By Ben Ratner

Since the president announced in January a national goal of reducing methane emissions from the oil and gas industry nearly in half by 2025, an outpouring of voices has supported the move. Now, EPA has proposed rules to help meet that target, and we’ve seen another wave of support – everyone from editorial boards in the heart of oil and gas country to massive investors like California’s pension funds has recognized that the rules are a manageable, commonsense means for reducing methane pollution.

The one voice that’s been silent? The companies with the opportunity to adopt the proven, cost-effective technologies and services to not only reduce pollution but also prevent the waste of the very energy resource they’re producing. Now another voice has emerged to make the case directly to these companies that it’s worth constructively engaging in the rulemaking process: the Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility (ICCR), a group of shareholders dedicated to promoting environmentally and socially responsible corporate practices.

Several shareholders from ICCR’s coalition sent letters today to dozens of energy companies in which they invest, voicing their concern about the impact of methane emissions on the climate and public health. As You Sow, BCAM, Mercy Investments, Miller Howard, the Sisters of St. Francis of Philadelphia, Trillium Asset Management, and others made their case to companies whose shares they own, including some of the biggest names in the business, like Chesapeake Energy, ConocoPhillips, Exxon, Kinder Morgan, and Valero.

Specifically, the investors asked the companies to file public comments on EPA’s proposed methane rules, sharing the companies’ data and experience with methane monitoring and management and providing perspective on how the methane rules can be designed to reduce emissions cost effectively. They also urged the companies to guide their powerful trade associations –which have been some of the most vocal opponents of the rules – to engage honestly and transparently in the rulemaking process.

Methane is a serious threat to our communities not just because of its powerful climate impact but also because it’s released along with harmful pollutants that threaten public health. ICCR sees unlimited methane pollution as “just the kind of unsustainable action that must be curbed in an effort to build a more just and healthy world,” and aims to reduce methane as part of its commitment to care for the earth for the sake of humanity.

But ICCR didn’t just urge companies to engage in the rulemaking out of a moral obligation – as investors, they also know it’s a smart business decision. As ICCR investors pointed out in their letters, the International Energy Association lists reducing methane as one of the top four policies that “could stop the growth in global energy-related emissions by the end of this decade at no net economic cost.”

We’ve seen real-world examples that the solutions for reducing methane can be employed to successfully reduce emissions, alongside business and job growth. In the year after the state of Colorado enacted rules directly regulating methane – the kind of strong rules we’d like to see from EPA – Weld County, the heart of the state’s drilling boom, had the country's highest job growth at about 16 percent. And after implementing technology to reduce methane emissions from its Wyoming operations, leading energy company Jonah Energy was able to significantly cut emissions over a five year period, saving $5 million in the process through captured gas and operational efficiencies, according to FLIR Systems, the manufacturer of the technology.

ICCR knows that good environmental policy can make good business sense, and private/public sector collaboration is a key to getting there.

We hope the companies ICCR investors reached out to today heed the call to constructively engage with EPA on the proposed methane rules and “show good faith and establish basic protective safeguards that will benefit the country and the industry itself.”

Image Source: Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility

By Felice Stadler

Last month, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed the first-ever nationwide standards to reduce methane pollution from the oil and gas industry. It’s a common sense move: With its potent global warming power and low-cost solutions, cutting methane is the biggest bargain for greenhouse gas reductions in the energy business.

The array of supporters speaking out in favor of the proposal underscores just how smart, practical and doable EPA’s move is. Applause has come from voices as diverse as citizens impacted by oil and gas development and investors to government leaders in the heart of oil and gas country.

Here’s just a sample of the voices we’ve heard over the past two weeks:

Communities in the Crosshairs

Methane is a potent climate forcer, but it also carries with it serious health impacts because it’s emitted alongside toxic and smog-forming pollutants.

Low income and communities of color often are closest to industrial sources of air pollution, putting them at disproportionate risk. As Adrianna Quintero, executive director of Voces Verdes, writes, “Reduction of emissions from new oil and gas operations is an important and crucial next step that will benefit all families impacted by climate change as well as the health of those in communities with heavy oil and gas development… Latinos have long shown strong support for government action on air pollution…”

The American Lung Association applauded “EPA for proposing strong limits on volatile organic compounds and industrial methane from new oil and gas sources as an important step toward protecting the public’s health… Emissions of industrial methane and toxic gases pose a recognized occupational hazard for workers and a risk for nearby communities.”

Many communities experience the problem daily, and welcomed EPA’s action. Theodora Bird Bear, resident of Fort Berthold Indian Reservation in North Dakota, and Chair of the Western Organization of Resource Councils Oil and Gas Campaign Team recollected that “…recently, while driving home across western North Dakota, the need for strong rules became very clear as I counted 80 active gas flares in a 40-mile stretch of my drive. This rule is not only a major step towards helping to improve the health of my neighbors on the Fort Berthold Reservation, but this rule is also a major step towards helping improve the air quality for all Americans living near oil and gas wells.”

Oil and gas country

Oil and gas producing states like Colorado have already seen the value of curbing pollution from the oil and gas industry, enacting their own rules and leading by example. When EPA issued their proposed national methane pollution standard Colorado Senator Michael Bennet said that he was "pleased that today's proposal …is focused on the same proven and cost effective strategies that Colorado adopted in its groundbreaking rules in 2014. We're glad that the EPA is following Colorado's lead and starting this process at the national level."

And in Texas, where the oil and gas industry is key to the economy, top papers across the state editorialized in favor of the rules, pointing out their cost-effectiveness and dismissing industry claims about excessive cost. The Houston Chronicle wrote that “smart environmental policy in a few key companies can't solve an industry-wide challenge, and a patchwork of state regulations can't fix a national problem…. The … regulations should add a little more than a penny to the cost of natural gas – about one-third of one percent of today's prices. That's an easy price to pay for cleaner air.”

Business and labor

Independent analysts from Barclay’s, a bank with over a trillion dollars in assets, concluded that “these new standards are manageable from a cost perspective and unlikely to materially affect natural gas production levels in the U.S.”

They say this because companies, such as those in the fluid sealing industry are already offering “technology [that] can be part of the solution.” According to the Fluid Sealing Association, “the rules recognize that there are proven, cost-effective solutions that are ready to be deployed.”

The proposed rules also can boost job creation. As D. Michael Langford, president of the Utility Workers Union of America said, “the simple act of keeping natural gas in the system provides a significant opportunity to put American workers squarely at the forefront of developing, manufacturing, and implementing technologies needed to accomplish this, creating high-quality jobs and stimulating local economies.”

Industries outside of the oil and gas sector also support the standards simply because they engage in “responsible practices, [and] expect the oil and gas industry to do the same,” as Christine Hughes, small business owner and member of the Ohio Sustainable Business Council said.

The diversity of voices that spoke out in support of EPA’s action reinforces that the rules being proposed are doable and cost-effective, and provide much needed clean air and climate benefits to all communities. Join those who have already spoken out and tell EPA you support strong standards to reduce oil and gas methane pollution today.

By Lucía Oliva Hennelly

Politicians and political observers are increasing the amount of time spent trying to figure out how to engage with Latino voters – a large and growing part of the American electorate. Issues such as immigration reform usually dominate the discussion nationally, but a new poll from the national polling firm Latino Decisions shows that clean water and healthy air are also of utmost importance for Latinos.

According to their poll 85% of those surveyed found reducing smog and air pollution to be extremely or very important, compared to 80 percent for comprehensive immigration reform.

This comes as no surprise to those of us that are rooted in this community where issues of the health of our communities and families are often top-of-mind around the dinner table.  In reality, it also comes as no surprise to decision makers who have listened to our communities, and know Latinos have rich ties to the outdoors, but are too often the first and worst impacted by pollution.

As Gary Segura, co-founder of Latino Decisions, recently told NPR:

"A lot of Latino households in the United States are in locations that are adversely affected by particulate pollution, by poor water quality. So quality of life, direct exposure to environmental hazards is quite common among the Latino population; we shouldn't be surprised they're concerned about it."

Luckily, several efforts are now in the works and will have significant positive impacts for Latino communities and the air they breathe. Efforts like the recently announced EPA methane rule, the Clean Power Plan, and the coming revision to ozone standards will all have positive impacts on air quality nationwide.  These rules are especially important for Latinos, as nearly half the Latinos living in the United States lives in an area with unhealthy air quality.

