This post was updated on February 10th. A new study from the U.S. Department of Energy adds to the large and growing body of research on the problem of methane emissions from the oil and gas industry. Methane is both the main component of natural gas and a powerful climate pollutant – which is why […]

In 2012, EDF spearheaded its largest scientific pursuit to date—a collaborative 16-study effort designed to better understand how much methane is being leaked across the natural gas supply chain (and from where). In the coming months, we plan to wrap up and summarize that work, packaging all that we have learned from this undertaking and […]

Look up in New Mexico and on most days you’ll see the unmistakable blue skies that make the Southwest so unique. But there’s also something hovering over the Four Corners that a naked eye can’t detect:  A 2,500-square mile cloud of methane, the highest concentration of the heat-trapping pollution anywhere in the United States. The […]

A new study accepted for publication in Environmental Science & Technology takes a close look at the amount of certain air pollutants in the Barnett Shale, a booming oil and gas region in North Texas. Using public monitoring data from 2010-2011, researchers from the University of Texas at Austin compared air pollution levels measured at […]

Natural gas is reshaping our energy landscape. Though the potential energy security and economic benefits are compelling, the challenge is that natural gas comes with its own set of risks to public health and the environment, including exposure to toxic chemicals and waste products, faulty well construction and design, local and regional air quality issues and land […]

Update: Please note that the EPA is now due to finalize the national emission standards for oil and gas activities by Tuesday, April 17. On April 3, 2012 the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is due to finalize national emission standards to limit some of the harmful air pollutants discharged from a variety of oil and gas […]

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is in the process of updating national safeguards to better protect Americans from the health impacts of natural gas and oil emissions. The standards address the emissions discharged during gas and oil drilling and development practices, known in the industry as ‘upstream’ activities.   Residents around the growing number of […]

In the frontier days of drilling in the 1900s, discoveries such as Spindletop in Texas and the Drake in Pennsylvania heralded a new era of energy for America. Back then, the gaseous by-product produced at the wellhead was considered a nuisance and flared (burned) or released into the air. Today, it’s considered a valuable energy source and […]

I blogged last week about the implications of the findings of a paper by Professor Robert Howarth and colleagues at Cornell University.  The paper compares the carbon footprints of natural gas and coal and concludes that – because of methane leakage – natural gas contributes to global warming as much as coal, or even more, […]

You may have seen the many articles that came out this week on a new peer-reviewed paper in the Journal of Climatic Change by Professor Bob Howarth and others at Cornell.  The paper compares the carbon footprints of natural gas and coal and concludes that natural gas contributes to global warming as much as coal, […]

By Ramon Alvarez, Ph.D.

Last week, the Fort Worth City Council received an interim report on its Natural Gas Air Quality Study initiated last August.  Unfortunately, this interim report was short on details about the most unique aspect of the project – the direct measurement of emissions at the point of release.

The interim report only presented high-level summaries of results of sampling at 66 sites out of 170 sites where emissions were detected in Phase I (no emissions were detected at another 31 sites).  Stated differently, the interim report provided no information about nearly two-thirds of the sites with detectable emissions.

Notably, the report identified two well sites where the measured emissions, if extrapolated to an entire year, would exceed the state’s limit under the “permit by rule” used by most gas producers.  These findings not only warrant rigorous investigation by regulatory agencies, but also detailed analysis of the effects on the health of surrounding neighbors. 

It was therefore disappointing to hear the City staffer that is managing the study dismiss these elevated emissions as “a permitting issue…not necessarily a health issue.”  While the final analysis may conclude that these emissions don’t pose a health threat to neighbors, there is no basis to downplay the significance before performing the necessary analyses.      

The other part of the first study phase consisted of ambient air monitoring.  The report’s executive summary emphasized that no pollutant concentrations exceeded short-term health benchmarks.  No mention was made of long-term health benchmarks.  Presentations on earlier monitoring campaigns by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality values considered the long-term Effects Screening Levels (ESL), so it was surprising that a similar approach was not used here. 

Using the long-term benchmark, two 24-hour samples at Site 4 (located north of downtown) contained benzene levels exceeding TCEQ’s long-term benchmark of 1.4 ppb (and a third was just barely under that value).  

While a final report on the entire project was originally due on March 25, the project timetable had to be extended late last year when the initial funding ran out before less than half of the targeted well sites had been sampled.  The bad news was that finishing the work would cost the city an additional $400,000 and the final report would be delayed until June 30.  The good news was that last week’s interim report with the results of the first phase of work would be provided.  Sadly, the interim report failed to deliver the details and raw data necessary for the Phase I results to be properly interpreted and analyzed.  As the Star-Telegram put it last week:  “Fort Worth must wait and wait.”

By Ramon Alvarez, Ph.D.

Last week we lamented about the TCEQ’s capitulation to industry pressure on proposed rules dealing with emissions from oil and gas facilities. 

State Representative Lon Burnam provided us with a sampling of documents showing the influence exerted by industry during the tail end of the process.  These are just a smattering of the roughly five reams of paper his office received in response to a public information request.

