Fossil Fuels NASA methane leak fracking

Published on June 16th, 2016 | by Tina Casey

10

Ancient Satellite Busts Massive Gas Storage Leak, Fracking Could Be Next

June 16th, 2016 by  

NASA has just reported that its EO-1 satellite has picked up the trail of emissions from the massive methane leak at a natural gas storage facility near the gated community of Porter Ranch in California. Okay, so they took their time about reporting it — the leak dates back to last fall and it was fixed by February — but the important thing is, this is the very first time that an orbiting spacecraft has confirmed methane emissions from one identifiable facility.

That’s significant because it means that orbiting spacecraft could become an effective means of detecting significant, fixable sources of methane on a global basis. That news comes at a bad time for the fracking industry, which is coming under increased scrutiny for bleeding out methane gas from drilling operations among (many) other ills.

NASA methane leak fracking

Methane Super-Emitter Busted By Satellite

For those of you new to the topic, the Porter Ranch methane leak involved a SoCal Gas storage facility at Aliso Canyon, resulting in thousands of evacuations from the well-to-do community.

The leak began last October and it took crews until February to stop it.

Over the winter, NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory set EO-1 to the task of monitoring the methane leak, deploying a spectrometer called Hyperion. The findings, gathered in the course of three different flyovers, confirmed other results obtained by aircraft.

The findings are available at the journal Geophysical Letters under the title, “Space-based Remote Imaging Spectroscopy of the Aliso Canyon CH4 Super-emitter.” Here’s a taste from the abstract:

…Hyperion measured shortwave infrared signatures of CH4 near 2.3 μm at 0.01 μm spectral resolution and 30 m spatial resolution. It detected the plume on three overpasses, mapping its magnitude and morphology…We evaluate Hyperion instrument performance, draw implications for future orbital instruments, and extrapolate the potential for a global survey of CH4 super-emitters.

EO-1 methane satellite

EO-1 (rendering via NASA).

Busted!

By the way, we’re calling EO-1 ancient because it was launched in 2000 and it was originally designed to circle the Earth only for a year or so, to test cutting edge equipment like the Hyperion. Data collection and transmission was supposed to be a byproduct.

Fracking And Greenhouse Gas Emissions

NASA likes to remind folks that it “uses the vantage point of space to increase our understanding of our home planet, improve lives and safeguard our future,” so we’re going to guess that EO-1 will play a pivotal role in global greenhouse gas management for as long as it stays aloft.

Here in the US, evidence is mounting that there are significant fugitive methane emissions from fracking sites and from conventional drilling sites. Leaks can also occur along transmission pipelines and storage facilities.

The problem is finding all of them, and now we know that satellite observation can provide a reliable, efficient way of gathering measurements.

The clampdown has been slow in coming, but just last month the US Environmental Protection Agency issued its final rule for methane emissions from the oil and gas industry, all along the supply chain:

The final standards will significantly curb methane emissions from new, reconstructed and modified processes and equipment, along with reducing VOC emissions from sources not covered in the agency’s 2012 rules. These sources include hydraulically fractured oil wells, some of which can contain a large amount of gas along with oil, and equipment used across the industry that was not regulated in the 2012 rules.

EPA estimates that if the industry acts upon the new rule by 2025, there will be a reduction of 510,000 short tons of methane in 2025.

By remediating leaks, the industry will be able to capture more natural gas, and the EPA estimates that the use and market value of the additional gas will partly offset the cost of compliance.

The real value will be “climate benefits” of $690 million, compared with the estimated $530 million cost of compliance.

Though not quantified by EPA in terms of cost-benefits, the new rule is also expected to result in a significant reduction of volatile organic compounds and other airborne toxins that are linked to asthma and other significant public health effects. That includes ozone-forming VOCs, along with benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene.

Fracking: Compare And Contrast

All of these expectations could collapse like a house of cards, depending on who gets to be elected the next President of the United States.

Presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump, for example, does not appear to have evolved on the topic of fracking since issuing this tweet in 2012:

Donald Trump frackingOn the other hand, presumptive Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton seems to have absorbed the mounting evidence that links fracking to water contamination and seismic activity as well as airborne pollutants.

As Secretary of State and a high level surrogate for President Obama from 2009 to 2013, Clinton supported the Administration’s “all of the above” energy policy that embraced the oil and gas industry.

However, shortly after leaving that post, Clinton adopted a practical approach that works around the virtual impossibility of getting Congress to issue a blanket ban on fracking. Instead, she would ramp up the Obama Administration’s slow but steady deployment of EPA’s rule making authority.

By September 2014, she was on record with a strategy for squeezing out fracking operations, where risks are “too high.”

That risk-based approach has tightened up considerably over the years, particularly since last summer when primary season got under way. Clinton now foresees that very little, if any, fracking would go on if she wins the Oval office.

Follow me on Twitter and Google+.

Images: via NASA.


Buy a cool T-shirt in the CleanTechnica store!

Keep up to date with all the hottest cleantech news by subscribing to our (free) cleantech daily newsletter or weekly newsletter, or keep an eye on sector-specific news by getting our (also free) solar energy newsletter, electric vehicle newsletter, or wind energy newsletter.

Tags: , , , , , ,


About the Author

specializes in military and corporate sustainability, advanced technology, emerging materials, biofuels, and water and wastewater issues. Tina’s articles are reposted frequently on Reuters, Scientific American, and many other sites. Views expressed are her own. Follow her on Twitter @TinaMCasey and Google+.



  • Anything Hillary Clinton says has to be taken with a grain of salt, especially when the industry she is criticizing is pouring millions of dollars into her campaign. Clinton knows that fracking is very unpopular among the Democratic base, so she says things that appease that base. The real test is what she does, when in office and no longer campaigning. She has a long history of saying the right thing, but doing the wrong thing when there are millions of dollars in donor money on the line.

    • Bob_Wallace

      Can you show me proof of your claim, Amos?

  • Larry

    Trump is a rogue elephant bellowing nonsense on this issue. Hillary changed her tune just in time for the primaries. Will she flip and flop again if elected? Hmmm

  • AIDAN DOWNEY

    strictly speaking, the methane leaks from fracking are not from the fracking itself, but from the above ground portion of the extraction. A simple way to solve this is to audit the amount of methane leakage (detection is easy) and impose a fee or penalty. And then encourage other oil producing countries to do the same.

    • Bob_Wallace

      We have to have regulations in effect in order to monitor and require fixes. These regs are now working their way through the US courts. Hopefully they will clear the Supreme Court before the end of the year.

  • Brooks Bridges

    The disgusting thing is gas companies aren’t even trying to build non-leaking gas wells. An article by a retired drilling specialist said the concret parts of the wellheads were crumbling almost immediately – they should last decades. That and the pipeline companies continually found to be cutting corners with pipes.

    • Bob_Wallace

      Hopefully the DC Circuit Court will find for the EPA regs in September and the Supreme Court will refuse to take the case soon after.

      If the regs hold (which is expected) then the EPA can start cracking down on leaky wells and distribution systems soon after.

      In addition to the satellite ability to look for leaks there are now drones which can fly above a suspected site and gather confirming info. The drones are capable of flying only a half hour now so work is underway to shrink the size/weight of the detection apparatus.

      We have thousands of abandoned wells that are not documented. Many leak and need to be sealed. In addition to ongoing operations we need to locate and cap these problem sites.

      • Brooks Bridges

        Good news.

        We just got a big win in the Chesapeake Bay area on pollution runoff. Exactly scenario you described.

        Maybe they can spend some of that unneeded exploration for new sources money on fixing these problems. Yes I dream.

        Should have them up on crimes against humanity.

  • diaph

    Re. Trump’s fracking love and Trump in general: “The credulity of the dupes is as inexhaustible as the invention of the knaves.” Edmund Burke

  • Michael Schill

    Busted. Pollution. Global warming. Earthquakes. Wildfires. Explosions. Criminal menace!

Back to Top ↑