My home state of New Mexico serves as one example. The state  is simultaneously home to a significant Hispanic population, experiencing expanding oil and gas development, and unfortunately in areas like the San Juan Basin, also experiencing unhealthy levels of ozone pollution.  This same overlap between polluted air and Latino and Hispanic communities can be found again and again in many places including California and Colorado, as well as the Eagle Ford region in Texas.  These areas stand to see significant reductions in oil and gas related air pollution under the new EPA methane rules and anticipated ozone standards.

These common sense, health based standards make sense for Latinos and for all Americans.  Please take a moment to thank EPA for these life-saving efforts to clean up our air.

Photo Source: Earth Justice

By Mark Brownstein

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency took a big step this week, announcing the nation’s first methane pollution standards for the oil and gas industry. But to understand the impact of these new draft rules, it’s important to look at what they do – and what they don’t – and measure them against the nation’s bold but readily achievable goals set out by the Obama administration earlier this year.

The president’s target of reducing methane emissions by 40 to 45 percent in the next decade is historic – currently there are no national limits on methane pollution from the oil and gas industry. It’s also critical to protecting the climate and public health – methane packs more than 80 times the warming power of carbon dioxide over a 20-year timeframe, and is released along with other toxic pollutants.

The scale of the problem is massive, with industry releasing more than 7 million tons of methane each year. It could also be even bigger than we realize. A new study published just this week reported unrecorded methane emissions from thousands of facilities in only one part of the supply chain. It concluded gathering facility emissions were eight times higher than estimated, a staggering figure that if included in EPA’s inventory would increase current estimates of total industry emissions by 20 percent.

So, how does the new proposal measure up? Here is our first take on some of the key elements:

A down payment on the nation’s goal

EDF has always believed that a direct approach is the best approach. So it’s great to see that EPA addressed methane head-on. But targeting existing sources of methane pollution will be critical to achieving the nation’s reduction goal, and EPA’s proposed rules deal largely with methane from new and modified sources, leaving 6.7 million metric tons on the table from infrastructure supporting the 1 million wells already in operation. Taken together, EPA projects these actions will reduce methane by 560 to 620 thousand short tons which, for context, represents about 7 to 8 percent of the total emissions from the oil and gas supply chain in the 2012 Inventory.

While the EPA rules are just one of several actions that will help the nation cut methane pollution by 45 percent, they are one of the most important.

Additional actions will be needed to meet this goal, including decisive action to tackle the biggest part of the problem—emissions from wells, pipelines, and facilities in operation now. Indeed, over the next few years, 90 percent of emissions will come from existing, not new sources.

The proposed standards include a pathway for addressing existing sources in non-attainment areas, through control technique guidelines (CTGs) to get at volatile organic compounds, an ozone precursor. For many of the existing sources covered by CTGs, EPA leverages the same technologies and practices that the agency proposed to apply to new sources in the rest of its rules – demonstrating that we have the technologies to cost-effectively deal with new and existing emission sources. Indeed, states like Colorado and Wyoming have effectively applied standards to reduce oil and gas emissions from existing and new operations based on these technologies, and EPA should follow.

Frequent Leak Monitoring is a Priority

We know that leaks are a big source of oil and gas methane emissions and that regular inspection and maintenance can go a long way toward reducing the emissions. It’s a good thing that EPA’s proposal included leak detection and repair, and that these requirements apply to both well sites and compressor stations across the natural gas supply chain. They also require operators to look for leaks at components and pieces of equipment (like storage tanks) that can be very significant sources of emissions.

Frequent monitoring for leaks is critical to mitigating methane emissions, as leaks can emerge anywhere at any time and can be difficult to predict. EPA’s proposal included provisions for semi-annual and annual monitoring, and in certain cases, also proposed to allow facilities to reduce the frequency of their monitoring requirements.  States like Colorado and Wyoming have recognized that more frequent monitoring is necessary and highly-cost effective to stay on top of emissions. EPA has requested comment on this and it will be important for the final standards to reflect these states’ leading practices.

Liquids unloading sidelined, for now

Last fall, EPA issued a set of five technical white papers, analyzing the biggest sources of methane and cost-effective technologies capable of reducing those emissions. EPA’s new standards address new and modified sources in four of these five categories—equipment leaks, pneumatic devices, compressors, and oil well completions. It took some good steps here, including extending green completions to oil wells, as leading states Colorado and Wyoming have already done. And, these requirements apply across segments—including production, gathering and boosting, processing, and transmission and storage.

EPA took comment on, but did not propose to address, the fifth source—liquids unloading, a common maintenance practice operators use to purge liquids that accumulate during production.  We know from scientific research that this is a big source of emissions, and states like Colorado have already taken action to address these and standards for liquids unloading will be an important feature of a rigorous final rule.

Let’s Get Going

The lion’s share to the reductions needed can be achieved simply by transforming the best practices already demonstrated by companies in the industry into the standard practices used throughout the industry.

Those who have first-hand experience successfully putting these practices to use didn’t shy away from sharing their thoughts on the rule. Some of the more responsible companies in the field, who have already seen the benefits of methane reduction efforts, showed support for EPA’s action, despite the typical outcry against regulation by many of the usual industry players.

And from Colorado, which in 2014 became the first state to directly regulate methane emissions, Governor John Hickenlooper also put his support behind the rule, saying that “protecting public health and the environment, and promoting our energy industry are not mutually exclusive endeavors.”

It’s time to translate this success and support into action – working over the coming months to strengthen EPA’s rules so we can put them into practice and start achieving the reductions we need to protect our health, environment and economy.

By EDF Blogs

By  Ben Ratner and Sean Wright

As the dog days of summer expire and football season approaches, many sports fans will anxiously scan their favorite team’s rosters for training camp injuries–finding everything from the innocuous, to the dreaded torn Achilles that already sidelined several pro players for the season’s start.

When it comes to the energy industry, methane emissions loom as the Achilles heel of natural gas. On the surface, natural gas appears to many as a star American player – abundant and cleaner burning than coal.

But unchecked methane emissions, which are 84 times more potent than CO2, undercut natural gas’ climate change performance.

This risk has grown particularly acute because the recently finalized Clean Power Plan, which targets carbon dioxide emissions from coal-fired power plants, casts natural gas as part of a viable near-term strategy to win the climate game.

The spotlight on natural gas’ performance is only growing as more viewers tune in.

The difference is, while there is no sure-fire way to prevent an Achilles tear on the athletic field, we have the means at our fingertips to dramatically reduce methane emissions and help natural gas become a stronger player that puts more points on the board for the economy and climate.

New EPA methane rules announced Tuesday can be an important step if finalized in strong form, yielding four business benefits:

1. Address investor concerns

Last month, investors with $1.5 trillion in assets under management pointed out that methane emissions from oil and gas are “threatening infrastructure and economic harm that will weaken not only the companies we invest in, but the nation as a whole.”

But there are solutions, and it’s time to up our investment.

As a representative from institutional investor giant CalPERS put it: “Regulation to ensure that companies manage, monitor and ultimately limit these potent [methane] emissions is vitally important.”

That’s because, although some proactive companies like Noble, Southwestern and a number of others are – to their significant credit – taking action to reduce emissions in the absence of national standards, volunteerism alone is not a credible approach to guaranteeing environmental protections across a sprawling industry with thousands of companies.

1. Reduce needless waste

We have the technologies today to reduce emissions, not only benefitting climate and local air quality, but also boosting industry’s efficiency by producing one of its main products.

Statoil is one of the leaders in this area, and explains in this video that from a core business perspective, its use in Texas of military derived, infrared FLIR technology keeps more product in the pipes and increases sales.

Just as fuel economy standards for cars catalyzed a surge in efficiency in Detroit, a level playing field of methane regulations will boost efficiency and cut waste in the oil and gas industry.

1. Create American jobs

Many of the technologies that forward-leaning companies are adopting to cut emissions are manufactured by domestic firms. In fact, nearly 60 percent of the companies in our burgeoning methane mitigation industry are small businesses, the growth engine of the American economy. The median wage of over $30/hour is more than 50 percent greater than the nation’s average.

This industry unto itself stands at the ready with cost-effective solutions. And it stands to grow.

