On the political right, it’s pretty popular these days to claim that the left exaggerates scientific worries about hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking.” In a recent National Review article, for instance, a Hoover Institution researcher complains that 53 percent of Democrats in California support a fracking ban “despite the existence of little if any credible scientific evidence of fracking’s feared harms and overwhelming scientific evidence of its environmental benefits, including substantial reductions in both local and global pollutants.”
Three or four years ago, a statement like that may have seemed defensible. The chief environmental concern about fracking at that time involved the contamination of drinking water through the fracking process—blasting water, sand, and chemicals underground in vast quantities and at extreme pressures to force open shale layers deep beneath the Earth, and release natural gas. But the science was still pretty ambiguous, and a great deal turned on how “fracking” was defined. The entire mega-process of “unconventional” gas drilling had clearly caused instances of groundwater contamination, due to spills and leaks from improperly cased wells. But technically, “fracking” only refers to the water and chemical blast, not the drilling, the disposal of waste, or the huge industrial operations that accompany it all.
How things have changed. Nowadays, explains Cornell University engineering professor Anthony Ingraffea on the latest installment of the Inquiring Minds podcast (stream above), the scientific argument against fracking and unconventional gas drilling is more extensive. It involves not simply groundwater contamination, but also at least two other major problems: earthquake generation and the accidental emissions of methane, a potent greenhouse gas.
On the show, Ingraffea laid out the science on these issues—and it is certainly not something a reasonable person can ignore. Take earthquakes, for instance. According to Ingraffea, “there is now, in my opinion, scientific consensus that human-induced seismicity does occur” as a result of a particular aspect of unconventional gas drilling (namely, disposing of chemically laden “flowback water” in underground wastewater injection wells).
Ingraffea isn’t the likeliest scientific foe of fracking. His past research has been funded by corporations and industry interests including Schlumberger, the Gas Research Institute, General Dynamics, and Northrop Grumman. His original doctoral work, in the 1970s, involved the study of “rock fracture mechanics”—in other words, how cracks in rock form and propagate, a body of knowledge that is crucial to extractive industries like oil and gas. “I spent 20, 25 years working with the oil and gas industry…helping them to figure out how best to get oil and gas out of rock,” Ingraffea explains.
But he has since become an outspoken critic of unconventional gas development. He recently appeared in the HBO film Gasland II, and was recognized in 2011 by Time (alongside actor Mark Ruffalo and his Cornell colleague Robert Howarth) for his work highlighting the environmental risks of shale gas development.
So what happened? In a word: Science. On Inquiring Minds, Ingraffea laid out the developing science on earthquakes and methane emissions as they relate to unconventional gas development—and even if you don’t fully agree with everything he said, you still will find it unnerving. Let’s take these topics in turn:
Fracking and Earthquakes. Somewhat surprisingly, the earthquake issue may actually be the least contentious scientific topic in the fracking debate. As Mother Jones has extensively reported, it now seems clear that wastewater injection—the underground storing of the chemical-laced water that comes back out of wells after fracking—can contribute to seismic activity. In fact, in a study published just last month in Science, researchers suggest that a dramatic increase in recent seismic activity in Oklahoma—including a 5.7 magnitude earthquake in 2011—is partly linked to the proliferation of wastewater disposal wells.
Granted, it may seem hard to understand (at least if you’re a non-geologist) how underground disposal wells can cause an earthquake. Let Ingraffea explain: “We’ve mobilized pre-existing, stable faults,” he says. Underground water from waste disposal “lubricates those faults and changes the pressure on them.” Naturally, the waste injection wells at issue are the ones that are closest to faults. Here’s a visualization:
As for the fracking process itself? That, too, can cause earthquakes, Ingraffea says, although earthquakes related to fracking (as opposed to injection wells) have been smaller (“so far,” as Ingraffea puts it). When you think about what we’re doing to the Earth, maybe that’s not so surprising. Fracking water, after all, is blasted underground at “pressures approaching what you would get if you put, say, 10 SUVs on your fingertip,” says Ingraffea.
Fracking and Fugitive Methane Emissions. Perhaps we can manage the earthquake issue. Certainly, it would help to stop injecting wastewater near faults. “That would be a design objective, yes,” deadpans Ingraffea. (It happens, he contends, because of a lack of EPA regulation.)
But there’s a potentially even graver issue—fugitive methane emissions from shale gas operations. This is the topic on which Ingraffea made his name in the fracking debate, and it’s probably the most momentous one of all.
