Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T15:17:59.404Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

6 - Methane and Climate Change

from Part II - Environmental Analysis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 July 2022

By
Robert W. Howarth
Edited by
John Stolz ,
Daniel Bain  and
Michael Griffin
John Stolz
Affiliation:
Duquesne University, Pittsburgh
Daniel Bain
Affiliation:
University of Pittsburgh
Michael Griffin
Affiliation:
Carnegie Mellon University, Pennsylvania
Get access

Summary

The first peer-reviewed analysis of how methane emissions affect the greenhouse gas footprint of shale gas was published by my colleagues and I in 2011. We suggested that methane emissions from shale gas, as well as from conventional natural gas, were probably great enough to completely offset any climate advantage that might accrue from reducing carbon dioxide emissions from a switch from coal to natural gas. The paper has stimulated further investigation in the subsequent nine years, with a growing number of research papers on this topic, as reviewed here. The initial conclusion that methane emissions from both shale gas and conventional natural gas make these very poor bridge fuels continues to hold true. The greenhouse gas footprint of shale gas is worse than that of coal, when methane emissions are considered and compared to carbon dioxide over an integrated 20-year time period after emission. Increased emissions from shale gas production in North America alone have probably caused roughly 40% of total global increase in atmospheric methane from all sources. Unless methane emissions can be drastically reduced, shale gas is not a viable option in a climate-smart future.

Keywords

IPCCCOP21carbon-13shale gas
Type
Chapter
Information
Environmental Impacts from the Development of Unconventional Oil and Gas Reserves , pp. 132 - 149
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2022

