Aggregator

Support these vital clean air standards. Apoya a estos est�ndares de aire limpio fundamentales. Regional.

Support these vital clean air standards. Apoya a estos est�ndares de aire limpio fundamentales. Regional.

Support these vital clean air standards. Apoya a estos est�ndares de aire limpio fundamentales. Regional.

Demand stronger toxic chemical controls. Exige controles m�s fuertes a las sustancias qu�micas t�xicas. Regional.

Demand stronger toxic chemical controls. Exige controles m�s fuertes a las sustancias qu�micas t�xicas. Regional.

Demand stronger toxic chemical controls. Exige controles m�s fuertes a las sustancias qu�micas t�xicas. Regional.

Four years after BP spill, questions linger
By John DeSantis, The Tri-Parish Times
“Carey Perry, science director for the Coalition to Restore Coastal Louisiana, went along for the Wildlife Federation…” (read more)

BP oil spill cleanup will continue, Coast Guard tells state coastal authority (+video)
By Mark Schleifstein, The Times-Picayune. April 16, 2014.
“The Coast Guard has scaled back its clean-up response to the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill, but that scale-back is not as extensive…” (read more)

Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority Chairman Jerome Zeringue on status of BP oil spill clean-up (video)
By Mark Schleifstein, The Times-Picayune. April 16, 2014.
“Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority Chairman Jerome Zeringue on Wednesday  discusses the state's concerns…” (watch here)

BP says Gulf spill shoreline cleanup operations are over
By Laura Barron-Lopez, The Hill. April 16, 2014.
“Four years after the Gulf of Mexico oil spill, BP and the U.S. Coast Guard are ending cleanup operations along the shoreline…” (read more)

BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill main focus of coastal board meeting Wednesday: Live coverage
By Mark Schleifstein, The Times-Picayune. April 16, 2014.
“Updates on the effects of the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill on Louisiana's environment and its economy…” (read more)

Restoration projects up for aid
By Xerxes Wilson, The Houma Courier (Houma, La.). April 16, 2014.
“Four local projects have made it to the final 10 under consideration for federal design money…” (read more)

Land acquired for Comite River canal project
By Timothy Boone, The Advocate. April 16, 2014.
“A 66-acre tract along U.S. 61 has been acquired for the long-awaited Comite River Diversion Canal project…” (read more)

High river prompts Corps of Engineers to activate levee inspection program
By Mark Schleifstein, The Times-Picayune. April 16, 2014.
“A rising Mississippi River, which reached 11.62 feet above sea level at the Carrollton Gage in New Orleans…” (read more)

Four years after BP spill, questions linger
By John DeSantis, The Tri-Parish Times
“Carey Perry, science director for the Coalition to Restore Coastal Louisiana, went along for the Wildlife Federation…” (read more)

BP oil spill cleanup will continue, Coast Guard tells state coastal authority (+video)
By Mark Schleifstein, The Times-Picayune. April 16, 2014.
“The Coast Guard has scaled back its clean-up response to the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill, but that scale-back is not as extensive…” (read more)

Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority Chairman Jerome Zeringue on status of BP oil spill clean-up (video)
By Mark Schleifstein, The Times-Picayune. April 16, 2014.
“Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority Chairman Jerome Zeringue on Wednesday  discusses the state's concerns…” (watch here)

BP says Gulf spill shoreline cleanup operations are over
By Laura Barron-Lopez, The Hill. April 16, 2014.
“Four years after the Gulf of Mexico oil spill, BP and the U.S. Coast Guard are ending cleanup operations along the shoreline…” (read more)

BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill main focus of coastal board meeting Wednesday: Live coverage
By Mark Schleifstein, The Times-Picayune. April 16, 2014.
“Updates on the effects of the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill on Louisiana's environment and its economy…” (read more)

Restoration projects up for aid
By Xerxes Wilson, The Houma Courier (Houma, La.). April 16, 2014.
“Four local projects have made it to the final 10 under consideration for federal design money…” (read more)

Land acquired for Comite River canal project
By Timothy Boone, The Advocate. April 16, 2014.
“A 66-acre tract along U.S. 61 has been acquired for the long-awaited Comite River Diversion Canal project…” (read more)

High river prompts Corps of Engineers to activate levee inspection program
By Mark Schleifstein, The Times-Picayune. April 16, 2014.
“A rising Mississippi River, which reached 11.62 feet above sea level at the Carrollton Gage in New Orleans…” (read more)

By Gernot Wagner

(This post originally appeared on ensia.com) 

Economics is largely just organized common sense, and it doesn’t get much more common sense than benefit-cost analysis. Want to decide whether to buy that apple, make that investment or pass that clean air rule? Tally up the benefits. Tally up the costs. If benefits outweigh costs, do it.

