Facts matter

Sept. 30, 2013
Oil and gas operations anywhere along the value chain have come under much public criticism, some deserved, some not.

Oil and gas operations anywhere along the value chain have come under much public criticism, some deserved, some not.

These heavy industrial activities, so goes industry's rationale, cannot be expected to supply fossil energy to expanding economies without some mess and mayhem that damages air and water. Just how damaging the processes are has been the subject of some debate.

More studies are measuring the effects of operations, however, and answering fears with facts that show damage in many cases may be less than assumed.

Air and water

Earlier this year in this space, Oil & Gas Journal reported on a study by the US Energy Information Administration of state-by-state carbon dioxide emissions released "where fossil fuels are used" (OGJ, June 3, 2013, p. 24).

Over 2000-11, the study found, US states had reduced CO2 emissions by more than 4%/year. The results are important less for the magnitude of the emissions reduction than for the trend they suggest. Given that the 11-year study period encompassed the most severe economic downturn in the US since the 1930s, we must watch for what follow-up studies show once the current tepid economic recovery has had time to reflect renewed energy activities.

But other studies of the environmental effects of oil and gas operations—many in response to fears of feverish development of unconventional resources—are proving more positive for industry.

In the last few weeks have come results of a study of methane—a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2—released during production from hydraulically fractured wells (OGJ Online, Sept. 17, 2013).

Measurements at 190 production sites by researchers at the University of Texas at Austin found most wells used special equipment that reduced methane emissions by 99%. The result was that total methane emissions from these completions were 97% lower than for calendar year 2011, as cited in a study released in April this year by the US Environmental Protection Agency.

The UT study is the first of two focusing on methane emissions from production; both are part of a series of wider studies of methane emissions throughout the gas supply chain under the auspices of the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF).

Less positive for industry—but more instructive for future remediation—are the study's findings that emissions from "certain types of pneumatic devices are 30% to several times higher than current EPA estimates for this equipment." Moreover, "emissions from pneumatics and equipment leaks account for about 40% of estimated national emissions of methane from natural gas production."

As EDF's Mark Brownstein says of these findings: "It shows that when producers use practices to capture or control emissions…, methane can be dramatically reduced." Translation: Operators, get aboard with efforts to operate more cleanly.

The UT study was preceded by other good news for industry from another government study.

In July, the US Department of Energy disclosed that measurements in western Pennsylvania of the effects of hydraulic fracturing chemicals showed no evidence chemicals had migrated to shallower drinking water aquifers.

Drilling fluids tagged with markers were injected more than 8,000 ft below the surface in a gas wellbore. Year-long monitoring of a zone at 5,000 ft detected no trace of the markers. Nor did any of the fractures created by hydraulic fracturing threaten drinking water, staying at least 6,000 ft below the surface.

The study was conducted by the DOE's National Energy Technology Laboratory at Pittsburgh. NETL said at the time that, while "nothing of concern had been found," results were "far too preliminary to make any firm claims." It promised a final report by yearend.

Just the facts

Sniping at the UT and NETL results began almost immediately, aimed especially at the companies involved in the studies.

Facts must win out, however, if we and the air and water we share are to benefit. Industry must continue to support and be involved in fact gathering; the public must continue to demand those facts be gathered and published.

And media—such as OGJ—must serve both industry and the public by disseminating those facts.