As Colorado-based leak detection business Apogee Scientific said of its experience with state-based methane regulations: “We have seen first-hand that standards created in a collaborative, multi-stakeholder process can reduce methane emissions in a cost-effective manner that will reduce waste, benefit the environment and create American jobs.”

1. Build a pathway for natural gas trucks

Some companies see natural gas trucks as a growth opportunity, while others have already invested and want to manage reputational risk. For both camps, methane regulations are a boon.

That’s because based on today’s methane emission rates, switching from diesel to natural gas  trucks can cause 50 to 90 years of climate change damage, raising serious questions about the wisdom of the choice. Upstream regulation of methane – in the vast supply chain the gas passes through before it reaches the trucks – is a key pathway to tilting natural gas trucks investments from risk to return.

Let’s start fixing natural gas’ Achilles heel this season. Getting strong methane rules over the goal line is a big piece of the game plan.

 

By Mark Brownstein

A new study published today reveals that facilities that collect and gather natural gas from well sites across the United States emit about one hundred billion cubic feet of natural gas a year, roughly eight times the previous estimates by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for the segment. The wasted gas identified in the study is worth about $300 million, and packs the same 20-year climate impact as 37 coal-fired power plants.

Until now, emissions from thousands of gathering facilities – which consolidate gas from multiple wells in an area and feed it into processing plants or pipelines – have been largely uncounted in federal statistics, yet they may be the largest methane source in the oil and gas supply chain. Indeed, the newly identified emissions from gathering facilities would increase total emissions from the natural gas supply chain in EPA’s current Greenhouse Gas Inventory by approximately 25 percent if added to the tally.

The study was conducted by scientists at Colorado State University and published today in Environmental Science & Technology.

EPA doesn’t track emissions from gathering facilities separately from production activities, and there have been no estimates and almost no research on them until now. One reason prior emissions estimates are so uncertain is because the number of facilities was completely unknown. Without conducting a full census, the CSU researchers were able to put the figure at between 3,846 and 5,470 facilities – a wide range, but far better than the guesswork than existed previously.

A different study in the Barnett Shale recently found over 250 gathering facilities, many more than anyone realized, and confirmed they were the industry’s biggest methane source in the region.

Compare & Contrast

The new CSU study also looked at natural gas processing facilities. Unlike gathering, the processing phase is well accounted for, in part because of stronger reporting requirements and regulatory oversight. Thanks to rigorous leak detection and repair programs, these processing emissions are much better controlled.

In fact, according to the study, processing emissions are lower than the EPA inventory (although they are also three times higher than reported under the EPA Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program, because of differing reporting requirements), enough to lower the inventory by about 5 percent.

That’s good news, but it’s nowhere near enough to offset the huge emissions uncovered on the gathering side. The combined result of the study still shows a net increase of 18.1%, a huge jump if it were accurately reflected in EPA figures for all natural gas systems. What’s more, the combined emissions from gathering and processing emissions are a whopping 87% higher than EPA inventory estimates for those sectors (which are currently tallied together as one).

Fixing the Problem

As EPA and the federal Bureau of Land Management prepare to introduce rules to reduce methane emissions from the oil and gas industry, these contrasting results underscore just how important effective policy can be.

EPA is already beginning to take some steps to address the issues uncovered by this research — there is currently a pending rule at the agency that would require gathering systems to report methane emissions to the EPA’s Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (which is separate from their estimated inventories), and this new study can help inform those changes.

But even more importantly, it is critical for EPA to propose methane emissions rules this summer that provide rigorous and comprehensive oversight of the oil and gas supply chain. As this new research shows, when operations go unmeasured, overlooked and poorly regulated, it can lead to massive leaks and little understanding of how to fix them.

Growing Body of Research

The study is the last of four EDF-led studies focused on the individual segments of the natural gas supply chain (production, gathering and processing, transmission and storage, and local distribution). A forthcoming synthesis paper will put these pieces together with 11 other studies to present a more complete picture of the methane emissions across the different sectors in the natural gas supply chain.

By Mark Brownstein

The U.S. oil and gas industry released more than 7.3 million metric tons of methane into the atmosphere in 2013, a three percent increase over 2012 – that’s an amount of gas worth nearly $2 billion, and enough to supply about 6 million American homes. The sector is the largest source of industrial methane pollution in the country. And not even the industry disputes that methane is a potent greenhouse gas.

So what are we going to do about it?

Earlier this year, the Administration took the first and most important step so far, setting a national goal to reduce oil and gas methane emissions by 40 to 45 percent over the next ten years (to achieve this, rules will need to cover both new and existing emitters, but that’s another story). The first round of proposed regulations is due later this summer.

In the meantime, yesterday EPA released the draft framework for its updated voluntary Natural Gas STAR Methane Challenge Program. Well-designed voluntary initiatives like this one have always been a potential complement to concrete rules, helping to define and showcase best practices. We commend the agency on this new effort.

But did EPA hit the mark – will this program achieve real, measurable, verifiable benefits for the environment? Does it fairly recognize and reward those companies that step up to innovate and lead? Let’s take a closer look at the proposal against a list of critical elements necessary for an effective voluntary program. (Short answer: It’s a good start, with some clear opportunities for improvement.)

1. EPA’s monitoring and repair requirements must be rigorous

We have said it’s critical to include frequent monitoring and repair of methane leaks as a bedrock piece of any program in order to achieve reductions. The record on this is clear. Research has found, for example, that monthly leak inspections reduce methane emissions by 80 percent, while annual inspections cut them by less than half.

In its new proposal, EPA lists monitoring and repair programs as a best management practice (BMP) being considered as an optional commitment for companies, but hasn’t provided specifics on frequency, methodology, or scope of coverage (although they say there will be more specific guidance in the final proposal). We are glad to see monitoring and repair included as a BMP, and urge EPA to provide rigorous specifics around the how, when, and where of that practice to ensure it is maximally effective in reducing leaks.

1. EPA should continue to provide guidance for setting goals early and meeting them promptly

We recommended that EPA’s program should require companies to set concrete, near-term goals, taking advantage of one of the biggest opportunities of voluntary programs:  that they provide an opportunity to move quickly. Specifically, we suggested requiring two- to three-year initial objectives, with five-year targets being the absolute latest.

EPA’s proposed framework reflects the importance of swift action, stating in its proposal that “timing for full completion of commitments should not exceed five (5) years from the commitment date,” and encouraging companies to “complete commitments in a shorter timeframe when appropriate.”

1. Technology measures for key sources and continuous improvement are included, but management practices are overlooked

We recommended EPA include a comprehensive set of technologies and deployment practices to reduce emissions, while also including training, incentives, and other management practices to boost capability, motivation, and performance. The new proposal includes such measures for many key emissions sources, and we’re glad to see EPA supporting continuous improvement, including development for tomorrow’s leak detection technologies.

In the final framework, we urge EPA to incorporate training, incentives, and related management practices to ensure that technologies and processes are deployed correctly and consistently to maximize emission reductions in the field. A true “best management practice” approach should take this broader lens. The program could offer a genuine opportunity to showcase and spread effective approaches that the best-run companies instill through their management systems.

1. EPA is improving the transparency of the program by proposing annual reporting, but should provide more context around what defines progress

The state of methane disclosure badly needs improvement– a topic EDF will explore more deeply in the coming months. We have said that for any voluntary program to be meaningful, it needs standard metrics and regular reporting by both the EPA and participating companies. We also noted that an improvement to Natural Gas STAR would be to require reporting on an annual basis.

EPA’s new proposal takes steps toward this goal, providing guidelines for both agencies and participating companies to report on progress yearly. It makes sense for Subpart W of the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program, which includes facility-level methane reporting for certain sites, to be leveraged for efficiency’s sake, but because Subpart W is often based on emissions factors – not company-specific measurements – it is important that the “supplemental information” EPA refers to includes direct quantification of actual emissions.

We also encourage EPA to think carefully about the key metrics to be reported, as Subpart W itself is a mass of data – not streamlined, actionable performance metrics. A positive attribute of the One Future option is its focus on methane intensity as a trackable key metric for emissions reductions. Standardized metrics enable comparisons of both individual company performance over time and performance between different companies.

What’s Next?

