Methane: A new Fracking Fiasco

    Jeff Johnson has a four-page article entitled, "Methane: a New Fracking Fiasco", in the April 16 issue of Chemical and Engineering News.
    In one of my blogs entitled, "EPA's Fracking Rules", in http://arthur-energy.blogspot.com , I explained the fracking process and the process for recovery of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) from well gas. I pointed out that the EPA is overreaching in specifying use of equipment, since it's primary mission is only to establish limits of air contamination by chemicals detrimental to human health. I reviewed the problem of VOCs reacting with nitrogen dioxide (NOx) to form ground-level ozone, which is a health hazard. I discussed the health hazards of benzene separately unrelated to the ozone generation problem. I made suggestions on how control limits for individual VOCs could be placed on specific generators. Lastly, I pointed out that natural gas producers have an inherent interest in controlling loss of methane, which they are trying to sell.
    In another of my blogs entitled, "Debunking Global Warming Theory" in http://arthur-climatecontrol.blogspot.com , I explained greenhouse gases in broader terms than normally used, by pointing out that nitrogen and oxygen, which are major components of the atmosphere, are also greenhouse gases. I explained that a greenhouse gas effect is a function not only of its resistant to the passage of heat, but also to its concentration in the atmosphere. I pointed out that global warming enthusiasts use terms such as Global Warming Potential and Radiative Forcing Capacity, but these equations do not take into consideration comparisons with the major gases of the atmosphere, nor the concentration in which the so-called deleterious greenhouse gases exist in the atmosphere.. Lastly, I point out that carbon dioxide is only 1.7 times more effective at absorbing heat that nitrogen. Primarily on the basis that there is no order-of-magnitude differences between carbon dioxide and methane, compared to nitrogen and oxygen, I conclude that carbon dioxide and methane are not deleterious greenhouse gases.
    I now return to Jeff Johnson's April 16 article.
    He indicates that methane is a "potent greenhouse". I have already disputed that.
    Jeff says that environmental groups and others embrace the change from coal to gas in new electricity production, because the gas fired plants produce 40% less carbon dioxide and no mercury. He left out sulfur dioxide. I have already said that carbon dioxide is not a deleterious greenhouse gas, and is not a favorable reason to switch from coal. The reduction in mercury and sulfur dioxide would definitely be advantageous, since those emissions are health hazards.
    The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says that methane is 72 times more potent as a deleterious greenhouse gas than is carbon dioxide. I would like to see the calculations, but in their absence, I point out that neither methane nor carbon dioxide are significant as deleterious greenhouse gases (see above).   
    Jeff says that in the fracking operation for natural gas production, the following materials come from the well: methane, VOCs, sulfur dioxide, and toxic air pollutants. I expect methane would come from the well, since that's the major objective of drilling. Some of the VOCs and sulfur dioxide are toxic air pollutants. I wonder what he means by "toxic air pollutants" in his mixture?
    The EPA estimates that installation of $754 million worth of new recovery equipment for the industry would capture $783 million worth of valuable products now being lost. This is a good return on investment, if It occurs. The Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental group, says the captured methane alone would be worth $2 billion. If believable, this would be a great return on investment, and the industry should spring for it. However, I recommend they make their own calculations first.
    Just says that methane's Global Warming Potential is 72 times more potent than carbon dioxide. He also points out that methane is far less abundant in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide; about 9% versus 82%. Hooray! We finally see some consideration of gas concentration effects in the atmosphere. When will the next jump be made to actually consider methane and carbon dioxide concentrations in relationship to the major greenhouse gases of nitrogen and oxygen?
    Drew Shindell, a climatologist at the National Aeronautical and Space Administration Goddard Institute for Space Studies has apparently said that global temperature increases of 1.5 to 2°C could occur over the next 35 years, because of methane. I wonder what calculations and assumptions he uses to make what I consider to be this ridiculous assertion.
    The Secretary of Energy Advisory Board Shale Gas Production Subcommittee advised the EPA to include methane explicitly in its air regulations and to have the regulations cover existing and new wells. Fortunately, the EPA chose to concentrate on ozone, through the reaction of nitrogen oxides and volatile organic components of natural gas other than methane. There is some basis for the EPA approach, but there would have been none for the panel, because methane is not a deleterious greenhouse gas. The only justification for including methane would be if it reacts with nitrogen oxides