Although in many ways climate change is a problem in its own league, the same principles apply. Secretary of State John Kerry recently said, “The costs of inaction are catastrophic,” and they most likely would be. While climate change ought to be a risk management problem — an existential risk management problem on a planetary scale — that realization alone may not always be good enough. Despite the inherent risks and uncertainties, sometimes we need a specific number that we can plug into a benefit-cost analysis.

The U.S. government makes lots of regulatory decisions that have important implications for the climate. Any benefit-cost analysis of these decisions ought to include their climate impact. If a particular decision will lead to more greenhouse gas emissions — building the Keystone XL pipeline, for example — that figure ought to go on the cost side of the ledger. If the decision will lead to fewer greenhouse gas emissions — such as carbon pollution standards for power plants — that figure adds to the benefits side.

Such benefit-cost analyses require a dollar figure for the social cost of carbon pollution. The best we currently have is around $40 for each ton of carbon dioxide emitted, calculated by averaging results from the three of the most prominent and well-established climate-economic models. Uncertainties around the $40 value notwithstanding, putting in $0 is not an option. That, sadly, is what some with clear stakes in the outcome are arguing, however weak the ground they stand on.

In fact, $40 is very likely on the low end of the true cost of CO2. By definition, it only includes what is known and currently quantifiable. It doesn’t include many things we know are linked to a changing climate that aren’t so easily quantified, such as respiratory illness from increased ozone pollution, the costs of oceans turning ever more acidic and impacts on labor productivity from extreme heat. If these were factored in, the $40 figure would certainly be higher.

And the list of what’s missing in the current calculation goes on, as a recent commentary in Nature points out. For example, the models used to calculate the $40 figure are based on costs associated with higher average temperatures rather than costs of increased weather extremes. Taking extreme events seriously in the social cost calculation would increase the $40 figure further still.

We know climate change is and will be costly. How costly exactly is up for discussion, but it’s clear that we should at the very least use the $40 per ton figure in any benefit-cost analysis that involves climate impacts. That’s common sense, too.

(This post originally appeared on ensia.com)  Economics is largely just organized common sense, and it doesn’t get much more common sense than benefit-cost analysis. Want to decide whether to buy that apple, make that investment or pass that clean air rule? Tally up the benefits. Tally up the costs. If benefits outweigh costs, do it. Although […]

By Gernot Wagner

(This post originally appeared on ensia.com) 

Economics is largely just organized common sense, and it doesn’t get much more common sense than benefit-cost analysis. Want to decide whether to buy that apple, make that investment or pass that clean air rule? Tally up the benefits. Tally up the costs. If benefits outweigh costs, do it.

Although in many ways climate change is a problem in its own league, the same principles apply. Secretary of State John Kerry recently said, “The costs of inaction are catastrophic,” and they most likely would be. While climate change ought to be a risk management problem — an existential risk management problem on a planetary scale — that realization alone may not always be good enough. Despite the inherent risks and uncertainties, sometimes we need a specific number that we can plug into a benefit-cost analysis.

The U.S. government makes lots of regulatory decisions that have important implications for the climate. Any benefit-cost analysis of these decisions ought to include their climate impact. If a particular decision will lead to more greenhouse gas emissions — building the Keystone XL pipeline, for example — that figure ought to go on the cost side of the ledger. If the decision will lead to fewer greenhouse gas emissions — such as carbon pollution standards for power plants — that figure adds to the benefits side.

Such benefit-cost analyses require a dollar figure for the social cost of carbon pollution. The best we currently have is around $40 for each ton of carbon dioxide emitted, calculated by averaging results from the three of the most prominent and well-established climate-economic models. Uncertainties around the $40 value notwithstanding, putting in $0 is not an option. That, sadly, is what some with clear stakes in the outcome are arguing, however weak the ground they stand on.

In fact, $40 is very likely on the low end of the true cost of CO2. By definition, it only includes what is known and currently quantifiable. It doesn’t include many things we know are linked to a changing climate that aren’t so easily quantified, such as respiratory illness from increased ozone pollution, the costs of oceans turning ever more acidic and impacts on labor productivity from extreme heat. If these were factored in, the $40 figure would certainly be higher.

And the list of what’s missing in the current calculation goes on, as a recent commentary in Nature points out. For example, the models used to calculate the $40 figure are based on costs associated with higher average temperatures rather than costs of increased weather extremes. Taking extreme events seriously in the social cost calculation would increase the $40 figure further still.