In 2011, Ingraffea and two other Cornell researchers published a highly discussed scientific study in the journal Climatic Change, arguing that between 3.6 and 7.9 percent of methane gas from shale drilling operations actually escapes into the atmosphere, where it contributes to global warming. If true, then considering the unique atmospheric potency of methane—”methane is about 80 to 90 times…more potent as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide” over a two-to-three-decade time period, says Ingraffea—the implications could be dramatic. Natural gas could swing from being a net climate benefit (because it burns cleaner than oil or coal) to a climate harm, because of all the escaping methane.
Granted, it all depends on the leak rate from natural gas operations, across all the myriad stages of the process, from the initial release of the gas from the Earth all the way through to its transportation. And that’s where the debate lies. “Every single measurement has concluded that the percentage of methane leaking into the atmosphere from oil and gas operations is far greater than two and a half percent,” says Ingraffea. “I think the best estimate right now is somewhere around 5 percent”—an amount, he says, that would be more than big enough to doom the idea of natural gas as a “bridge fuel” to a clean energy future.
Ingraffea isn’t the only researcher suggesting that methane leakage is troublingly high. In a 2013 study published in the prestigious Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, a team of researchers from both US universities and national labs found that the EPA is currently underestimating methane emissions from the energy industry (including both conventional and shale gas drilling). However, in another paper in Science earlier this year (covered here by Mother Jones), researchers again faulted EPA’s methane measurements, but nonetheless concluded that natural gas can still contribute to a cleaner future if methane emissions are policed adequately. (The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has reached a similar conclusion.)
The Bottom Line? It is certainly not the case that every expert agrees with Ingraffea. For instance, both publicly and in print, Ingraffea has regularly debated Terry Engelder, a professor of geosciences at Penn State University, who argues that the benefits of shale gas development still outweigh the risks.
Engelder certainly doesn’t deny the problem of fugitive methane emissions. Rather, his view is that “by fixing leaks, green completions and what not, that can take care of the methane leaking into the atmosphere.” (“Green completions” refers to a new EPA rule that will require natural gas operators to capture volatile organic compounds on site rather than allowing them to escape to the atmosphere—a process, the EPA says, that would also “significantly reduce” methane emissions.)
But Ingraffea counters that that’s not enough. The new regulation, he says, only covers “one part of the whole supply train for natural gas, and it only applies to new gas wells, not the old ones.” Plus, it only applies to gas wells, not oil wells that also release methane.
With mounting scientific evidence behind him, then, Ingraffea makes a pretty strong case today that natural gas is a wolf in sheep’s clothing. The methane issue may not be settled fully, but it is undoubtedly grave—and certainly not something that we can afford to be wrong about. To still support President Obama’s “all of the above” approach to energy (which favors renewables, but also natural gas), you have to assume we can mitigate the methane leakage problem somehow. And you shouldn’t assume that without first listening, hard, to Ingraffea’s warning. As he concludes the Inquiring Minds interview:
For those who say we can regulate our way around this, just give us time and we’ll fix the problems—I’m sorry. We’ve had 100 years of commercial oil and gas development at very large quantities, around the world. Time is over. We’ve damaged the atmosphere too much, and it would take too long, it would take decades and billions of dollars, to begin to fix the problems that we know have existed for decades. And by then, it will be too late.
To listen to the full Inquiring Minds interview with Anthony Ingraffea, you can stream below:
This episode of Inquiring Minds, a podcast hosted by neuroscientist and musician Indre Viskontas and best-selling author Chris Mooney, also features a discussion of the science on racial prejudice and guns, and, in the wake of the suicide of the beloved actor Robin Williams, the science of depression.
To catch future shows right when they are released, subscribe to Inquiring Minds via iTunes or RSS. We are also available on Stitcher. You can follow the show on Twitter at @inquiringshow and like us on Facebook. Inquiring Minds was also recently singled out as one of the “Best of 2013” on iTunes—you can learn more here.