In hopes that it might serve as a resource to others, we are also posting several other documents pertaining to the rulemaking:

• EDF’s comments on the proposed rule
• Report from EDF’s air quality modeling consultant and spreadsheet of results
• Letter from EDF to TCEQ about the exclusion of well emissions
• EPA’s comments on the proposed rule

By Ramon Alvarez, Ph.D.

It was disappointing, but unfortunately not surprising, that Chesapeake Energy and three natural gas industry trade associations filed legal challenges to EPA’s new rule that requires assessment and public disclosure of the industry’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. 

I find it ironic that the industry that touts itself as the “low-carbon” fossil fuel is fighting efforts to require disclosure of its global warming pollution.

Learn more about this in our news release sent out earlier today.

By Ramon Alvarez, Ph.D.

After a 10-month process, the TCEQ finally ended the suspense regarding what emissions safeguards the oil and gas industry will have to follow in order to protect the citizens of Texas.   On Wednesday, the TCEQ adopted a much, much weaker rule than the one it proposed in July (see details at the bottom of this post).  The rule was dramatically scaled back to apply only to those living near the Barnett Shale near Dallas-Fort Worth and, miraculously, the process will begin anew to decide what protections will apply elsewhere. 

If you are reading this, you are probably wondering what I think about the outcome.   I’ll answer by telling you what I am going to tell my boss, who will surely ask how my efforts – scores of hours attending meetings, writing comments, coordinating and consulting with experts on this topic (as well as having to watch industry unrelentingly bully TCEQ staff) – translated into results.   

It is a fair question given that I truly threw myself into this one.  I convinced myself (and my boss) that – this time – it was going to be different.  With all of the attention focused on the emissions from natural gas operations, including reports showing how the emissions from the oil and gas industry were much higher than everyone assumed, I thought this time we actually had a chance to help TCEQ do the right thing.   

The most favorable answer I can give is that “it could have been worse.”  Maybe, just maybe, had we not made the effort, the final rule might have been even worse.  What issues went in favor of public health?  The TCEQ did expand the proposed definition of “receptors” that must be protected to include hospitals, day cares, and certain businesses (although this definition is still less protective than many other agency rules).  Oh, and in response to our expert modeler’s numerous examples showing that the agency’s modeling did not represent “worst-case” conditions as claimed, the TCEQ changed their description to “reasonable worst case” (while making numerous other changes that allowed far greater emissions of harmful pollutants than originally proposed).  Sadly, that’s all I can say went in a positive direction. 

The TCEQ’s initial proposal in July would have established a basic framework that provided greater assurances of protectiveness to the public.  But industry firepower overwhelmed the TCEQ staff, which had little, if any, apparent support from their Commissioners.  The final rule was gutted with so many exceptions and loopholes (see below) that it almost makes me wonder if there is sufficient environmental benefit left to justify the regulatory burden.  Especially troubling was the number of sweeping changes made to the rule during a 6-week continuance, out of the public eye, during which time staff was asked to attempt to resolve industry concerns.  

In the end, I have no choice but to admit that my time would have been better spent on something else.  This story is yet one more example of why the legislature’s required sunset review of the TCEQ is so timely.  It is time for the TCEQ to put the protection of public health and the environment first.

On this last point, State Representative Rafael Anchia (D-Dallas) who serves on the state’s Sunset Advisory Commission, ably captured the situation in an interview on KUT’s feature “Letters to the Lege” this morning:

“In hearings we’ve held, we’ve heard complaints from all over the state … and there’s definitely an issue at the TCEQ when it comes to the response to citizen complaints. There’s no doubt about it. The EPA is seriously put out with the TCEQ and there’s a real standoff going on right now between the Perry administration and the federal government on how the TCEQ regulates pollutants in Texas. And in my opinion, we need to shake the agency up and make it more responsive to the public.”

At EDF, we completely agree.     

Key Examples Of How The July 2010 Oil & Gas Permit by Rule Proposal Was Weakened:

• Applies only to Barnett Shale. A new rule will have to be developed by January 2012 to apply to the rest of Texas
• Allowable hourly emissions of benzene increased by up to a factor of 20X
• Eliminated formaldehyde emissions limits and protectiveness review
• Increased VOC and other pollution limits, and removed limits for others
• Created an exception for “small operations,” specifically projects with a maximum engine horsepower (450 hp or less depending on fuel), or five defined combinations of emissions sources and components.  These only have to maintain equipment in good working order and maintain a minimum 50-foot setback with no notification to TCEQ required
• Protectiveness review only required for new or modified sites within ¼- or 1/2- mile from a receptor (depending on size of facility), and excludes consideration of existing emissions at modified sites if the off-site concentrations are less than 10%-25% of an Effects Screening Level
• Removed prohibition against increasing emissions of applicable pollutants in an Air Pollutant Watch List Area (where pollution levels already exceed the TCEQ’s own acceptable risk levels)
• Replaced Executive Director’s right to deny a permit for good cause with limited additional pre-conditions for a permit