A new Park Foundation-funded methane study is generating lots of anti-fracking headlines, despite its conclusions being at odds with the bulk of the scientific community. Cornell University professor and Food and Water Watch board member, Bob Howarth, is back and this time he claims that oil and natural gas emissions are the primary cause of recent global methane spikes – a theory that many climate and atmospheric scientists have rejected.
Howarth’s conclusions were called “far-reaching” and “premature” by one of the anonymous experts tasked by Biogeosciences to review the research prior to publication, who explained:
“The advice to move as quickly as possible away from natural gas based on this study does not appear sufficiently conclusive…”
The research, which Howarth stressed multiple times during the journal’s review process is “in the ‘Ideas & Perspectives’ category and is not a traditional research paper,” also met a healthy dose of skepticism from the scientific community. As Newsweek reports:
“Quentin Fisher, professor of petroleum geoengineering at the U.K.’s University of Leeds, said he was ‘deeply skeptical’ about the study. ’The results are extremely sensitive to highly questionable assumptions regarding the isotopic composition of methane found in shale. The arguments made by previous studies that increase in methane in the atmosphere is from biogenic sources, such as release from wetlands and agriculture or burning of biomass, seem far more convincing.’” (emphasis added)
Fisher’s criticism is likely the first of many if Howarth’s previous research track record of rejections is any indicator. Here are four key facts to keep in mind when reading the study’s media coverage.
Fact #1: Howarth’s research is a prime example of the “Keep It In the Ground” echo chamber.
This research was funded, written and peer-reviewed by people and organizations openly affiliated with the KIITG movement. Given this, it’s unsurprising that Howarth’s solution to his perceived problem is to “move as quickly as possible away from natural gas,” according to Newsweek, despite acknowledging in the study that there are “large opportunities for reducing emissions” in the oil and natural gas sector.
Funding
The Park Foundation’s president Adelaide Park – a family heir – has said:
“In our work to oppose fracking, the Park Foundation has simply helped to fuel an army of courageous individuals and NGOs.” (emphasis added)
A 2018 Northeastern University study found the Park Foundation to be one of the largest funders of anti-fracking research and activism:
“To support efforts to ban/restrict fracking, Schmidt ($3.3 million), Hewlett ($1.5 million), Park ($1.1 million), and Heinz ($1 million) were the leading funders. Park gave primarily to groups working in New York state. Relative to protecting drinking water supplies, major funders included Heinz ($1 million) for efforts in Pennsylvania; and Park ($760,000) for work in North Carolina and New York. Major funders of research on fracking’s health and environmental impacts included Heinz ($2.7 million), Park ($780,000), and Schmidt ($390,000). These funds were given to a mix of universities and environmental groups.” (emphasis added)
Conflict of Interest
Despite declaring “no conflict of interest” in the study, Howarth clearly has conflicts, most notably that he sits on Food and Water Watch’s board of directors.
F&WW explains that its board consists of “leaders in activism” and prides itself on being “the first U.S. national organization to call for a ban on fracking.”
Peer-reviewers
At least one of the study’s peer-reviewers has clear conflicts of interest that are also not disclosed in the study. Fellow Cornell professor and activist Tony Ingraffea sits on Earthwork’s board of directors – a group that vehemently opposes fracking and stood by its organizer, Sharon Wilson (also thanked in the study), when she equated it with “rape”.
He is also the founder of Physicians, Scientists and Engineers for Healthy Energy, an organization that has released several health studies that blame fracking for a multitude of ailments, but offer no actual proof as to how they reached such a conclusion, including at least one that Ingraffea had a hand in drafting. Notably, these studies have been heavily criticized by other environmental groups for not taking real measurements. The group also released a 2012 media strategy memo that urged environmentalists to make connections between health problems and fracking even when no evidence to support the linkages exist.
Further, Ingraffea has called himself “a self-admitted advocate” against fracking on multiple occasions.
Fact #2: Howarth’s previous oil and natural gas emissions research was thoroughly debunked by the scientific community.
In 2011, Howarth teamed up with Ingraffea on a study that alleged methane leaks from oil and natural gas systems to be around 7 to 8 percent – for context, most studies estimate leakage rates to be between 1.1 and 1.7 percent. Even the Environmental Defense Fund’s estimate of a 2.3 percent rate, which is roughly 60 percent higher than the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s estimates, is far below Howarth’s 2011 estimate or his new study’s estimate of 3.5 percent leakage.
