their product if they could help it?

[mooncliff]

Re: Natural gas leakage 3%, gas better than coal, but may be leaking 12%

What? That point that was being made was that natural gas had less global warming effect if less than 3% leaked, but it had worse global warming effect if it leaked more than that. 12% is way more than 3%.
The assertion being made is that natural gas causes less greenhouse warming. If that is based on these figures, and this is widespread, then the assertion is wrong.
I am not interested in emotion. I just want data.

[c1ue]

Re: Natural gas leakage 3%, gas better than coal, but may be leaking 12%

What? That point that was being made was that natural gas had less global warming effect if less than 3% leaked, but it had worse global warming effect if it leaked more than that. 12% is way more than 3%.
The assertion being made is that natural gas causes less greenhouse warming. If that is based on these figures, and this is widespread, then the assertion is wrong.
I am not interested in emotion. I just want data.

Data was posted right at the top showing that overall methane release levels - presumably including natural gas field leaks - are 5 times lower than IPCC expected.

Given that present temperatures are also lower than IPCC expected, I'm not sure what your concern is. Global warming? waste? I've posted toward both concerns.

[mooncliff]

Re: Natural gas leakage 3%, gas better than coal, but may be leaking 12%

And even more issues in fracking leaking natural gas... lots of interesting issues, especially why do we expect the caps on the wells to exist for eternity?
http://www.newscientist.com/article/...l#.UglFURYyHlI

[c1ue]

Re: Natural gas leakage 3%, gas better than coal, but may be leaking 12%

And even more issues in fracking leaking natural gas... lots of interesting issues, especially why do we expect the caps on the wells to exist for eternity?
http://www.newscientist.com/article/...l#.UglFURYyHlI

Goodness - more vague generalities.

As was noted above - worldwide methane emissions levels are far below what the IPCC has estimated. Given that the actual temperature record is also far below what the IPCC has estimated, I am not seeing where the big concern is.

For example, if actual methane emissions are higher than existing estimates due to this new study on methane leaks at production fields, then this makes the IPCC temperature projections even worse. Why? Because if the GHGs are even higher than existing estimates, then there's even less excuse for temperature behavior failing to match model projections.

I also admire the way the leakage issue is not being put into context.

For example, what does this new 'natural gas' leakage mean in terms of overall emissions?

The EPA has this graph:



Does the graph shift significantly? Does it double, triple, quadruple?

What does this mean in terms of the overall picture? Note that overall US emissions is 6702 million tons of CO2 equivalent - thus the methane picture above is less than 10% of overall US anthropogenic CO2 emissions.

I see no mention whatsoever of this.