We’re glad to see that EPA has taken some significant steps to improve its voluntary methane reduction program for those in the oil and gas industry, and look forward to the proposal being further developed and strengthened as it is finalized. EPA asked for stakeholder feedback on the draft by September 1st, which it plans to incorporate into a final framework.

We hope that more companies will demonstrate leadership by joining the program, and making and keeping commitments to dramatically reduce emissions. We hope to give credit where credit is due. But given the realistic rate of participation (using years of experience as our guide), it’s clear that comprehensive standards are necessary to protect the health of all communities, put the brakes on the rate of climate change, and allow gas to play a credible role in transitioning to a low carbon economy.

Photo credit: Earthworks

By N. Jonathan Peress

A study published today in Environmental Science & Technology confirms official figures from the Environmental Protection Agency showing that an enormous amount of methane – about 80 billion cubic feet per year – is escaping from thousands of key nodes along the nation’s natural gas interstate pipeline system. This equals the 20-year climate impact of 33 coal-fired power plants and more than $240 million worth of wasted natural gas per year, enough to meet the yearly heating and cooking needs of over a million U.S. households.

The study also shows the limitations of voluntary measures to address the industry’s methane problem. Companies that volunteered for this study, for example, reported emissions 30 percent lower than companies that were not involved. For some equipment, the difference was more than seven-fold. The performance gap between volunteer and non-volunteer companies reinforces doubt about industry claims that it can manage methane emissions on its own, underscoring the need for standards that create a level playing field across the sector.

Major Challenge, Big Opportunity

The study also confirms that major emission sources are widely distributed, intermittent, and unpredictable. In this case, a relatively small number of large leaks from ill-performing equipment and facilities accounted for 40 percent of the methane leaking from the country’s pipeline transmission and storage infrastructure.

The problem is that it’s incredibly hard to predict when and where these emissions sources occur – at any time, various pieces of equipment can be leaking, so the real-world challenge for operators is finding and fixing malfunctions quickly. Once again, this finding suggests the need for a broad-based monitoring and repair requirement.

The oil and gas industry is the nation’s largest industrial source of methane pollution, with emissions leaking out from various points across the supply chain (production, gathering, transmission and distribution). This latest study reports emissions for the transmission and storage sector, the industry’s hub and spokes, that includes over 2,000 compressor stations distributed along 300,000 miles of pipeline traversing the nation with underground storage facilities and other associated equipment.

Evidence for Action Builds

Methane is a short-lived, powerful greenhouse gas pollutant, and because it is the main ingredient in natural gas, also represents a waste of a valuable energy resource. The study release comes at a time when federal and state regulatory agencies are considering a range of measures to potentially limit emissions from oil and gas operations.

The new study is the second published based on research led by Colorado State University, which involved the most comprehensive on-site measurement campaign to date of this sector. It was organized by EDF as part of a groundbreaking series of 16 studies examining how much methane is escaping from the natural gas supply chain and where it’s coming from.

Proof of What’s Possible

The results of this study suggest that transmission companies have made site improvements since the 1990s like replacing old reciprocating compressors with newer devices that emit substantially less methane. Determining the rationale for those changes (i.e., whether they were intended to reduce leaks or for other purposes) was outside the study scope. Efforts by companies to upgrade infrastructure are nevertheless encouraging, and show what can be achieved through technology improvements – when and if those steps are actually taken.

The researchers’ model also indicates facilities subject to EPA reporting — those with annual greenhouse gas emissions greater than 25,000 metric tons carbon dioxide-equivalent – actually emit over twice the methane they reported. Researchers attribute this to the program’s reporting requirements, suggesting opportunities exist to ensure significantly more complete accounting from the transmission and storage sector.

Good News/Bad News

While this study reveals some encouraging findings, it also indicates that not all in the industry are making the same effort. The best way to ensure that all companies are taking necessary steps to best identify leaks and update equipment is through comprehensive regulation. BLM, EPA and several leading states are already in the process of developing regulations, and as this study indicates, it is important to include in those rules rigorous requirements for finding and fixing the leakiest equipment.

By Mark Brownstein

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is soon expected to propose its new “enhanced” Natural Gas STAR program, providing guidelines for oil and gas companies that want to voluntarily work to reduce their methane emissions. Calls for voluntary measures by industry to address this pollution have increased in recent months, as the EPA is set to release its  first-ever methane rules this summer.

While voluntary efforts can be helpful in establishing new technologies or practices, and validating industry’s ability to meet regulatory benchmarks, opt-in programs alone are no substitute for effective regulation that will reduce energy waste and better protect public health. As we’ve said before, current voluntary programs have an extremely low rate of company participation.

In fact, EPA’s current Natural Gas STAR membership includes less than one half of one percent of all oil and gas producers and operators. Therefore, any update to the program should be seen as an adjunct to long-overdue rules that set sensible emission limits for the industry. That’s the only way to set a level playing field for the approximately 10,000 operators that are part of this rapidly expanding oil and gas industry.

With that in mind, here are four of the benchmarks that any voluntary program should include in order to be valid and constructive:

1. Find and fix the leaks using the best technology and practices

Recent scientific studies have found that methane leaks are widespread and unpredictable, with a set of sporadic sources responsible for a large amount of pollution. That means we need to cast a wide net, and fix problems promptly. For the new Natural Gas STAR proposal to be effective, it must start with frequent leak detection and repair (LDAR).  Research backs this up — a 2014 report from ICF International found that monthly leak inspections reduce methane emissions by 80 percent, while annual inspections cut them by less than half.

1. Set Concrete Targets Early, and Keep Improving

One benefit of a voluntary program is that it can be implemented more quickly than regulatory programs and often can result in faster emission reductions. To take full advantage of this time benefit, strong voluntary programs for oil and gas companies should include concrete, near-term goals. We recommend requiring companies to set two- to three-year initial goals, with five-year goals being the absolute latest.

Members of the program must not become complacent once they reach a goal. Remaining part of EPA’s Natural Gas STAR, or a similar program, should involve continuous improvement, just as any corporate quality control objective would, setting more stringent targets as initial results are achieved.

1. Comprehensive Best Management Practices

The best management practices EPA suggests for companies in its voluntary program should be comprehensive, including all proven methods for targeting sources of emissions. And that list shouldn’t just focus on technology and practices, but should be expanded to cover training, incentives, and other management practices that can improve employees’ and vendors’ capabilities, motivation, and performance in reducing methane emissions.

There should also be an explicit additionality requirement for companies to sign up for best management practices they are not yet fully implementing. Giving companies credit for the measures they’ve undertaken only once they’ve joined helps ensure the validity of the program.

1. Transparency is key

For any voluntary program to be meaningful, it requires standard metrics and regular reporting, by both the EPA and participating companies.

The current Natural Gas STAR program includes periodic reporting of overall emission reductions. But an enhanced program should report reductions achieved through the program annually, and put them in the context of progress toward the administration’s overall stated goal of reducing oil and gas methane emissions 40 to 45 percent by 2025.

If prior experience is any guide, EPA’s “enhanced” Natural Gas STAR will probably not result in serious, substantial participation on the part of oil and gas producers and operators. Therefore, even as the agency has an opportunity to provide a constructive voluntary forum, the real focus needs to stay on strong regulatory standards to reduce oil and gas methane pollution.

By Mark Brownstein

Click to enlarge.

Here we go again.

A new set of peer-reviewed scientific papers pointing to 50 percent higher than estimated regional methane emissions from oil and gas operations in Texas were published this week. And like clockwork, the oil and gas industry’s public relations machine, Energy In Depth, proclaimed that rising emissions are actually falling, and that the industry’s meager voluntary efforts are responsible.

This is, of course, wrong on both counts. In fact, it’s a willful misrepresentation of the findings.

First, the assertion that emissions are going down is flat wrong. EPA’s latest inventory released in April reports that in 2013 the oil and gas industry released more than 7.3 million metric tons of methane into the atmosphere from their operations—a three percent increase over 2012—making it the largest industrial source of methane pollution. So much for those voluntary efforts.

But EID also fumbles the two main findings of the studies: first, that traditional emissions inventories underrepresent the magnitude of the methane problem by 50 percent or more; and second, that this undercount is primarily due to relatively small but widely distributed number of sources across the region’s oil and gas supply chain, coming from leaks and equipment malfunctions not currently accounted for in the emission inventories everyone has been pointing to. In short, the Barnett papers tell us there’s a pervasive but manageable pollution problem occurring across the entire supply chain that requires a comprehensive, systematic monitoring effort and effective repair regime to address it.

