ERROR 1
ERROR 1
ERROR 2
ERROR 2
ERROR 2
ERROR 2
ERROR 2
Password and Confirm password must match.
If you have an ACS member number, please enter it here so we can link this account to your membership. (optional)
ERROR 2
ACS values your privacy. By submitting your information, you are gaining access to C&EN and subscribing to our weekly newsletter. We use the information you provide to make your reading experience better, and we will never sell your data to third party members.
In “Chasing Methane,” the loss of methane in hydraulic fracturing is reported by the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration to be 6 to 12% of the methane recovered—10 or 20 times that measured at the wellhead (C&EN, Sept. 30, 2013, page 24). Can I assume that NOAA got its numbers from atmospheric analyses? If so, one has to ask whether the disruption of shale releases far more methane from the explosive disturbance of the shale than is measured at the wellhead.
This great discrepancy should cry out for prompt resolution. If the amount released is that high, aren’t we kidding ourselves about the viability of fracking? If NOAA’s number is in the ballpark, that would tell us that burning gas from fracking is worse than using coal, that it is not environmentally justified, and that fracking is itself an unacceptable source of global warming.
Please tell me I’m wrong.
Victor J. Reilly
Aiken, S.C.
Join the conversation
Contact the reporter
Submit a Letter to the Editor for publication
Engage with us on X