"Here we are again, the start of the end. But there's more..." --TR http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE80P1V320120126?irpc=932
I would call it a dilemma, not a Hobson's choice. With a dilemma you have two options, but both are bad. With a Hobson's choice you only have one option; it could be good or bad, but it's only one option that you can take or leave. Tom
On the other hand, Argonne labs reported last year that shale gas was 6% better because conventional gas wells need to be "unloaded" more often from liquids that build up and the unloading process emits more methane than previously believed. Green Car Congress: Argonne study finds shale gas GHG lifecycle emissions 6% lower than natural gas, 23% lower than gasoline and 33% lower than coal; upstream methane leakage a key contributor http://www1.eere.energy.gov/cleancities/pdfs/ngvtf11_burnham.pdf The real take-away should probably be that the measurement and reporting of methane emissions from the initial development and ongoing operations of both conventional and shale natural gas drilling is poor and unreliable. One point of agreement is that natural gas is not much better than coal for global warming effects when considered over a 20 year timeframe before most of the escaped methane breaks down into carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Over a 100 year timeframe gas may be significantly better than coal. The "good" news is that there are existing technologies for making big reductions in escaped methane for both conventional and shale gas development and production if the industry is regulated better.
...article in NYTimes today about impact of Hg mercury (from coal burning) on wildlife - birds and bats...methane emissions from nat gas is a valid concern, but is it over-riding concern? One recent policy proposal is to regulate methane and soot emissions to control AGW, on the thought that reducing CO2 is unrealistic (global scale). This may make sense.
Methane controls are good, if the focus is on AGW I suppose. I think more about the toxins being pumped into the wells - carcinogins that are necessary to protect drills, and chemicals necessary prior to applying tons of pressue to fracture the strata. That chemical stew belches into the water table that we then drink, or use to water crops that we eat ... or water crops that our beef eats, that we then eat. We're still fighting to get the process under the control of the clean water act. Cleaning up the process makes it more expensive ... and (apparenly) who wants that? Not the industry.
I completely agree. The chemical stew is yet another reason why we really need to improve the gross under-regulation of shale gas development.
I would rather say poor regulation, than under regulation. Ng is regulated in each state and not very well. The problem is not that we don't have enough laws, but the laws really don't protect the environment well. This is also true of coal, oil sands, and other oil. We can do better, and just because we don't regulate well now, is no reason to just say we should drill baby drill. Let's fix the regulations.
Just read an article about "super fracking" which uses increased pressures and other so called advancements to release greater volumes of gas. Apparently these developments not only decrease production costs, but leapfrog the industry ahead of those seeking increased regulation, since a spate of new studies and analyses are required. Meanwhile...drill, baby, drill!
Josh Fox, director of Gasland, was arrested by Capitol Police at a House hearing today... http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUS7755233920120201?irpc=932