Regulators in Colorado understood this to be the case, which is why Colorado took steps to adopt state-wide leak detection and repair requirements for oil and gas operations last year, and why Wyoming and Ohio have also taken first, important steps in this direction. The Barnett papers confirm the importance of these regulatory efforts and suggest that requirements to find and fix leaks across the oil and gas industry are a national priority.

The good news is that reports indicate once you find these sources, they’re fairly cheap and easy to fix. And it is important to do so. Methane is the main ingredient in natural gas and a powerful greenhouse gas and many of the leaks and malfunctions lead to emissions of other air pollutants that contribute to local air quality problems besides.

An Ounce of Prevention

Fire prevention offers a good way to think about this. Fires are relatively rare, and occur unpredictably. And just a few do real damage. But that’s an argument in FAVOR of a broad and vigilant solution: Smoke detectors in every home; regular safety inspections for large buildings; and sprinkler systems and firefighters to stop small situations from becoming big ones.

The same type of ongoing fire prevention measures keeping people safe in office buildings around the country is needed to stop this methane and associated air pollution that is harming communities near oil and gas development.

In the Barnett alone, we’re talking about a volume of methane emissions equal to $66 million per year in wasted product. Also enough gas to meet the heating and cooking needs of roughly 320,000 homes and to deliver the equivalent climate benefit of cutting emissions from nine coal plants over the next 20 years. Clearly, these are not insignificant numbers, as EID suggests. Instead, it shows how meaningless percentage points are without proper context.

Industry often points out it can be trusted to reduce methane emissions, and that regulation is not needed. But the sub-one-percent participation rate in EPA’s voluntary Natural Gas Star proves otherwise.

We don’t have any doubt that industry could manage this problem more effectively, without undue hardship or cost. But as with fire safety, there’s no evidence it will happen without proper regulations requiring every oil and gas facility to do what needs to be done, and that no one among the thousands of oil and gas producers, gatherers, or pipeline operators can derive a competitive advantage from cutting corners. Only consistent national rules can ensure that companies have a level playing field and people have the vital protections they deserve.

By Steven Hamburg

Methane emissions from vast oil and gas operations in the densely populated Barnett Shale region of Texas are 50 percent higher than estimates based on the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) greenhouse gas inventory, according to a series of 11 new papers published today in Environmental Science & Technology.

The majority of these emissions are from a small but widespread number of sources across the region’s oil and gas supply chain. These emissions come from the sort of leaks and equipment malfunctions that are relatively easy to prevent with proper and frequent monitoring and repair practices.

The sprawling Barnett region, fanning out westward from the cities of Dallas and Fort Worth, contains about 30,000 oil and gas wells, 275 compressor stations, and 40 processing plants. It is one of the country’s largest production areas, responsible for 7 percent of total U.S. natural gas output.

Unpredictable, Widespread Sources Dominate

A finding from the research shows that at any given time, roughly 75 percent of the methane emissions from production sites in the Barnett Shale tend to come from a set of elusive and dispersed sources. Higher emissions from these sites are often a result of avoidable operating conditions such as equipment leaks and tank venting that are relatively easy to prevent with frequent monitoring and repair practices.

The studies were coordinated by EDF as part of a larger effort to better understand where oil and gas methane emissions are coming from and how best to reduce them. The new findings are consistent with previous scientific work that indicates industry has a significant methane pollution problem driven by widespread, often unpredictable emission sources.

To better classify these emitters, researchers offer a new definition, calling them “functional super-emitters,” or those sites with the highest proportional loss rates (site-specific methane emissions relative to its production/volume of gas handled).

Simple Solutions for Reducing the Leaks

Routine leak monitoring is essential because these sources are difficult to anticipate – the leaks can emerge from a diversity of locations, at any point in time, jumping from site to site.

The good news is that there are many cost-effective ways to find and fix high-emitting sources. In fact, a 2014 report by ICF International found that by adopting already available technologies and operating practices, industry could cut methane emissions by 40 percent over five years for just one penny per thousand cubic feet of produced gas.

The bad news is, as easy and affordable as these solutions are, many companies simply are not using them. As long as they remain optional, it’s likely to stay that way.

Some states, like Colorado, have already begun directly regulating methane emissions from oil and gas operations and requiring comprehensive, frequent leak detection and repair. And in January, the White House announced plans to reduce methane emissions from the natural gas supply chain by 40 to 45 percent over the next ten years.

Details of the new plan are still in the works. In the coming weeks, EPA and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) are both expected to propose rules to help meet the White House’s reduction goal. Based on the latest scientific research, including the papers released today, it’s important that these policies require both thorough and routine monitoring and maintenance to find and fix methane leaks.

Frequency is critical — the ICF report, for example, found that monthly inspections resulted in reducing emissions by 80 percent, while annual inspections reduced emissions by less than half.

Getting the Full Picture

The series of 11 papers represent the first findings of one of the largest and most comprehensive research campaigns on methane emissions in the oil and gas supply chain and will be followed by a paper fully synthesizing all of the researchers’ findings.

The work included 12 research teams from 20 universities and private research firms, including Colorado State University, Duke University, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and University of Colorado-Boulder, Pennsylvania State University, Princeton University, Purdue University, University of California-Davis and Scientific Aviation, University of California-Irvine, University of Cincinnati, University of Houston, University of Michigan, University of Texas-Dallas, Washington State University, West Virginia University, Aerodyne Research, Carbon Now Cast, Conestoga-Rovers & Associates, Picarro and Sander Geophysics.

The results of these papers tell us that we have a problem, but we already know there are cost-effective technologies and practices available to reduce emissions and make a big dent in waste and pollution.

Photo source: Environmental Science and Technology

By Drew Nelson

Last Friday, the incoming head of the International Energy Agency (IEA), Faith Birol, provided a briefing to U.S. stakeholders about IEA’s new special report on climate change, which found that global emissions could peak by the end of this decade without reducing economic growth. The report outlines five key pillars for turning the emissions corner by 2020, and importantly, one of the pillars is reducing methane from the oil and gas sector. The report‘s finding that the scale of potential reductions from oil and gas methane is about the same as the reductions from renewable energy underscores the impact that action on methane can have.

IEA’s report is the latest in a stream of recent analyses illustrating the enormous potential for methane reductions to slow climate change. This is because methane has such a powerful short-term impact on the climate, with 84 times more warming power than carbon dioxide over a 20-year timeline. And, the report also highlights the significant opportunity that exists in implementing cost-effective, commonsense measures to cut these emissions, which many governments and companies have not yet taken advantage of.

A recent report conducted by the Rhodium Group, commissioned by EDF, shows the global scale of methane leaks is staggering.  In 2012, the amount of oil and gas methane leaked was equivalent to the gas production of Norway, the world’s seventh largest gas producer, representing over $30 billion of revenue that literally vanished into thin air. But this is more than just an economic and energy security issue — because of methane’s potency, that lost gas had the same short term climate impact as 40 percent of global carbon dioxide emissions from coal combustion.

But the good news is that reducing this overlooked source of warming can be quite cheap. A recent study looking at U.S. oil and gas operations found that methane emissions can be reduced by 40 percent for only one penny per MCF of gas using technology that is already available. In the briefing, IEA also noted that the additional investment needed by the oil and gas industry to nullify oil and gas methane emissions is less than 1 percent of current investment.

This combination of cost-effective actions that have a significant positive impact on the climate is what led IEA to include reducing oil and gas methane as one of the most important and pressing actions we can take to make a dent in climate impacts.

While we have seen some recent actions from governments and companies, much more is needed to help emissions peak. In the lead-up to Paris and beyond, policymakers and industry leaders should take note of these findings and ensure that addressing oil and gas methane emissions is included in national actions. While it is laudable that Canada, Mexico and the U.S. specifically included these emissions in their climate pledges (INDCs), each country should also issue strong regulations to ensure that they achieve these reductions as soon as possible. Doing so will provide a powerful signal to the international community regarding North America’s leadership and commitment to this important issue.

