- The Writer holds an MSc in Eurasian Political Economy & Energy from King’s College London and also an MA in European Studies from Sabancı University.
The international impact of shale gas has considerably changed the face of energy markets in the U.S. by reducing overall energy costs, increasing employment and competitiveness in various energy-intensive industries, as well as contributing to energy security. The widespread availability of shale resources across the globe has piqued the interest of developers of shale gas because of its economic potential. It is estimated that the current volume of shale gas is approximately equal to 50 percent of the world’s conventional gas resources or equivalent to global technically recoverable gas resources of 198.2 billion cubic meters (bcm), according to data provided by the U.S. Energy Information Administration.
Many governments and private investors are attracted to the possibility of providing secure energy and high economic returns through shale investment. However, the implications of shale gas extraction on climate change have not yet been proven to be a completely safe option and serious questions have been raised on shale extraction’s environmental impact.
Since the U.S. shale boom has seen great success, given that domestic production has increased from 1 percent to 23 percent over the decade between 2000 and 2010, the world’s most prestigious institutions have been working meticulously on grasping the complexity that the shale boom might have on global energy supplies.
While many small to medium-sized U.S. energy companies were busy using the most advanced horizontal drilling - hydraulic fracturing technologies for fracking shale rocks, many other countries around the world have shown interest in exploring shale options in their respective countries, such as Poland, China and Argentina. Data provided by the British Geological Survey shows that almost 35 percent of the world’s surface rocks consists of shale rocks, showing the great potential in this field that might change the face of the energy industry in the years to come once technically recoverable shale gas resources are fully explored and documented.
On the positive side, shale gas could be beneficial with a major contribution to competitiveness, affordable energy supplies and energy security. However, concerns regarding methane leakage during the exploration and production phases and likely spills associated with surface operations have raised environmental and climate concerns. To a greater extent, effective management and strict safety regulations in the exploration and production phases are a prerequisite to reducing the risk of methane leakage into the atmosphere.
Modern gas-fired power plants emit approximately half the CO2 per unit of power generated in comparison with coal-fired power plants. Nevertheless, in the case of shale gas production, unless the necessary precautions are taken, the potential of methane leakage has become so high that the benefits of switching from coal to gas power plants have become insignificant.
If methane leakage is not strictly controlled, this gas has a greater negative impact on global warming than CO2 emissions. However, in the case of the U.S., particularly following the shale boom, emissions release hit a historical low since 2012, due to the policy of reducing coal consumption and substituting with natural gas-fired power plants. Despite energy efficiency measures and the increased share of renewables in the energy mix in the U.S., which have played a role in the reduction of carbon emissions, a significant reduction in CO2 can be attributed to the switch away from coal-fired power plants to gas-fired power plants.
While substantial discoveries of shale gas could mean that the volume of fossil fuels for power generation could increase in the years to come, it could also be interpreted that the greater volumes of shale would reduce overall gas prices to such levels that coal consumption could be displaced especially in power generation in countries where shale gas is promising.
Research was undertaken by Schneising et al. in an effort to better understand methane concentration in the atmosphere in various parts of the world, particularly the northern hemisphere between 2003 to 2012. The results show that particularly after 2008, a dramatic increase was seen in levels of atmospheric methane, which were predominantly observed in regions where shale production was undertaken in the U.S. A visible increase occurred on the large-scale Eagle Ford Shale basin in Texas, and the Bakken and Marcellus shale basin in North Dakota.
While at the Bakken formation, shale oil was mainly produced, whereas in the Eagle Ford and Marcellus, predominantly shale gas was extracted. The high levels of methane concentration in these different shale-producing regions, either in the form of oil or gas, can be attributed to shale production. Although Schneising’s study was only concentrated on the upstream emissions, it should be noted that methane leakage could also occur during the downstream operations such as in the delivery to customers or in storage operations.
In many parts of the world, coal remains the major source of power generation, but with the U.S. shale boom and its game-changing role in the U.S. energy mix, shale with its vast resources and advanced technological breakdown in the field have proven that it highly likely to replace coal in the medium to long term. However, shale development could also risk the overall share of renewables and nuclear energy given its relatively cheaper production and operational costs.
Despite its high production potential, the development of shale gas in other parts of the globe other than the U.S. remains uncertain. If is successfully developed in an environmentally acceptable manner, at least in the short term to medium term, shale gas could address energy demand and the acute problems of dealing with the climate mitigation targets of many governments.
- Opinions expressed in this piece are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Anadolu Agency's editorial policy.