Garrett County and Natural Gas - Risks and Benefits

A selection of categorized links to allow one to assess the risks and benefits of gas development in Garrett Conty.

Garrett County Montage

Fugitive Emissions

The meaning from the dictionary implies "lasting only a short time" or "difficult to retain" or "elusive", these are emissions that are generally not noted immediately and require special equipment to find them. Often revealed as odors.

- 1009 - [October 12, 2012] - Council on Foreign Relations, Michael Levi - "Revisiting a Major Methane Study"
"The ongoing fight over whether shale gas operations are leaking dangerous amounts of methane – a question that many have called critical to determining whether shale gas is good or bad – has suffered from a paucity of data. That’s why a much talked about study, authored by thirty scientists (mostly from NOAA) and published in early February, made such big waves.
In a new paper in press at the Journal of Geophysical Research (preprint here), the same journal that published the NOAA results, I explain why the NOAA estimates are unsupportable. (Short version: great data; wrong interpretation.)
I find methane leakage rates that are most likely between 1 and 2 percent, very similar to what previous careful estimates have consistently indicated, but far lower than the rates — as high as 7.7 percent — that the NOAA study claimed."
- 1275 - [NA] - eeNews, Robert B. Jackson, Avner Vengosh, Thomas H. Darrah, Nathaniel R. Warner, Adrian Down, Robert J. Poreda, Stephen G. Osborn, Kaiguang Zhao and Jonathan D. Karr - "Increased stray gas abundance in a subset of drinking water wells near Marcellus shale gas extraction"
"We analyzed 141drinking water wells across the Appalachian Plateaus physiographic province of northeastern Pennsylvania, examining natural gas concentrations and isotopic signatures with proximity to shale gas wells. Methane was detected in 82% of drinking water samples, with average concentrations six times higher for homes <1 km from natural gas wells (P=0.0006). Ethane was 23 times higher in homes<1 km from gas wells (P=0.0013); propane was detected in 10 water wells, all within approximately 1 km distance (P=0.01)."
- 1330 - [February 11, 2015] -, DAVID CONTI | The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review - "Study: Minority of facilities produce most natural gas methane emissions"
"Leaky equipment at a small number of natural gas compressors, processors and pipeline facilities account for a big chunk of the methane escaping into the air, according to the latest reports from a national collaboration between energy companies and the Environmental Defense Fund.
Two peer-reviewed studies published Tuesday in Environmental Science & Technology involved researchers from Carnegie Mellon and Colorado State universities taking field measurements at a combined 176 facilities in 13 states. They come as regulators look to crack down on emissions of the greenhouse gas and as companies tout an industry-wide reduction over the past three years."
- 1331 - [February 10, 2015] - Coloradoan - A Gannett Company, Sarah Jane Kyle, The Coloradoan - "Study: Some methane emissions a ‘quick fix’ at natural gas sites"
"A CSU-led study of natural gas gathering facilities and processing plants across the U.S. found none exceeded federal or state methane emissions levels and most emissions issues could be quickly fixed.
Researchers from Colorado State University, Carnegie Mellon University and Aerodyne Research found “wide variations” in methane emissions at 114 gathering stations and 16 processing plants in 13 states, including Colorado and Wyoming, during a 20-week field campaign that began October 2013."