For the U.S., the administration’s recently announced goal to reduce methane emissions 40 to 45 percent by 2025 is a critical step toward cutting potent methane emissions from the country’s oil and gas industry. However, that target must be supported by effective regulation of methane emissions from both new and existing oil and gas operations. Proposals by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Bureau of Land Management due later this summer are expected to be a first step in this direction.

Additionally, companies in the oil and gas sector shouldn’t wait for regulations to force them to act; they should lead on containing methane emissions. Some companies are already taking action: BG Group, ENI, PEMEX, PTT, Southwestern, Statoil and Total have joined the United Nations’ Climate and Clean Air Coalition Oil & Gas Methane Partnership (OGMP), which aims to have companies report and reduce their methane emissions. There's a broad need and opportunity for all operators to measure, report, and reduce their emissions. Other leading companies like Shell and BP should also join the OGMP and add their knowledge and experience to this effort.

Research by EDF and others has provided a deeper understanding of both the methane problem and its possible solutions, so it’s gratifying to see the IEA elevate methane as a key issue for Paris. Now it’s time for countries and companies to develop actions to address emissions.

Image Source: International Energy Agency

By Ben Ratner

California public school teachers. Religious charities. New York police officers and firefighters.

What do all of these groups have in common? Investors representing them — who manage $1.5 trillion in retirees, current employees’, and others assets – are standing together and calling for strong rules limiting harmful methane emissions from the oil and gas sector. This level of outpouring – from diversified investors with holdings in the oil and gas industry – represents five times the support investors expressed for methane rules last year. A trend is emerging.

The investors, including the largest retirement funds in California and New York, issued a powerful statement in support of the president’s methane proposal aimed at cutting emissions nearly in half in a decade. A centerpiece is regulation of methane, the primary ingredient in natural gas, which has over 80 times the warming power of carbon dioxide in the first 20 years after it’s released and is responsible for 25 percent of the warming we are feeling today.

From their vantage point as long-term stakeholders, the “serious threat” methane poses to climate stability compels them, as fiduciaries, to support action to cut emissions and avoid near term threats to “infrastructure and economic harm that will weaken not only the companies we .invest in, but the nation as a whole.” Market pressure like that is difficult to ignore.

Like many investors, they're taking the long view – reconciling their holdings in oil and gas companies with the threat that methane emissions pose to our climate, and pushing for cost effective national limits on methane. As they say: “What is truly needed is a strong federal standard on methane that will level the playing field for all companies.”

The investors behind this letter understand the double benefit of establishing national limits on methane. In addition to slowing the rate of warming and limiting the economic harm from climate change in this generation, it is an opportunity for industry to improve resource efficiency and deliver a badly needed win to start building public trust.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) should heed the call and move forward with a fact-based, comprehensive regulatory approach. Making the best practices of a few the standard practices of the many will unlock environmental returns while stamping out reputational risks for an industry at the crossroads. That’s a rare opportunity: it’s time to invest.

This blog first appeared on our EDF+Business blog.

By Dan Grossman

The American West is home to the vast majority of the nation’s federal and tribal lands, which account for well over half of the total land area of several Western states. And, the Western states are also significant centers of domestic oil and gas production, contributing 80 to 90 percent of total federal and tribal production.

Now, a new report shows that these states are also the source of massive amounts of wasted natural gas.

The report, released this week by the independent consultancy ICF International and commissioned by the Environmental Defense Fund, looks at oil and gas development on federal and tribal lands —specifically, emissions from gas that is leaked, vented or simply burned off every year. These oil and gas emissions matter. Excessive venting, flaring and leaking of gas degrades regional air quality. Moreover, natural gas is comprised mostly of methane, a powerful greenhouse gas that contributes to climate change. In addition to the emissions associated with these activities, venting, flaring and leaking of natural gas represents the wasteful loss of a finite and valuable natural resource.

States with the most to lose

ICF’s findings are staggering: nationally, we are wasting an amount of natural gas worth approximately $361 million on federal and tribal lands every year due to wasteful leaking, venting, and flaring practices on these lands. As the table below shows, the top states for this waste are leaving significant financial resources on the table, funds that could be invested in schools, health care and needed infrastructure improvements for local communities and tribes directly impacted by this development.

State Total Wasted Gas (Bcf Whole Gas) Wasted Gas Value(at $3/Mcf natural gas) % Oil and Gas production on Federal and Tribal Lands % Statewide  Methane Emissions from Federal and Tribal Lands New Mexico 33.7 billion cubic feet $101 million 69% 67% Wyoming 25.4 billion cubic feet $76.2 million 69% 53% North Dakota 25.4 billion cubic feet $76.1 million 24% 18% Utah 9.5 billion cubic feet $28.4 million 96% 91% Colorado 8.7 billion cubic feet $26.0 million 36% 28%

 

Beyond economic waste, the environmental impacts of the massive emissions from drilling on federal and tribal lands are increasingly evident. In rural — but drilling-heavy — Pinedale, Wyoming, emissions from oil and gas activity generated so much smog that the town endured air pollution readings rivaling that of urban Los Angeles. In New Mexico, a massive methane “hot spot” was detected by NASA satellites over the San Juan Basin where much of the state’s gas drilling is taking place.

Fortunately, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the agency charged with overseeing the responsible development of oil and gas on federal and tribal lands, is poised to propose new rules to reduce the waste and pollution. As the ICF report indicates, with emissions from federal and tribal lands constituting about 12 percent of our nation’s total methane emissions, these areas cannot be overlooked in the rulemaking process if we’re sincere about addressing this challenge.

Methane emissions have already become a priority for many Western states. In 2014, Colorado became the first state in the nation to directly regulate methane from oil and gas operations, partly prompting the Western Governors Association to pass a resolution in support of oil and gas methane emissions reductions. Wyoming also requires stringent pollution controls in an area of heavy drilling activity. And the North Dakota Industrial Commission recently adopted a strong gas capture order that has resulted in significant reductions of flaring in the state.  But these rules don’t apply evenly to all federal and tribal lands in these states, and they don’t apply at all to the other states in the region that ICF found are responsible for releasing massive amounts of methane pollution.

While the ICF analysis underscores the severity of the situation, it also highlights solutions to significantly reduce natural gas waste and methane emissions. ICF examined a range of proven, cost-effective technologies and best practices that could be applied to the emission sources it evaluated, including frequent leak inspection and repair (LDAR) programs, and found that dramatic reductions could be realized using existing technologies that are already in use in many areas.

All told, ICF identified a potential to reduce emissions to the atmosphere by more than 25 billion cubic feet of whole gas per year, or nearly 40 percent of total gas emissions, by practicing well-known pollution reduction strategies that cost mere pennies on the dollar to implement.

Public land = Public Trust

One thing we should all be able to agree on is that oil and gas companies extracting public resources on public lands should be held to the highest of standards, doing everything feasible to protect our health and climate from harmful emissions, minimize energy waste, and maximize royalties to taxpayers.

BLM is responsible for leasing and regulating approximately 700 million acres of lands with publicly owned mineral resources, an area roughly four times the size of the state of Texas. The agency has a dual legal responsibility to ensure that the rules it proposes for this significant portion of the U.S. conserve oil and gas resources and protect our air and climate.

BLM’s proposed standards should fulfill that responsibility by reflecting the key opportunities we know exist to cost effectively reduce waste and emissions in the oil and gas sector – and it should act quickly, before even more public resources go to waste.

Photo Source: Bureau of Land Management

 

By Ilissa Ocko

I was 15 and I was trying to impress a boyfriend with my rollerblading skills — from the top of a steep hill. Before I knew it, I was flying uncontrollably toward traffic. I knew I needed to both slow down and change course . . . or things wouldn't end well.

I did, and I survived, but I've recently thought about that day and those actions as I have considered the urgency needed for the planet to slow down and change course as the climate warms. With two major actions, we can slow the rate of global warming while also preventing "runaway" warming: nations must reduce emissions of both short-lived and long-lived pollutants.

All emissions are not equal

The way people talk and think about the long and short-term impacts of various greenhouse gasses is critical for making smart policy decisions that can effectively slow how fast the climate changes while limiting warming in the future.

While the maximum extent of warming relies on carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions because they last for centuries in the atmosphere, the rate of climate change is controlled by short-lived climate pollutants, such as methane.

Like carbon dioxide, methane is a gas that warms the Earth by trapping heat. Pound for pound, methane is more than 100 times more powerful than CO2 because methane is much more efficient at absorbing heat. But that number changes depending on how far out you look.