Katika makala ya hivi karibuni ya National Review, kwa mfano, mtafiti wa Taasisi ya Hoover analia kwamba asilimia 53 ya wanademokrasia huko California wanaunga mkono marufuku ya fracking - licha ya kuwepo kwa ushahidi mdogo wa kisayansi wa madhara ya fracking na ushahidi mkubwa wa kisayansi wa faida zake za mazingira, pamoja na kupunguzwa kwa kiasi kikubwa kwa uchafuzi wa ndani na wa kimataifa. Wasiwasi mkubwa wa mazingira kuhusu fracking wakati huo ulihusisha uchafuzi wa maji ya kunywa kupitia mchakato wa fracking - maji ya kulipuka, mchanga, na kemikali chini ya ardhi kwa wingi na kwa shinikizo kubwa ili kulazimisha tabaka za shale wazi chini ya Dunia, na kutolewa gesi ya asili. Lakini sayansi ilikuwa bado pretty ambiguous, na mpango mkubwa akageuka juu ya jinsi <unk>fracking<unk> ilikuwa kufafanuliwa. Utaratibu mzima wa kuchimba gesi "isiyo ya kawaida" waziwazi ulisababisha visa vya uchafuzi wa maji ya chini ya ardhi, kwa sababu ya kuvuja na kuvuja kutoka kwa visima visivyofaa. Lakini kiufundi, <unk>fracking<unk> inahusu tu maji na kemikali mlipuko, si kuchimba visima, kuondoa taka, au shughuli kubwa za viwanda ambayo huambatana na yote. Mambo yamebadilikaje. "Kama profesa wa uhandisi wa Chuo Kikuu cha Cornell Anthony Ingraffea anavyoeleza katika kipindi cha hivi karibuni cha podcast ya ""Inquiring Minds,"" hoja za kisayansi dhidi ya fracking na uchimbaji wa gesi isiyo ya kawaida ni kubwa zaidi." Hii inahusisha si uchafuzi wa maji ya chini ya ardhi tu, lakini pia angalau matatizo mengine mawili makubwa: kuzalisha tetemeko la ardhi na uzalishaji wa methane, gesi yenye nguvu ya chafu. Katika onyesho hilo, Ingraffea alielezea sayansi juu ya masuala haya - na kwa hakika si kitu ambacho mtu mwenye busara anaweza kupuuza. Kwa mfano, fikiria tetemeko la ardhi. Kulingana na Ingraffea, "sasa kuna, kwa maoni yangu, makubaliano ya kisayansi kwamba seismicity inayosababishwa na binadamu hutokea" kama matokeo ya kipengele maalum cha uchimbaji wa gesi isiyo ya kawaida (yaani, kuondoa kemikali iliyojaa "maji ya kurudi" katika visima vya chini ya ardhi vya sindano ya maji taka). Ingraffea si adui ya kisayansi ya uwezekano wa fracking. Utafiti wake wa zamani umefadhiliwa na mashirika na maslahi ya tasnia ikiwa ni pamoja na Schlumberger, Taasisi ya Utafiti wa Gesi, General Dynamics, na Northrop Grumman. Kazi yake ya kwanza ya udaktari, katika miaka ya 1970, ilihusisha utafiti wa "makanisa ya kuvunjika kwa mwamba" - kwa maneno mengine, jinsi nyufa katika mwamba huunda na kueneza - mwili wa maarifa ambayo ni muhimu kwa viwanda vya uchimbaji kama mafuta na gesi. "Nilitumia miaka 20, 25 nikifanya kazi na tasnia ya mafuta na gesi... kuwasaidia kujua jinsi bora ya kupata mafuta na gesi kutoka kwa mwamba, "Ingraffea anaelezea. Lakini tangu wakati huo amekuwa mkosoaji mkali wa maendeleo ya gesi isiyo ya kawaida. "Mwaka 2011 aliigiza katika filamu ya HBO ""Gasland II"" na mwaka 2011 alipewa tuzo ya Time kwa kazi yake ya kuangazia hatari za mazingira za maendeleo ya gesi ya shale." Kwa hiyo ni nini kilichotokea? Kwa neno moja: Sayansi. Katika Inquiring Minds, Ingraffea alielezea sayansi inayositawi juu ya matetemeko ya ardhi na uzalishaji wa methane kwani zinahusiana na maendeleo ya gesi isiyo ya kawaida - na hata ikiwa haukubaliani kabisa na kila kitu alichosema, bado utaipata ikisumbua. Hebu tuchukue mada hizi kwa zamu: Fracking na matetemeko ya ardhi. Kwa kushangaza, suala la tetemeko la ardhi linaweza kuwa suala la kisayansi lisilo na utata katika mjadala wa fracking. Kama Mama Jones ameripoti