We know climate change is and will be costly. How costly exactly is up for discussion, but it’s clear that we should at the very least use the $40 per ton figure in any benefit-cost analysis that involves climate impacts. That’s common sense, too.

By Elena Craft, PhD

Well site located in Eagle Ford Shale play

Late last week, the Alamo Area Council of Governments (AACOG) released a report outlining emission projections from oil and gas activity in the Eagle Ford Shale play, the most active drilling area in the country right now. Under the moderate drilling activity scenario, projections of air pollutants are expected to quadruple in the next four years. Even though this seems like a staggering prediction, it is likely an underestimation, given certain emissions are not accounted for in the inventory.

What does the report say?

The report assesses the emissions from oil and gas activity in the Eagle Ford Shale play and projects air pollution under three different development scenarios: low, moderate, and aggressive. Projections over the next several years indicate that we can expect substantial increases in smog-forming nitrogen oxide emissions (NOx), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and carbon monoxide.

Source: Alamo Area Council of Governments in cooperation with the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality and the U.S. Energy Information Administration

Source: Alamo Area Council of Governments in cooperation with the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality and the U.S. Energy Information Administration

What is included in the emissions inventory?

There are three different types of wells in the Eagle Ford Shale development included in the emission inventory: dry gas wells, wet gas wells that produce condensate, and oil wells. The report calculates air emissions that are released in the Eagle Ford Shale during five main phases of well construction and production: exploration and pad construction, drilling operation, hydraulic fracturing and completion operation, production, and midstream sources. Emissions sources include drill rigs, compressors, pumps, heaters, other non-road equipment, process emissions, flares, storage tanks, fugitive, and some on-road vehicle emissions road traffic.

What does the report not say?

The report does not include emission projections from some key activities associated with oil and gas development, including:

• “Non-routine emissions, such as those generated during upsets or from maintenance, startup, and shutdown activities, with the exception of blowdowns from gas wells.”

• “construction of mid-stream facilities, building offices, quarrying of fracturing sands, pipeline construction, etc.

• “generators and other equipment at camp houses and offices used by oil field workers”

• “trucks that bring supplies to mid stream sources, worker camps, and other facilities not located at the well head.”

• “production of cement, steel pipes, and other non-recycled material are not included in the emission inventory.”

• “railroad activity related to Eagle Ford development, even though railroads are investing heavily in the area and more than half of the current rail activity at the Port of San Antonio is now related to Eagle Ford activity.”

In addition, the report does not estimate the contribution of air pollutants from oil and gas activity to ozone concentrations in San Antonio. Over the last several years, ozone concentrations in the San Antonio area have risen substantially and many attribute this surge to increased oil and gas activity in the neighboring Eagle Ford Shale play. By 2018, NOx emissions per ozone season day in the Eagle Ford will be roughly equivalent to the total NOx emissions per day from all current sources in the San Antonio region, including every car and truck on the road and every industrial facility like power plants and factories. VOC emissions per ozone season day in the Eagle Ford are expected to triple current emissions of all current air pollution sources per day in San Antonio.

What are the largest sources of emissions in the Eagle Ford?

According to the report by the AACOG, “47 percent of NOX emissions in 2012 from the Eagle Ford were emitted by drill rigs and well hydraulic pump engines. Compressors and mid-stream sources accounted for 39 percent of NOX emissions in 2012, but are expected to increase to 77 percent of total NOX emissions under the 2018 moderate scenario because of the significant increase in oil and gas production. The majority of VOC emissions in 2018 are estimated to be from storage tanks (47 percent) and loading loss (32 percent).”

Should we be concerned?

While burning natural gas is touted as a cleaner energy source than coal combustion, much of the equipment used in the drilling, production, processing, and transporting of natural gas and oil produces significant amounts of VOCs and NOx. These pollutants combine in the presence of sunlight to form ground-level ozone or “smog.”  Given the dramatic increase in projected emissions and the potential to lead to unhealthy air quality for those living in the Eagle Ford and nearby San Antonio, there is a critical need to mitigate air emissions from the oil and gas sector.

What can be done?

EDF has been working with natural gas producers and policy makers around the country to help mitigate air pollution in key states where the majority of oil and gas activity is taking place. Ohio, Colorado and Wyoming have all recently addressed fugitive emissions, demonstrating there are cost-effective technologies available and common sense policies that can be implemented to curb oil and gas air pollution. As natural gas and oil development continues to expand across Texas, adverse air impacts are likely to follow, absent sufficient emissions controls. It is crucial for the states to have strong standards in place, especially for a state such as Texas, which has experienced exponential production increases in a short period of time. Furthermore, it’s imperative that the state environmental agency, Texas Commission for Environmental Quality, install air monitoring networks early in the development of oil and gas operations to monitor the impact on air quality.