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alvarez, RA, Pacala, SW, Winebrake, JJ, Chameides, WL, and Hamburg, SP. (2012). Greater focus needed on methane leakage from natural gas infrastructure. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 109: 6435–6440, doi:10.1073/pnas.1202407109Google Scholar
Alvarez, RA, Zavalao-Araiza, D, Lyon, DR, Allen, DT, Barkley, ZR, Brandt, AR, Davis, KJ, Herndon, SC, Jacob, DJ, Karion, A, Korts, EA, Lamb, BK, Lauvaux, T, Maasakkers, JD, Marchese, AJ, Omara, M, Pacala, JW, Peischl, J, Robinson, AJ, Shepson, PB, Sweeney, C, Townsend-Small, A, Wofsy, SC, and Hamburg, SP. (2018). Assessment of methane emissions from the U.S. oil and gas supply chain. Science. 361: 186–188, doi:10.1126/science.aar7204Google Scholar
Begon, M, Howarth, RW, and Townsend, C. (2014). Essentials of Ecology, 4th Edition. Wiley. ISBN-13: 978-0470909133Google Scholar
Caulton, DR, Shepson, PD, Santoro, RL, Sparks, JP, Howarth, RW, Ingraffea, A, Camaliza, MO, Sweeney, C, Karion, A, Davis, KJ, Stirm, BH, Montzka, SA, and Miller, B. (2014). Toward a better understanding and quantification of methane emissions from shale gas development. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 111: 6237–6242, doi:10.1073/pnas.1316546111Google Scholar
Collins, WJ, Webber, CP, Cox, PM, Huntingford, C, Lowe, J, Sitch, S, Chadburn, SE, Comyn-Platt, E, Harper, AB, Hayman, G, and Powell, T. (2018). Increased importance of methane reduction for a 1.5 degree target. Environmental Research Letters. 13: 054003, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/aab89cGoogle Scholar
Fesenfeld, LP, Schmidt, TS, and Schrode, A. (2018). Climate policy for short- and long-lived pollutants. Nature Climate Change. 8: 933–936, doi:10.1038/s41558-018-0328-1Google Scholar
Hausfather, Z. (2018). Analysis: How much ‘carbon budget’ is left to limit global warming to 1.5C? Carbon Brief www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-much-carbon-budget-is-left-to-limit-global-warming-to-1-5cGoogle Scholar
Hayhoe, K, Kheshgi, HS, Jain, AK, Wuebbles, DJ. (2002). Substitution of natural gas for coal: Climatic effects of utility sector emissions. Climatic Change. 54: 107–139Google Scholar
Hmiel, B, Petrenko, VV, Dyonisius, MN et al. (2020). Preindustrial 14CH4 indicates greater anthropogenic fossil CH4 emissions. Nature. 578: 409–412, doi:10.1038/s41586-020-1991-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hong, B and Howarth, RW. (2016). Greenhouse gas emissions from domestic hot water: heat pumps compared to most commonly used systems. Energy Science & Engineering. 4: 123–133, doi:10.1002/ese3.112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howarth, RW. (2014). A bridge to nowhere: Methane emissions and the greenhouse gas footprint of natural gas. Energy Science & Engineering. 2: 47–60, doi:10.1002/ese3.35Google Scholar
Howarth, RW. (2019). Ideas and perspectives: Is shale gas a major driver of recent increase in global atmospheric methane? Biogeosciences. 16: 3033–3046, doi:10.5194/bg-16-3033-2019Google Scholar
Howarth, RW. (2019a). Interactive comment on “Is shale gas a major driver of recent increase in global atmospheric methane” by Robert W. Howarth et al. Biogeosciences Discussion, doi.org/10.5194/bg-2019-131-AC3Google Scholar
Howarth, RW. (2020). Methane emissions from fossil fuels: Exploring recent changes in greenhouse-gas reporting requirements for the State of New York. Journal of Integrative Environmental Sciences, doi.org/10.1080/1943815X.2020.1789666Google Scholar
Howarth, RW, Santoro, R, and Ingraffea, A. (2011). Methane and the greenhouse gas footprint of natural gas from shale formations. Climatic Change Letters. 106: 679–690, doi:10.1007/s10584-011-0061-5Google Scholar
Howarth, RW, Santoro, R, and Ingraffea, A. (2012). Venting and leakage of methane from shale gas development: Reply to Cathles et al. Climatic Change. 113: 537–549, doi:10.1007/s10584-012-0401-0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ingraffea, AR, Wawrzynek, PA, Santoro, R, Wells, M. (2020). Reported methane emissions from active oil and gas wells in Pennsylvania, 2014–2018. Environmental Science & Technology. 54: 5783–5789, doi:10.1021/acs.est.0c00863Google Scholar
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). (2013). Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,. www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/Google Scholar
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). (2018). Global warming of 1.5°C. An IPCC Special Report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty. Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Karion, A, Sweeney, C, Pétron, G, Frost, G, Hardesty, RM, Kofler, J, Miller, BR, Newberger, T, Wolter, S, Banta, R, and Brewer, A. (2013). Methane emissions estimate from airborne measurements over a western United States natural gas field. Geophysical Research Letters. 40: 4393–4397, doi:10.1002/grl.50811, 2013.Google Scholar
Karion, A, Sweeney, C, Kort, EA, Shepson, PB, Brewer, A, Cambaliza, M, et al. (2015). Aircraft-based estimate of total methane emissions from the Barnett Shale region. Environmental Science & Technology. 49: 8124–8131, doi:10.1021/acs.est.5b00217Google Scholar
