Tony Ingraffea considers himself a pioneer of hydraulic fracturing technology. When he tried to take that expertise and switch gears to air emissions, the resulting study left something to be desired–to say the least–amongst his peers in the scientific community. Interestingly, Ingraffea doesn’t seem to notice the subsequent studies from his peers disagreeing with his predictions.
EID Marcellus recently attended a debate between Dr. Terry Engleder of Penn State and Dr. Tony Ingraffea of Cornell. Engleder’s contribution to the natural gas discussion involves his pretty accurate predictions of the reserves using his professional expertise as a geologist. Ingraffea’s expertise is in civil and environmental engineering, specifically focused on the fracturing of rocks, including shale formations.
But that’s not what he’s most known for in the world of natural gas.
Ingraffea and another Cornell professor, Bob Howarth, issued a study on natural gas emissions in 2011 that got them quite a bit of attention. The anti natural gas crowd touted the study as “proof” natural gas development is not the clean burning fuel it is said to be. At the same time, though, the scientific community across the country including at other well-respected universities scratched their heads and decided to look further into it, resulting in additional studies from several institutions disputing the findings.
These additional studies were released within weeks of the original, leaving Ingraffea and Howarth with a choice. The two could acknowledge they had gotten some pretty basic points wrong, as peer reviews showed, or they could continue to parade the study around ignoring these reviews and studies, calling out anyone who cited the later studies as shilling for the natural gas industry. It’s been almost two years since the release of the original and at this point, most of you know which option they chose.
“[We] have not received any of what we would consider intense peer criticism.”(Anthony Ingraffea, Sept. 21, 2011)
“[E]very paper that’s appeared in the last couple of months seems to support what we predicted.” (Ingraffea, March 2012)
Energy In Depth recently compiled some quotes from the other institutions into a fact sheet which can be accessed here in a printable pdf format. Take a look for yourself below.
“We don’t think they’re [Howarth et. al.] using credible data and some of the assumptions they’re making are biased. And the comparison they make at the end, my biggest problem, is wrong.” Paula Jaramillo,* Carnegie Mellon Univ., Aug. 2011 * Research was funded in part by the Sierra Club.
“ Howarth, et al (2011b) it is assumed that all potential fugitive [methane] emissions are vented. This is an unreasonable assumption…” Francis O’Sullivan and Sergey Paltsev* Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Nov. 2012 * Paltsev is a Lead Author of the Fifth Assessment Report for the IPCC
“Here we reiterate and substantiate our charges that none of [Howarth’s] conclusions are warranted.” Lawrence Cathles, Cornell University, Feb. 2012
“Average natural gas baseload power generation has life cycle GHG emissions 53% lower than average coal baseload power generation.” National Energy Technology Laboratory, Oct. 2011
“Vented emissions of the magnitudes estimated by Howarth would be extremely dangerous and subject to ignition. The simple fact that fires are rare in all gas-producing areas suggests that this analysis grossly overestimates the quantities of methane that are leaking uncontrolled into the atmosphere at the well site.” IHS-CERA, Aug. 2011
“The Howarth estimates assume that daily methane emissions throughout the flowback period actually exceed the wells’ IP at completion. This is a fundamental error, since the gas stream builds up slowly during flowback. Compounding this error is the assumption that all flowback methane is vented, when industry practice is to capture and market as much as possible, flaring much of the rest. Vented emissions of the magnitudes estimated by Howarth would be extremely dangerous and subject to ignition.” IHS CERA, Aug. 2011
“[T]he life-cycle GHG footprint of gas is lower than coal under all GWPs [Global Warming Potentials] tested.” Worldwatch Institute, Aug. 2011
“Alas, [the Cornell] analysis is based on extremely weak data, and also has a severe methodological flaw (plus some other questionable decisions), all of which means that his bottom line conclusions shouldn’t carry weight.” Michael Levi, Council on Foreign Relations, Nov. 2010
“Professor Howarth’s conclusion that gas emits more heat trapping gas than carbon flies in the face of numerous lifecycle studies done around the world.” John Hanger, Fmr. PA DEP Secretary, Apr. 2011
“One thing that disturbed me and some of the scientists I consulted was the big gap in the definitiveness of [Cornell’s] abstract summary and the actual paper. … I find that they are more value judgments than scientific judgments.” Andrew Revkin, New York Times , Dot Earth, Apr. 2011
“This paper is selective in its use of some very questionable data and too readily ignores or dismisses available data that would change its conclusions.” Dave McCabe, Clean Air Task Force, Apr. 2011
I have to wonder what Ingraffea considers “intense peer review” and what papers of support for his predictions he was reading when he made those statements.
Follow Us:
Uni Blake
Environmental Consultant – Toxicologist
Master’s Degree in Environmental Toxicology – American University
A recent research paper entitled Natural Gas Operations and Infant Health, by the Department of Applied Economics and Management Ph.D. student Elaine L. Hill, attempted to identify a causal relationship between natural gas operations and infant health. While admittedly a "work ...