Comparing emissions of gases with vastly different radiative impacts and atmospheric lifetimes requires a metric that depends on what timeframe you care about, such as the next decade or next century. One way scientists deal with the temporal differences is by measuring the global warming potential of gases over two time periods: 20 years and 100 years.

Methane is 84 times more effective at trapping heat than CO2 over the first 20 years after they are both emitted, and 28 times more effective over 100 years, because most of the methane breaks down in the first 50 years after it is released due to oxidizing chemical reactions. When discussing what actions to take to reduce methane we must think about methane's potency in both timeframes.

Our best chance of combating climate change

Since the Industrial Revolution, methane in the atmosphere has increased by a whopping 150 percent. While in the same period, CO2 levels have gone up 40 percent. Around one quarter of today's human-caused warming is attributable to emissions of methane, while human-caused CO2 emissions account for around half.

The administration of U.S. President Barack Obama is currently undertaking efforts to reduce emissions of some of the most damaging greenhouse gas emissions  responsible for climate change: methane pollution from oil and gas operations and carbon dioxide from coal-fired power plants. This strategy has prompted questions about which climate pollutant should take priority. But the discussion of whether to cut methane emissions first and carbon dioxide later — or vice versa — is not helpful or necessary. We need a two-pronged strategy to stay safe.

Understanding the urgent need to reduce all types of climate pollution, the Obama administration is expected to move forward with rules to mitigate both methane and carbon dioxide in the next few months. This summer the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is expected to propose the first ever direct regulation of methane emissions from new and modified sources in the oil and gas industry, and finalize its Clean Power Plan to reduce carbon dioxide from coal-fired power plants.

Another agency, the U.S. Bureau of Land Management, is also expected to soon propose important rules to reduce wasteful venting, flaring and leaking of methane associated with the production of oil and natural gas on public lands.

Nations cannot solve the climate crisis and prevent serious impacts without simultaneously reducing both short-lived and long-lived climate pollutants. Reducing CO2 will limit the overall warming the planet will experience generations from now, which will have profound impacts on limiting sea level rise and other dangerous consequences.

Reducing warming caused by methane during our lifetime will also reduce the likelihood of extreme weather events and species extinctions — and, a slower rate also provides more time for societies and ecosystems to adapt to changes.

This post originally appeared on LiveScience.

By Ben Ratner

Six large European oil and gas companies recently announced a commitment to engage on climate policy, calling for a price on carbon. The now-emerging picture of their coordinated corporate talking points, however, leaves no doubt that promotion of natural gas is a core part of the group’s position.

Is this development a beneficial push to help the planet transition to a low carbon economy – or just another marketing campaign? The truth, so far, lies somewhere in between.

Here are the good, the bad and the ugly highlights of what we’ve learned over the past week and what it all means.

The good: Establishing a carbon price and cutting carbon dioxide emissions

Make no mistake about it: The world’s leading economies need to establish a price and limits on greenhouse gas emissions, and leadership from the private sector is instrumental in achieving that policy objective.

For large companies such as Shell, BP and Statoil to join forces and unequivocally state, as they now have, that a price on carbon should be a “key element” of climate policy frameworks is a refreshing boost to pre-Paris United Nations climate talks.

It is a potentially powerful validation that even some of the world’s largest corporate emitters see an upside to carbon pricing and will weigh in to make it a reality.

As to promoting natural  gas a solution, it is well documented that in many cases natural gas will replace coal for power generation – a shift already underway in the United States and partly responsible for driving down carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions.

The bad: Paying short shrift to natural gas’s Achilles heel

Notwithstanding the economic and carbon-dioxide benefits of coal-to-gas switching, there is a missing piece of the puzzle in the companies’ formulation to date.

One of the oil executives said “The enemy is coal.” Respectfully, that is incorrect. The enemy is climate pollution; coal is merely its most pernicious face.

Methane is natural gas’s Achilles heel. At close to 85 times more potent of a climate change forcer than carbon dioxide, methane emissions from the oil and gas industry undermine the very climate performance of natural gas that companies tout as a chief benefit relative to coal.

Indeed a recent report  found that the 20-year global warming potential of methane emissions from the global oil and gas sector have the same near-term impact as about 40 percent of total CO2 emissions from global coal combustion in 2012. And that’s on top of the carbon dioxide from burning the natural gas.

Fortunately, the bad methane story can be solved at little economic cost, and while creating jobs in the process. If the companies put a fraction of the effort of promoting gas into promoting methane solutions – including the regulations we need to establish basic environmental safeguards – this bad news story could disappear.

A bold methane action plan that all companies embrace, and that includes strong regulatory assurances, is the missing ingredient – the elephant in the room.

The ugly: A leadership shortage

But we have a problem.

American companies (think Chevron and Exxon) are among the most well-resourced and inventive oil and gas companies. With a large stake in natural gas, they share an interest with European corporate peers when it comes to promoting a carbon price that displaces coal and resolving the methane issue before it gets worse.

However, these “super majors” have remained conspicuously on the sidelines of the European companies’ efforts. They’re even signaling an intent to stay there even as peers move closer toward embracing a lower carbon future

It is a missed leadership opportunity, but one they can still seize.

Photo source: Flickr/Kool Kats

This post originally appeared on our EDF Voices blog.

By Mark Brownstein

A group of Republican Senators sent a letter to the White House yesterday questioning the administration's plans to begin regulating methane emissions from the oil and gas sector. While EDF welcomes their engagement, the Senators' characterization of the problem, their representation of emissions data, and their reference to research funded by EDF are flatly incorrect.

The facts are these: Methane is a potent greenhouse gas—packing 84 times the warming power of carbon dioxide over a 20-year timeframe. That means it's a serious challenge, but also a huge opportunity to put the brakes on climate change quickly and cost-effectively. EPA’s latest inventory released in April estimates that in 2013, the oil and gas industry released more than 7.3 million metric tons of methane into the atmosphere from their operations—a three percent increase over 2012—making it largest industrial source of methane pollution. That’s enough to meet the needs of 5 million households, and packs the same climate punch as the CO2 emissions from more than 160 coal-fired power plants.

Curbing these avoidable emissions from the oil and gas industry is a critical element of any effective climate strategy. Industrial methane pollution represents a needless waste of a valuable energy resource. Studies show we are wasting $1.8 billion in natural gas every year through methane leaks throughout the oil and gas system. At the same time, there are proven and affordable solutions to cut this dangerous and wasteful pollution.

Our scientific understanding of methane pollution—including where methane leaks occur and at what volume—is continuing to improve. EDF’s own groundbreaking series of scientific studies is greatly expanding our understanding of the methane pollution problem. In fact, Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) and his colleagues cite EDF’s research in their letter to President Obama. Unfortunately, their letter makes a critical error with regard to one of those studies—the University of Texas research actually demonstrated that methane emissions from the oil and natural gas sector are statistically unchanged over time. No decreases in methane pollution have been observed or reported.

Curbing methane pollution not only eliminates needless energy waste and slows the effects of a climate threat impacting our world now, but it improves air quality in drilling communities. When methane leaks, it does so in the company of other air pollutants, including carcinogens and the pre-cursors of smog, which exacerbates breathing problems for asthmatics and others.

The state of Colorado has shown what is possible when the oil and gas industry works with government regulators and public interest organizations. The state has had rules in place to fight methane pollution for over a year, and the state’s energy industry has thrived. The same approach should be applied nationwide, fueling growth in an emerging methane mitigation industry that stands ready to expand well-paying American jobs.

Voluntary programs, such as those elevated by Senator Inhofe, play a role but are no silver bullet—reports show not enough companies engage to make a real difference to significantly reduce methane pollution. One of the biggest indicators? The fact that the very program EPA is proposing to advance these voluntary measures—Natural Gas STAR—has been around since 1993, but of the more than 6,000 producers in operation, fewer than 30 are participants.

The oil and gas industry repeatedly argues that it can be trusted to voluntarily take the steps needed to reduce methane emissions, and that regulation is not needed, but Natural Gas Star’s sub 1 percent participation rate proves otherwise. With thousands of producers around the country, only consistent national rules can ensure that companies have a level playing field and people have the vital protections they deserve.

