The Rising Influence of Rising Affluence

[OakesCS]

bunch of comments on #msg-49558956 but to address the 1.5% number:

first of all the number seems to come from http://p2pays.net/ref/07/06348.pdf and in the first paragraph they estimate the error at +/- 0.5% (on a median? estimate of 1.4% of total natural gas operations). Folks like the NY Times have a propensity for ignoring such things because it might detract from their ability to alarm. The NY Times story http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/15/business/energy-environment/15degrees.html?_r=3&hpw also has a nice IR photo of an oil storage tank which purportedly demonstrates leakage of methane. Of course, I'd bet much of the IR absorbing stuff streaming off the tank is mostly water vapor but then it would be inconvenient to the story to actually do an analysis of the gas to substantiate their hypothesis.

if you look at the EIA site and compare vented NG (defined as "Gas released into the air on the production site or at processing plants.") against total production you'll see that NG released to the atmosphere related to production and processing is roughly 0.7% (however that 0.7% includes flared NG which means that it's been converted to mostly CO2 and H2O).
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/ng/ng_prod_sum_dcu_NUS_m.htm

The EPA's 1.4% number includes losses due to transmission and distribution. Of course those companies don't have squat to do with the production companies except that both deal with NG. More importantly, part of the transmission and distribution system involves storage of NG in aquifers (common in the northern midwest). A substantial quantity of the stored NG is non-reproducible (it is permanently stuck in the pore space). This NG is accounted for as being lost but that does not mean it's lost to the atmosphere. I'd be extremely surprised if anywhere close to 0.7% of transported NG is lost to the atmosphere. Some piped NG condenses during transport and this fraction gets skimmed off by the various transport operators along the pipes' lengths. It wouldn't surprise me if the accounting for the skimmed part is a little dicey.

Folks also like to mix up leaked natural gas with natural gas emissions. The IPCC report cited by the Cornell professor says that global methane emissions may be 3.2% of total natural gas production. That does not mean that 3.2% of methane going into the atmosphere is coming from leaking gas wells. Much, if not most, of the methane going into the atmosphere is from farting critters, decaying plants and critters, and natural seepages from various geologic reservoirs. One of the latter reservoirs that climate change folks are worried about is methane hydrate (clathrate) in arctic tundra. This is a huge reservoir of methane and if tundra temperatures rise beyond the temperature at which the solid is stable then the hydrate spontaneously converts to water and methane (roughly somewhere between 0 and 16 C depending on things like salinity of melt water that it's in contact with). That event could become self-sustaining leading to even larger increases in avg surfaces temperatures.

While I agree with some of the stuff in the quotes attributed to the Cornell prof contained in DOA's post many of the points are misleading or not framed objectively, e.g. one can't suppose that leakages and losses only occur in the NG industry as well as failing to recognize that a good % of NG production is associated with petroleum.

One thing that the good prof has correct is that NG for transportation advocates, e.g. Pickens, tend to conveniently neglect infrastructure costs. I'm all for burning NG but in the big picture i don't think supplanting gasoline or diesel vehicles with NG vehicles is more efficient or practical.
regards,
Charlie