Kessel, JM and Tabuchi, H. (2019). It’s a vast, invisible climate menace: We made it visible. New York Times, December 12, 2019, www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/12/12/climate/texas-methane-super-emitters.htmlGoogle Scholar
Kirschke, S, Bousquest, P, Ciais, P, Saunois, M, Canadell, J, Dlugokencky, EJ, Beramaschi, P, Beergmann, D, Blake, D, et al. (2013). Three decades of global methane sources and sinks. Nature Geosciences. 6: 813–823, doi:10.1038/ngeo1955Google Scholar
Lamb, BK, Cambaliza, M, Davis, K, Edburg, S, Ferrara, T, Floerchinger, C, Heimburger, A, Herndon, S, Lauvaux, T, Lavoie, T, Lyon, D, Miles, N, Prasad, K, Richardson, S, Roscioli, J, Salmon, O, Shepson, P, Stirm, B, and Whetstone, J. (2016). Direct and indirect measurements and modeling of methane emissions in Indianapolis, Indiana. Environmental Science & Technology. 50: 8910–8917, doi:10.1021/acs.est.6b01198Google Scholar
Lassey, KR, Etheridge, DM, Lowe, DC, Smith, AM, and Ferretti, DF. (2007). Centennial evolution of the atmospheric methane budget: What do the carbon isotopes tell us? Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics. 7: 2119–2139, doi:10.5194/acp-7-2119-2007Google Scholar
Lavelle, M. (2019). Trump EPA tries again to roll back methane rules for oil and gas industry. Inside Climate News, August 30, 2019. https://insideclimatenews.org/news/29082019/methane-regulation-oil-gas-storage-pipelines-epa-rollback-trump-wheelerGoogle Scholar
McKain, K, Down, A, Raciti, S, Budney, J, Hutyra, LR, Floerchinger, C, Herndon, SC, Nehrkorn, T, Zahniser, M, Jackson, R, Phillips, N, and Wofsy, S. (2015). Methane emissions from natural gas infrastructure and use in the urban region of Boston, Massachusetts. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 112: 1941–1946, doi:10.1073/pnas.1416261112CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Milkov, AV, Schwietzke, S, Allen, G, Sherwood, OA, and Etiope, G. (2020). Using global isotopic data to constrain the role of shale gas production in recent increases in atmospheric methane. Scientific Reports. 10: 4199.Google Scholar
Miller, SM, Wofsy, SC, Michalak, AM, Kort, EA, Andrews, AE, Biraud, SC, Dlugokencky, EJ, Janusz Eluszkiewicz, J, Fischer, ML, Janssens-Maenhout, G, Miller, BR, Miller, JB, Montzka, SA, Nehrkorn, T, and Sweeney, C. (2013). Anthropogenic emissions of methane in the United States. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 110: 20018–20022, doi:10.1073/pnas.1314392110Google Scholar
Ocko, IB, Hamburg, SP, Jacob, DJ, Keith, DW, Keohane, NO et al. (2017). Unmask temporal trade-offs in climate policy debates. Science. 356: 492–493, doi:10.1126/science.aaj2350Google Scholar
Pandey, S, Gautam, R, Houweling, S, van der Gon, HD, Sadavarte, P, Borsdorff, T, Hasekamp, O, Landgraf, J, Tol, P, van Kempen, T, Hoogeveen, R, van Hees, R, Hamburg, SP, Maasakkers, JD, and Ilse, Aben. (2019). Satellite observations reveal extreme methane leakage from a natural gas well blowout. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 116: 26376–26381. doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1908712116Google Scholar
Peischl, J, Ryerson, T, Brioude, J, Aikin, K, Andrews, A, Atlas, E et al. (2013). Quantifying sources of methane using light alkanes in the Los Angeles basin. California. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres. 118: 4974–4990, doi:10.1002/jgrd.50413Google Scholar
Peischl, J, Ryerson, T, Aikin, K, de Gouw, J, Gilman, J, Holloway, J et al. (2015). Quantifying atmospheric methane emissions from the Haynesville, Fayetteville, and northeastern Marcellus Shale gas production regions. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres. 120: 2119–2139, doi:10.1002/2014JD022697Google Scholar
Peischl, J, Karion, A, Sweeney, C, Kort, E, Smith, M, Brandt, A et al. (2016). Quantifying atmospheric methane emissions from oil and natural gas production in the Bakken Shale region of North Dakota. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres. 121: 6101–6111, doi:10.1002/2015JD024631Google Scholar
Peischl, J, Eilerman, S, Neuman, J, Aikin, K, de Gouw, J, Gilman, J et al. (2018). Quantifying methane and ethane emissions to the atmosphere from central and western U.S. oil and natural gas production regions. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres. 123: 7725–7740, doi:10.1029/2018JD028622Google Scholar
Petrenko, V, Smith, A, Schaefer, H et al. (2017). Minimal geological methane emissions during the Younger Dryas–Preboreal abrupt warming event. Nature. 548: 443–446, doi:10.1038/nature23316Google Scholar
Plant, G, Kort, EA, Floerchinger, C, Gvakharia, A, Vimont, I, and Sweeney, C. (2019). Large fugitive methane emissions from urban centers along the US east coast. Geophysical Research Letters. 46: 8500–8507, doi:10.1029/2019GL082635Google Scholar
Ren, X, Hall, D, Vinciguerra, T, Benish, S, Stratton, P, Ahn, D et al. (2019). Methane emissions from the Marcellus Shale in Southwestern Pennsylvania and northern West Virginia based on airborne measurements. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres. 124: 1862–1878, doi:10.1029/2018JD029690Google Scholar