 

By Mark Brownstein

In January, the White House announced the ambitious goal of reducing methane emissions from the oil and gas industry by 40 to 45 percent over the next ten years. It was a landmark moment and a step toward making a great impact on greenhouse emissions and their effects on the climate by reducing a potent pollutant. Now, we await the rules EPA will propose later this summer to begin making that goal a reality.

In the coming days the EPA is expected to preview one piece of the plan the administration announced in January – Enhanced Natural Gas STAR, a program to enable companies to commit to voluntary actions to reduce emissions, and document progress toward achieving those commitments. The program is an important opportunity to ensure transparent and rigorous reporting of voluntary efforts to reduce emissions, but it is not a substitute for strong regulations and it is not the only step the administration has committed to taking. In its package of proposed rules that the administration has committed to release later this summer, the federal government will set, for the first time, methane emission limits from new and modified sources in the oil and gas industry, and is being called upon to implement rules to address leaks from existing sources as well.

Methane is a potent greenhouse gas, with more than 84 times the warming power of carbon dioxide in the first 20 years after it is released unburned. It also represents a threat to public health, and a waste of a valuable energy resource – enough natural gas is wasted through methane leaks each year to fuel nearly 6 million homes.

While companies that take voluntary action to reduce their methane emissions today may be better positioned to comply with future regulations, it is not realistic to expect significant reductions to come from a voluntary program. One of the biggest indicators? The fact that the very program EPA is proposing to advance these voluntary measures – Natural Gas STAR – has been around since 1993, but of the more than 6,000 producers in operation, fewer than 30 are participants.

The oil and gas industry repeatedly argues that it can be trusted to voluntarily take the steps needed to reduce methane emissions, and that regulation is not needed, but Natural Gas Star’s sub 1 percent participation rate proves otherwise.

We have the ability to use existing technologies to cost effectively capture methane leaks from oil and gas operations. In fact, a 2014 report by ICF International found that by adopting already available technologies and operating practices, industry could cut methane emissions by 40 percent below projected 2018 levels at an average annual cost of less than one cent per thousand cubic feet of produced natural gas.

Some companies – but not all – see that it’s in their best interest to use these technologies to reduce methane emissions in order to protect their bottom line and to meet their corporate sustainability goals. Regulations requiring adoption of these cost-effective technologies help to level the industry playing field and ensure that all companies, not just a few responsible and innovative leaders, are taking the necessary steps to reduce methane emissions.

It is critical that any voluntary program EPA proposes is rigorous and transparent. But it is even more critical that the EPA includes strong regulations, in addition to voluntary programs, when it proposes its rules later this summer. Doing so is necessary to begin meeting the White House’s  methane reduction goal and protecting public health, preventing waste, and slowing global warming. While the Enhanced Natural Gas STAR preview is one small piece of the puzzle, EPA must work to get the regulatory centerpiece of the package right as well.

Photo source: Flickr/WCN 24/7

By Ben Ratner

Europe’s largest oil companies are reportedly working together on a policy strategy leading up to this year’s international climate talks in Paris. It’s nice to hear that some of the biggest players in the global oil and gas industry want to engage in solutions, but it remains to be seen if they will take the action needed to effectively tackle some of our most immediate climate threats – or to seize a major untapped opportunity.

That opportunity is methane. The highly potent greenhouse gas that’s been largely ignored until recently represents a solution for making real and immediate progress to slow warming. So will the group of oil companies sign on to tackle methane as a big part of its strategy, or are they going to ignore it?

Methane, the primary ingredient in natural gas, has over 80 times the warming power of CO2 and is responsible for 25 percent of the warming we are feeling today. That means tackling methane is an essential piece of the puzzle in making a real impact on greenhouse emissions.

A recent report by the Rhodium Group found that current global methane losses from oil and gas would be the seventh largest gas producing country, nearly equal Norway’s total 2012 production output, and packing the short-term global warming punch equivalent to about 40 percent of total CO2 emissions from global coal combustion. From an economic standpoint, these emissions account for 3.5 Trillion cubic feet of lost natural gas, and $30 billon of lost revenue. Without action, these methane emissions will increase more than 20 percent by 2030.

Given the enormity of the challenge, any credible industry effort must include methane. And, it’s an easy ask – a recent analysis found that it’s highly cost effective to reduce methane emissions, with an average net spend of less than one cent per MCF of gas produced needed to reduce methane emissions by 40 percent in the United States.

Here are three things we will watch to see if the new industry group gets serious about methane:

1. Scope – The companies should expressly affirm the importance of addressing methane alongside CO2, and recommend that policy mechanisms be appropriately broad, encompassing all material greenhouse gases.

1. Leadership – Whether in the U.S. or abroad, there should be a hand-in-glove fit – not a disconnect – between companies’ global rhetoric in international venues, and lobbying on the ground in key national venues. In the U.S., for example, there is an imminent rulemaking on methane by the Environmental Protection Agency. Supporting this effort is a practical and concrete opportunity for global oil and gas companies to drive down harmful emissions while cutting waste and earning trust.

1. Partnership – Several European companies are starting to show global leadership in their operations. For example BG, ENI, Total, and Statoil are participating in the UN-sponsored Oil and Gas Methane Partnership, a voluntary effort to improve transparency and accelerate best practices to reduce methane emissions. And Shell and others have studied methane emissions and joined the call for continuous leak detection. That said, companies like Shell and BP, which are not yet members of the OGMP but are reportedly participating in pre-Paris climate discussions, should prioritize any voluntary group efforts on joining the OGMP to demonstrate their commitment, rather than re-inventing the wheel.

There is a deep and urgent need for broad corporate leadership on climate in the run-up to Paris. The top 32 energy companies account for about a third of global greenhouse gases, according to a recent  Reuters report, yet the oil and gas industry has generally been either hostile, or mute, on the need for climate policy.

Against that challenging backdrop, the new effort by European companies has potential promise to achieve a much needed breakthrough. Now, the question is whether the leadership will be up to the task; including methane must be a big part of the answer.

 

 

By Felice Stadler

If you want to catch fish, go where you know the fish are. That’s our best advice for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as they draw up details to set methane pollution limits for the oil and gas industry, expected later this summer. The agency knows where the “fish” are – they drew a pretty good map of key methane sources back in January when they announced their intentions to address methane. Now they just need a concrete plan to reel them in.

The Administration has announced that EPA will issue a proposed plan for action later this summer, with a proposed rule that will set first-ever limits on potent methane pollution from new and modified oil and gas sources. Together with other efforts from across government, this step can lay a strong foundation toward achieving the administration’s goal of reducing harmful methane pollution 40-45% below 2012 levels by 2025.

But as we know, the devil will be in the details, and for the oil and gas sector these details will be critically important. There are many different points along the supply chain where methane is being released uncontrolled—and in many cases undetected. The good news is that EPA knows this is a problem, and even collected extensive comments from experts and the public via a series of whitepapers on how to tackle the most significant emission points along the supply chain.

Recognizing the need to get the details right on the anticipated proposed rule, EDF and more than 60 other health and environmental organizations sent a letter to EPA today reinforcing the importance of some of these big fish:

Requiring companies to look for and repair methane leaks.

Most leaks in the oil and gas industry go undetected, and make up a significant portion of methane emissions. A rigorous program that requires companies to find and fix leaks using straightforward and cost-effective technology is common sense, and critical to secure substantial methane reductions.

Requiring oil companies to capture the natural gas that is released when new wells are drilled.

Right now the federal “green completions” rule only applies to natural gas wells and has proven to be effective. But some oil wells release a lot of natural gas, and currently are not required to do anything to prevent or capture those emissions. This disparity can easily be rectified, and will deliver significant emissions reductions.

Developing clean-air standards to ensure that common practices and equipment used in the oil and gas fields are appropriately maintained and cleaned up.

Equipment dots the landscape where oil and gas drilling and transmission occur. There are pneumatic pumps, compressors, and pneumatic controllers—all of which leak methane in significant amounts. Using available technologies to minimize emissions from this equipment and can be effectively implemented, and needs to be part of EPA’s methane reduction plan.

Time will tell whether EPA will aim for the big catch when it puts the finishing touches on its proposed rule to limit methane emissions and stop the leaks. For the sake of our children, our communities, and our climate let’s hope they do.

Image source: Pennie patches pixie Laine