Notably, the scientific community quickly and thoroughly debunked the 2011 research. Here are just a few examples of what was said:
Nonetheless, Howarth cites this research several times as a basis for his calculations throughout the new study, including in his new methane leakage rate estimate:
“For this first sensitivity analysis, we modify equations Eq. (9) through Eq. (12) with new equations Eq. (A1) through Eq. (A4) to reflect a 50 percent higher emission factor for shale gas than for conventional gas, as proposed in Howarth et al. (2011; see Appendix A).”
Fact #3: The scientific community largely agrees natural gas is not the cause of global methane spikes.
Howarth’s entire theory is based on shale having a different isotopic signature than other sources of methane and that it was overlooked as a source in previous research as a result. But this isn’t the scientific consensus.
For instance, a recent UnDark article looked to global “methane detectives” to determine what might be causing global methane spikes. And while they did not have a concrete answer for what the cause is, there was agreement on what it isn’t: oil and natural gas.
Howarth even concedes in the study that the carbon-13 depletions he claims are associated with shale development have “been widely interpreted as indicating a primarily biogenic source for the increased methane,” and cites studies that have supported this more widely accepted interpretation of the data:
“Since biogenic sources of methane are lighter than the methane released from fossil-fuel emissions, Schaefer et al. (2016) concluded that the increase in atmospheric methane in the late 20th century was due to increasing emissions from fossil fuels but that the increase in methane since 2006 is due to biogenic sources, most likely tropical wetlands, rice culture, or animal agriculture. Their model results indicated that fossil-fuel sources have remained flat or decreased globally since 2006, playing no major role in the recent atmospheric rise of methane. … Six months after the Schaefer et al. (2016) study was published in Science, Schwietzke et al. (2016) presented a similar analysis in Nature that used a larger and more comprehensive data set for the δ13C values of methane emission sources. They too concluded that fossil-fuel emissions have likely decreased during this century and that biogenic emissions are the probable cause of any recent increase in global methane emissions.” (emphasis added)
—
“On the other hand, Nisbet et al. (2016, 2019) used monitoring data to infer spatial changes in methane emissions over time and emphasized that much of the increase in recent years originated in the tropics and Southern Hemisphere…”
Despite this, Howarth asserts that “shale gas has contributed 33 percent of the global increase in all methane emissions in recent years” and that “at least 33 percent of the increase in methane fluxes came from North America.”
Fact #4: Methane emissions and emissions intensity are declining in the top U.S. shale basins.
The study relies on two assumptions:
“1) that methane emissions as a percentage of gas produced are the same for shale gas and conventional natural gas (Eqs. 9 and 10); and (2) that emissions from oil have remained proportional to the global rate of oil production.”
This is very much a false assumption. The reality is that as oil and natural gas production has increased in the United States, methane emissions have decreased, including emissions per unit of natural gas produced (emissions intensity).
Data from the latest Environmental Protection Agency Greenhouse Gas Inventory show that methane emissions from U.S. oil and natural gas systems have declined 12 percent since 2005 and 14 percent since 1990. Meanwhile, oil and natural gas production grew 80 and 51 percent, respectively, since 1990.
Even in America’s top oil and natural gas producing basins, methane emissions have fallen significantly, according to a recent EID analysis of EPA and U.S. Energy Information Administration data.
In the Permian Basin – the top producing oilfield in the world – annual methane emissions from production fell from 4.8 million metric tons (MMT) to 4.6 MMT from 2011 to 2017. Simultaneously, combined oil and natural gas production increased from 638.9 million barrels of oil equivalent (Boe) to 1.4 billion Boe. The result was a 57 percent reduction in methane emissions per unit of oil and gas produced.
Likewise, in the Appalachian Basin – the third highest natural gas producing region in the world – combined oil and natural gas production grew from 322 million Boe to 1.5 billion Boe from 2011 to 2017. At the same time, methane emissions from production in the basin fell from 5.3 MMT to 4.7 MMT, resulting in an emissions intensity reduction of 82 percent.
And a recent National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration study found statistically insignificant trends for increased oil and natural gas methane emissions. The NOAA study further determined that after analyzing a decades-worth of data:
“Recent studies showing increases of methane emissions from oil and gas production have overestimated their volume by as much as 10 times.”
Conclusion
While Howarth’s research may get him a few headlines and provide misleading talking points for his fellow “Keep It In the Ground” activists, it is already meeting criticism from the scientific community reminiscent of his previous attempts to rewrite global emissions theories to encourage more widespread fracking bans.
All the while, the U.S. oil and natural gas industry’s voluntary efforts to reduce emissions across their operations are having significant results – without banning a practice that is helping to reduce global emissions and meet growing worldwide energy demand.