kwa kina, sasa inaonekana wazi kwamba sindano ya maji taka - kuhifadhi chini ya ardhi ya maji ya kemikali-laced ambayo inakuja nyuma kutoka visima baada ya fracking - inaweza kuchangia shughuli za tetemeko la ardhi. Katika utafiti uliochapishwa mwezi uliopita katika jarida la Science, watafiti wanasema kuwa ongezeko kubwa la shughuli za tetemeko la ardhi katika jimbo la Oklahoma, ikiwa ni pamoja na tetemeko la ardhi la ukubwa wa 5.7 mnamo 2011, lina uhusiano na kuenea kwa visima vya kuondoa maji machafu. Ni kweli kwamba huenda ikaonekana kuwa vigumu kuelewa (angalau ikiwa wewe si mtaalamu wa jiolojia) jinsi visima vya chini ya ardhi vinavyoweza kusababisha tetemeko la ardhi. Hebu Ingraffea kueleza: "Tumeweza tayari kuwepo, makosa imara", anasema. Maji ya chini ya ardhi kutoka kwa kuondoa taka <unk> huongeza mafuta kwenye makosa hayo na kubadilisha shinikizo juu yao.<unk> Kwa kawaida, visima vya sindano za taka vinavyozungumziwa ni zile zilizo karibu zaidi na makosa. Hapa ni visualization: Kama kwa ajili ya mchakato fracking yenyewe? Ingraffea anasema kwamba hii pia inaweza kusababisha matetemeko ya ardhi, ingawa matetemeko ya ardhi yanayohusiana na fracking (kinyume na visima vya sindano) yamekuwa madogo (hadi sasa, kama Ingraffea anavyoweka). Unapofikiria kile tunachofanya kwa Dunia, labda hiyo si ya kushangaza sana. "Hata hivyo, ""maji ya fracking yanachukuliwa chini ya ardhi kwa shinikizo linalofanana na lile unaloweza kupata ikiwa utaweka magari kumi ya SUV kwenye vidole vyako,"" anasema Ingraffea." Fracking na Fugitive Methane Emissions. Labda tunaweza kusimamia suala la tetemeko la ardhi. Bila shaka, ingesaidia kuacha kuingiza maji machafu karibu na mapungufu. <unk>Hiyo ingekuwa lengo la kubuni, ndiyo,<unk> deadpans Ingraffea. (Inafanyika, yeye anadai, kwa sababu ya ukosefu wa EPA kanuni.) Lakini kuna uwezekano wa suala hata mbaya zaidi - kutoroka methane uzalishaji kutoka shale gesi shughuli. Hii ni mada ambayo Ingraffea alifanya jina lake katika mjadala fracking, na ni pengine moja ya muhimu zaidi ya wote. Mwaka 2011, Ingraham na watafiti wengine wawili wa Cornell walichapisha utafiti wa kisayansi katika jarida la Climatic Change, wakisema kwamba kati ya 3.6% na 7.9% ya gesi ya methane kutoka kwa shughuli za kuchimba shale kwa kweli huingia angahewa, ambapo inachangia ongezeko la joto duniani. "Ikiwa ni kweli, basi kwa kuzingatia nguvu ya kipekee ya angahewa ya methane - methane ni karibu mara 80 hadi 90... nguvu zaidi kama gesi ya chafu kuliko kaboni dioksidi - kwa kipindi cha miaka miwili hadi mitatu, Ingrafia anasema, ""matokeo yanaweza kuwa makubwa.""" Gesi ya asili inaweza kugeuka kutoka kuwa faida ya hali ya hewa (kwa sababu huwaka safi kuliko mafuta au makaa ya mawe) hadi uharibifu wa hali ya hewa, kwa sababu ya methane yote inayoponyoka. "Hiyo inategemea kiwango cha uvujaji kutoka kwa shughuli za gesi ya asili katika hatua zote za mchakato, kutoka kwa kutolewa kwa gesi kutoka kwa ardhi hadi usafirishaji wake. """ Na hapo ndipo panapokuwa na mjadala. "Kila kipimo kimoja kimekazia kwamba asilimia ya methani inayotiririka angani kutokana na shughuli za mafuta na gesi ni kubwa zaidi ya asilimia mbili na nusu", anasema Ingraffea. "Nafikiri makadirio bora sasa hivi ni mahali fulani karibu na asilimia 5 - kiasi, anasema, ambacho kitakuwa kikubwa vya kutosha kuharibu wazo la gesi asilia kama ""mafuta ya daraja" kwa siku zijazo za nishati safi. """ Ingraffea si mtafiti pekee anayedokeza kwamba uvujaji wa metani ni wa kusumbua. Katika utafiti wa 2013 uliochapishwa