READ MORE
Tom Shepstone
Campaign Director
Natural gas development is allowing the United States to achieve carbon emission reductions no one thought possible even a few short years ago. The International Energy Agency indicates the U.S. has, incredibly, led all developed nations in reducing its carbon dioxide emissions since 2006. Some Cornell University natural ...
READ MORE
Jim Willis
Publisher – Marcellus Drilling News (MDN)
Cross-posted on MDN
The University of Texas has withdrawn their natural gas study on groundwater and natural gas development, specifically hydraulic fracturing. Jim Willis of Marcellus Drilling News takes a look at the reasons behind this decision and their implications.
The University of Texas (UT) is the latest ...
READ MORE
The Washington Post ran a story recently titled “Shale gas boom makes some Pennsylvanians richer — and some poorer.” However, the study on which the article relies is one of those academic analyses that can be interpreted in multiple ways, ignores the obvious and, of course, recommends further research. There is, ...
READ MORE
Uni Blake
Environmental Consultant – Toxicologist
Master’s Degree in Environmental Toxicology – American University
While the general public may find anecdotal evidence highly compelling, most scientists are suspicious of data that rests on anecdotes. The idea research can be based solely on pooling more than one anecdote to create data is problematic - ...
READ MORE
More Natural Gas Opposition Parading as Science
U.S. Leads in Reducing Carbon Emissions, Due to
University of Texas Shuns Its Own Natural Gas
Washington County Property Values Study Gets Lost in
If Natural Gas the Issue and Science Fails,
Here’s something I recently learned, Tony has no actual experience in geology or fractures in the earth. Tony’s specialty is fracturing in airplanes, specifically the wings and areas of high stress.
Furthermore he is not trained in anything related to climate change. Yet he speaks on it like a professional.
It is really ridiculous – pathetic really – that one man can consider himself a premier expert and academic without any significant education or real life experience.
What is the world coming to?
For his research achievements he has won the International Association for Computer Methods and Advances in Geomechanics “1994 Significant Paper Award” for one of five most significant papers in the category of Computational/Analytical Applications in the past 20 years, and he has twice won the National Research Council/U.S. National Committee for Rock Mechanics Award for Research in Rock Mechanics (1978, 1991).
You might want to look up Geo Mechanics and Rock Mechanics. Geomechanics (from the Greek prefix geo- meaning “earth”; and “mechanics”) involves the geologic study of the behavior of soil and rock. The two main disciplines of geomechanics are soil mechanics and rock mechanics. The former deals with the behaviour of soil from a small scale to a landslide scale. The latter deals with issues in geosciences related to rock mass characterization and rock mass mechanics, such as applied to petroleum industry or high depths, tunnel design, rock breakage, and rock drilling.
Kinda like the titles the anti’s give themselves
made up but meaning nothing
I can affirm that Ingraffea is a ‘smooth talker’ from having watched him carefully in two recent presentations. My opinion is that he can “smile at you while lying through his teeth” as they say.
With that skill so well-developed, he makes a FAR-better ‘Used-Car Saleman’ or ‘Snake-Oil Huckster’ than ‘Scientist’.
Engineers as a whole have a high ‘believability rating’ from society (polling indicates). Unfortunately, Ingraffea is using that aura to his benefit wrongly, and doing the Professional Engineers of the world harm by besmirching that reputation for truthfulness.
Doesn’t the NY PE Registration Board have any teeth to examine and censure him for unprofessional conduct?
Two years ago in Corning NY Ingraffea told me he was paid 5,500 dollars a lecture and it supplemented his retirement income, but yet theses anti activist deflect that fact onto non paid pro – gas activist calling them industry paid shills. One well known liar errrr I mean activist stated I am paid 100,000 a year trying to discredit my testimony at a town hearing.
seems to me the only ones making money on NY-Gas is activist against it but that will soon change with the anouncement comming soon.
Here in New Brunswick Canada we have a fiction writer (amphibian: a novel) and a part-time lecturer in Psychology who is the “official” “researcher” for the Antis. I’ve asked her several times exactly WHAT her qualifications are. At least she’s more current than Ingraffea …….
It’s strange that Cornell would keep him. He’s a disgrace to the engineering profession. I think he may be trying to get a date with yoyo.
Hitler’s politics are back in full force today, the difference is that today his gestapo are not attacking race or religion, their attacking the American way of life liberties and the persuit of happiness. they are no longer called gestapo ether, there called environmentalist, and instead of flooding wall street with counterfeit money, their flooding the minds of our youth with doubt in our abilities to use science through indoctrination, and belittling that which made America great, self confidence in our engineers and scientist. They are teaching failure as the norm ingenuity as the mammoth extinct. They call themselves “Stiengrabers Troopers” and they self proclaim themselves as the Hero’s that will save the world….
I was at the Dundee face-off of Ingraffea vs Engelder and agree that Ingraffea’s comments on air pollution were off the wall. He also was predicting an ocean rise of 4 meters by 2030 which is beyond the beyond. Neither person even talked about longer wave warming trends being related to slight changes in the sun’s energy levels although this is well documented in various books (see Unstoppable Global Warming by Singer and Avery). I was disappointed that engelder did not anticipate Ingraffea’s presentation more so he could have taken him on better on these points.