Schaefer, H, Mikaloff-Fletcher, S, Veid, C. Lassey, K, Brailsford, G, Bromley, T, Dlubokenck, E, Michel, S, Miller, J, Levin, I, Lowe, D, Martin, R, Vaugn, B, and White, J. (2016). A 21st century shift from fossil-fuel to biogenic methane emissions indicated by 13CH4. Science. 352: 80–84, doi:10.1126/science.aad2705.Google Scholar
Schwietzke, S, Sherwood, O, Bruhwiler, L, Miller, J, Etiiope, G, Dlugokencky, E, Michel, S, Arling, V, Vaughn, B, White, J, and Tans, P. (2016). Upward revision of global fossil fuel methane emissions based on isotope database. Nature. 538: 88–91, doi:10.1038/nature19797Google Scholar
Schneising, O, Burrows, JP, Dickerson, RR, Buchwitz, M, Reuter, M, and Bovensmann, H. (2014). Remote sensing of fugitive emissions from oil and gas production in North American tight geological formations. Earth’s Future. 2: 548–558, doi:10.1002/2014EF000265Google Scholar
Schneising, O, Buchwitz, M, Reuter, M, Vanselow, S, Bovensmann, H, and Burrows, JP. (2020). Remote sensing of methane leakage from natural gas and petroleum systems revisited. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics. 20: 9169–9183.Google Scholar
Shindell, D, Kuylenstierna, JC, Vignati, E, van Dingenen, R, Amann, M, Klimont, Z, Anenberg, SC, Muller, N, Janssens-Maenhout, G, Raes, R, Schwartz, J, Falvegi, G, Pozzoli, L, Kupiainent, K, Höglund-Isaksson, L, Emberson, L, Streets, D, Ramanathan, V, Kicks, K, Oanh, NT, Milly, G, Williams, M, Demkine, V, and Fowler, D. (2012). Simultaneously mitigating near-term climate change and improving human health and food security. Science. 335: 183–189, doi:10.1126/science.1210026Google Scholar
Townsend-Small, A. (2022). Isotopes as tracers of atmospheric and groundwater methane sources. In Stolz, JF, Griffin, WM, and Bain, DJ (eds.) Environmental Impacts from the Development of Unconventional Oil and Gas Reserves. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Turner, AJ, Jacob, DJ, Benmergui, J, Wofsy, SC, Maasakker, JD, Butz, A, Haekamp, O, and Biraud, SC. (2016). A large increase in US methane emissions over the past decade inferred from satellite data and surface observations, Geophysical Research Letters. 43: 2218–2224, doi:10.1002/2016GL067987Google Scholar
US Department of Agriculture (USDA). (2020). Cattle Inventory. National Agricultural Statistics Service, US Department of Agriculture. www.nass.usda.gov/Surveys/Guide_to_NASS_Surveys/Cattle_Inventory/ downloaded August 28, 2020.Google Scholar
US Energy Information Administration (US EIA). (2016). Shale gas production drives world natural gas production growth. Energy Information Administration, U.S. Department of Energy. www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=27512, downloaded September 13, 2018.Google Scholar
US EIA. (2020a). How much shale gas is produced in the United States? Energy Information Agency, U.S. Department of Energy. www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=907&t=8, downloaded November 13, 2020.Google Scholar
US EIA. (2020b). Natural Gas: Dry Shale Gas Production Estimates by Play. Energy Information Agency, U.S. Department of Energy. www.eia.gov/naturalgas/data.php, downloaded September 9, 2020.Google Scholar
US EPA. (2011). Regulatory Impact Analysis: Proposed New Source Performance Standards and Amendments to the National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for the Oil and Gas Industry. July 2011. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air and Radiation.Google Scholar
US EPA. (2016). Oil and Natural Gas Sector: Emission Standards for New, Reconstructed, and Modified Sources. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, final rule, 40 CFR Part 60, EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0505; FRL–9944–75– OAR, RIN 2060–AS30. Federal Register 81 (#107): 35824-35942. www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2016-06-03/pdf/2016-11971.pdfGoogle Scholar
Vaughn, TL, Bella, CS, Picering, CK, Schwietzke, S, Heath, GA, Pétron, G, Zimmerle, DJ, Schnell, RC, and Nummedal, D. (2018). Temporal variability largely explains top-down/bottom-up difference in methane emission estimates from a natural gas production region. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 115: 11712–11717, doi:10.1073/pnas.1805687115Google Scholar
Worden, J, Bloom, A, Pandey, S, Jiang, Z, Worden, H, Walter, T, Houweling, S, and Röckmann, T. (2017). Reduced biomass burning emissions reconcile conflicting estimates of the post-2006 atmospheric methane budget. Nature Communications. 8: 2227, doi:10.1038/s41467-017-02246-0, 2017.Google Scholar
Wunch, D, Toon, G, Hedelius, J, Vizenor, N, Roehl, C, Saad, K, Blavier, J, Blake, D, and Wennberg, P. (2016). Quantifying the loss of processed natural gas within California’s South Coast Air Basin using long-term measurements of the ethane and methane. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics. 16: 14091–14105, doi:10.5194/acp-16-14091-2016Google Scholar
Zhang, Y, Gautam, R, Pandey, S, Omara, M, Maasakkers, J, Sadavarte, P, Lyon, D et al. (2020). Quantifying methane emissions from the largest oil-producing basin in the United States from space. Science Advances. 6(17): eaaz5120 doi: 10.1126/sciadv.aaz5120Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×