Comment on ‘Life cycle environmental impacts of UK shale gas’ by L. Stamford and A. Azapagic. Applied Energy, 134, 506–518, 2014

Westaway, Rob; Younger, Paul L.; Cornelius, Chris J.

doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.03.008

Cited by 14 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Most critical CH 4 and air pollutant sources across the gas chain have been attributed to above-ground malpractices, failures or malfunctions unrelated to the gas nature (i.e., conventional or shale gas), as reported by the studies produced by the Environmental Defense Fund initiative and others (Sauter et al, 2013;Elsner et al, 2015;Omara et al, 2016;Atherton et al, 2017). Based on the latest evidence, gas capture solutions, "detection and repair" services, as well as monitoring and early detection of super-emitters are the most likely key measures when it comes to effectively mitigate emissions for both gas sources (EPA, 2014a;Westaway et al, 2015;Ravikumar and Brandt, 2017;Zavala-Araiza et al, 2017;Konschnik and Jordaan, 2018). Unfortunately, surveys that investigate European CH 4 losses in a transparent and systematic way (e.g., peer-reviewed articles published by independent research bodies) do not exist or are not publicly available, raising doubts over the accuracy and objectivity of emission estimates provided to the UNFCCC (EC, 2015;Larsen et al, 2015;Cremonese and Gusev, 2016;Riddick et al, 2019).…”

Section: Ghg Emissions National Contextsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Emission scenarios of a potential shale gas industry in Germany and the United Kingdom

Cremonese¹,

Weger

Gon

et al. 2019

Elementa: Science of the Anthropocene

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The shale gas debate has taken center stage over the past decade in many European countries due to its purported climate advantages over coal and the implications for domestic energy security. Nevertheless, shale gas production generates greenhouse gas and air pollutant emissions including carbon dioxide, methane, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter and volatile organic compounds. In this study we develop three shale gas drilling projections in Germany and the United Kingdom based on estimated reservoir productivities and local capacity. For each projection, we define a set of emission scenarios in which gas losses are assigned to each stage of upstream gas production to quantify total emissions. The “realistic” (REm) and “optimistic” (OEm) scenarios investigated in this study describe, respectively, the potential emission range generated by business-as-usual activities, and the lowest emissions technically possible according to our settings. The latter scenario is based on the application of specific technologies and full compliance with a stringent regulatory framework described herein. Based on the median drilling projection, total annual methane emissions range between 150–294 Kt in REm and 28–42 Kt in OEm, while carbon dioxide emissions span from 5.55–7.21 Mt in REm to 3.11–3.96 Mt in OEm. Taking all drilling projections into consideration, methane leakage rates in REm range between 0.45 and 1.36% in Germany, and between 0.35 and 0.71% in the United Kingdom. The leakage rates are discussed in both the European (conventional gas) and international (shale gas) contexts. Further, the emission intensity of a potential European shale gas industry is estimated and compared to national inventories. Results from our science-based prospective scenarios can facilitate an informed discussion among the public and policy makers on the climate impact of a potential shale gas development in Europe, and on the appropriate role of natural gas in the worldwide energy transition.

show abstract

Section: Ghg Emissions National Contextsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Emission scenarios of a potential shale gas industry in Germany and the United Kingdom

Cremonese¹,

Weger

Gon

et al. 2019

Elementa: Science of the Anthropocene

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Some extra scenarios have therefore been included to show the effect of these uncertainties on the results. Based on literature (Foster & Perks, 2012;Mackay & Stone, 2013;Westaway et al, 2015;Bond et al, 2014) these include:…”

Section: Uncertainties In Production Emissionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Future European shale gas life-cycle GHG emissions for electric power generation in comparison to other fossil fuels

Hauck¹,

Sair²,

Steinmann

et al. 2019

Carbon Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The carbon footprint of shale gas combusted in Europe was estimated from nine European shale gas plays as potential production regions. Greenhouse gas emission sources during shale gas production, such as fugitives from hydraulic fracturing or combustion emissions from horizontal drilling, were added to emissions occurring for conventional gas extraction. Greenhouse gas emissions are expressed as kg CO2-equivalents per MJ delivered, and calcu-16 lated for a kWh of electricity generated. Estimated total GHG emissions from the use of European shale gas for electricity production range from 0.42 to 0.75 kg CO2-eq/kWh when the combustion in the power plant is included. This is within the range reported in the literature. The cumulative carbon footprints for a number of fossil electricity generation scenarios for Europe were also calculated. The results indicate an advantage of gas over other 21 fossil sources in a wide range of scenarios. These results are only reversed with very high 22 (10%) upstream losses for shale gas. With the current knowledge there is still a substantial 23 climate benefit of replacing coal with (shale) gas even in the EU reference scenario. 24 25

show abstract

“…In response, Westaway et al [2] have argued that our paper exaggerates the environmental impacts of shale gas.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Response to the Comment by Westaway et al. ( Applied Energy 148 (2015) 489–495) on the paper “Life cycle environmental impacts of UK shale gas” by Stamford and Azapagic ( Applied Energy 134 (2014) 506–518)

Stamford

Azapagic

2015

Applied Energy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Highlights The claim that we exaggerated the impacts of shale gas in the UK is unsupported  Our assumptions and results are well in line with the literature  The Comment exaggerates the legal situation with respect to shale gas AbstractIn the recent Comment on our paper 'Life cycle environmental impacts of UK shale gas' (Applied Energy 134 (2014) March 2015) allege that we exaggerated the potential impacts of shale gas extraction in the UK. They first take an issue with our inclusion of worst case scenarios despite our clear declaration in several places in the paper that this is indicative of what could happen within the confines of a very ill-defined and highly variable future reality. Secondly, Westaway et al. claim that key assumptions in the modelling reflect illegal practices that would not occur, when in fact this is an exaggeration of the legal situation and these practices are still viable. This rebuttal addresses some of the claims made by Westaway et al. while welcoming further open and impartial discourse in this area.

show abstract

Comment on ‘Life cycle environmental impacts of UK shale gas’ by L. Stamford and A. Azapagic. Applied Energy, 134, 506–518, 2014

Cited by 14 publications

References 17 publications

Emission scenarios of a potential shale gas industry in Germany and the United Kingdom

Emission scenarios of a potential shale gas industry in Germany and the United Kingdom

Future European shale gas life-cycle GHG emissions for electric power generation in comparison to other fossil fuels

Response to the Comment by Westaway et al. ( Applied Energy 148 (2015) 489–495) on the paper “Life cycle environmental impacts of UK shale gas” by Stamford and Azapagic ( Applied Energy 134 (2014) 506–518)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About