katika Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, timu ya watafiti kutoka vyuo vikuu vya Marekani na maabara ya kitaifa iligundua kwamba EPA kwa sasa inashuka viwango vya uzalishaji wa methane kutoka kwa sekta ya nishati (ikiwa ni pamoja na uchimbaji wa gesi ya kawaida na shale). Hata hivyo, katika karatasi nyingine katika Sayansi mapema mwaka huu, watafiti tena walikosea vipimo vya EPA vya methane, lakini walikamilisha kwamba gesi ya asili bado inaweza kuchangia siku zijazo safi ikiwa uzalishaji wa methane unadhibitiwa vya kutosha. (Jopo la Serikali za Kati la Umoja wa Mataifa juu ya Mabadiliko ya Hali ya Hewa limefikia mkataa kama huo.) Ni Nini Kinachohusika? Kwa hakika si kwamba kila mtaalamu anakubaliana na Ingraffea. Kwa mfano, Ingraffea amekuwa akizungumza na Terry Engler, profesa wa sayansi ya dunia katika Chuo Kikuu cha Penn State, ambaye anasema faida za maendeleo ya gesi ya shale bado zinazidi hatari. Kwa hakika Engelder hakupinga tatizo la uzalishaji wa methani unaotoka. "Kama ilivyoelezwa hapo juu, ""kuondoa uvujaji wa gesi ya gesi ya gesi ya gesi ya gesi ya gesi ya gesi ya gesi ya gesi ya gesi ya gesi ya gesi ya gesi ya gesi ya gesi ya gesi ya gesi ya gesi ya gesi ya gesi ya gesi ya gesi ya gesi ya gesi ya gesi ya gesi ya gesi ya gesi ya gesi ya gesi ya gesi ya gesi ya gesi.""" Lakini Ingraffea anashutumu kwamba hiyo haitoshi. "Kama ilivyoelezwa, sheria hiyo inahusu ""sehemu moja tu ya mfumo wa usambazaji wa gesi ya asili, na inatumika tu kwa visima vipya vya gesi, sio vya zamani,"" na inatumika tu kwa visima vya gesi, sio visima vya mafuta ambavyo pia hutolewa metani." Kwa hivyo, kwa sababu ya ushahidi wa kisayansi unaozidi kuongezeka nyuma yake, Ingraffea anafanya kesi yenye nguvu sana leo kwamba gesi ya asili ni mbwa mwitu katika nguo za kondoo. Suala la methane linaweza kuwa halija kutatuliwa kikamilifu, lakini bila shaka ni kubwa <unk> na kwa hakika si kitu ambacho tunaweza kuruhusu kuwa na makosa kuhusu. Ili bado kuunga mkono Rais Obama 'wote wa juu' mbinu ya nishati (ambayo inasaidia nishati mbadala, lakini pia gesi asilia), lazima kudhani tunaweza kupunguza tatizo la uvujaji wa methane kwa njia fulani. Na hupaswi kudhani kwamba bila kwanza kusikiliza, ngumu, kwa onyo Ingraffea ya. Kama yeye anahitimisha Inquiring Minds mahojiano: Kwa wale ambao wanasema tunaweza kudhibiti njia yetu kuzunguka hii, tu kutupa muda na sisi <unk>tapata kurekebisha matatizo <unk>Ninaomba radhi. """Tumekuwa na miaka 100 ya maendeleo ya kibiashara ya mafuta na gesi kwa kiasi kikubwa sana duniani kote." Wakati umekwisha. """Tumeiharibu angahewa sana na itachukua muda mrefu sana, itachukua miongo na mabilioni ya dola kuanza kurekebisha matatizo ambayo tunajua yamekuwapo kwa miongo." Na kufikia wakati huo, itakuwa kuchelewa mno. "Kama unavyoweza kusikiliza mahojiano kamili ya Inquiring Minds na Anthony Ingraham, unaweza kusambaza hapa chini: ""Hii episode ya Inquiring Minds, podcast iliyowekwa na mwanasayansi wa neva na mwanamuziki Indra Viskontas na mwandishi wa vitabu vya Chris Mooney, pia ina majadiliano ya sayansi juu ya ubaguzi wa rangi na bunduki, na, kufuatia kujiua kwa mwigizaji mpendwa Robin Williams." Ili kupata maonyesho ya baadaye wakati wa kutolewa, jiandikishe kwa Inquiring Minds kupitia iTunes au RSS. Pia tunapatikana kwenye Stitcher. Unaweza kufuata kipindi hiki kwenye Twitter kwa @inquiringshow na kama sisi kwenye Facebook. "Inquiring Minds pia ilichaguliwa hivi karibuni kama moja ya ""Bora ya 2013"" kwenye iTunes. unaweza kujifunza zaidi hapa."