How is the Eagle Ford different from other shale formations?

As outlined in the AACOG report, the Eagle Ford Shale is known for high oil yields, unlike the Haynesville and Barnett Shale formations in northern Texas which primarily produce natural gas. As a result, equipment types, processes, and activities in the Eagle Ford may differ from those employed in more traditional shale formations.

By Elena Craft, PhD

Well site located in Eagle Ford Shale play

Late last week, the Alamo Area Council of Governments (AACOG) released a report outlining emission projections from oil and gas activity in the Eagle Ford Shale play, the most active drilling area in the country right now. Under the moderate drilling activity scenario, projections of air pollutants are expected to quadruple in the next four years. Even though this seems like a staggering prediction, it is likely an underestimation, given certain emissions are not accounted for in the inventory.

What does the report say?

The report assesses the emissions from oil and gas activity in the Eagle Ford Shale play and projects air pollution under three different development scenarios: low, moderate, and aggressive. Projections over the next several years indicate that we can expect substantial increases in smog-forming nitrogen oxide emissions (NOx), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and carbon monoxide.

Source: Alamo Area Council of Governments in cooperation with the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality and the U.S. Energy Information Administration

Source: Alamo Area Council of Governments in cooperation with the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality and the U.S. Energy Information Administration

What is included in the emissions inventory?

There are three different types of wells in the Eagle Ford Shale development included in the emission inventory: dry gas wells, wet gas wells that produce condensate, and oil wells. The report calculates air emissions that are released in the Eagle Ford Shale during five main phases of well construction and production: exploration and pad construction, drilling operation, hydraulic fracturing and completion operation, production, and midstream sources. Emissions sources include drill rigs, compressors, pumps, heaters, other non-road equipment, process emissions, flares, storage tanks, fugitive, and some on-road vehicle emissions road traffic.

What does the report not say?

The report does not include emission projections from some key activities associated with oil and gas development, including:

• “Non-routine emissions, such as those generated during upsets or from maintenance, startup, and shutdown activities, with the exception of blowdowns from gas wells.”

• “construction of mid-stream facilities, building offices, quarrying of fracturing sands, pipeline construction, etc.

• “generators and other equipment at camp houses and offices used by oil field workers”

• “trucks that bring supplies to mid stream sources, worker camps, and other facilities not located at the well head.”

• “production of cement, steel pipes, and other non-recycled material are not included in the emission inventory.”

• “railroad activity related to Eagle Ford development, even though railroads are investing heavily in the area and more than half of the current rail activity at the Port of San Antonio is now related to Eagle Ford activity.”

In addition, the report does not estimate the contribution of air pollutants from oil and gas activity to ozone concentrations in San Antonio. Over the last several years, ozone concentrations in the San Antonio area have risen substantially and many attribute this surge to increased oil and gas activity in the neighboring Eagle Ford Shale play. By 2018, NOx emissions per ozone season day in the Eagle Ford will be roughly equivalent to the total NOx emissions per day from all current sources in the San Antonio region, including every car and truck on the road and every industrial facility like power plants and factories. VOC emissions per ozone season day in the Eagle Ford are expected to triple current emissions of all current air pollution sources per day in San Antonio.

What are the largest sources of emissions in the Eagle Ford?

According to the report by the AACOG, “47 percent of NOX emissions in 2012 from the Eagle Ford were emitted by drill rigs and well hydraulic pump engines. Compressors and mid-stream sources accounted for 39 percent of NOX emissions in 2012, but are expected to increase to 77 percent of total NOX emissions under the 2018 moderate scenario because of the significant increase in oil and gas production. The majority of VOC emissions in 2018 are estimated to be from storage tanks (47 percent) and loading loss (32 percent).”

Should we be concerned?

While burning natural gas is touted as a cleaner energy source than coal combustion, much of the equipment used in the drilling, production, processing, and transporting of natural gas and oil produces significant amounts of VOCs and NOx. These pollutants combine in the presence of sunlight to form ground-level ozone or “smog.”  Given the dramatic increase in projected emissions and the potential to lead to unhealthy air quality for those living in the Eagle Ford and nearby San Antonio, there is a critical need to mitigate air emissions from the oil and gas sector.

What can be done?

EDF has been working with natural gas producers and policy makers around the country to help mitigate air pollution in key states where the majority of oil and gas activity is taking place. Ohio, Colorado and Wyoming have all recently addressed fugitive emissions, demonstrating there are cost-effective technologies available and common sense policies that can be implemented to curb oil and gas air pollution. As natural gas and oil development continues to expand across Texas, adverse air impacts are likely to follow, absent sufficient emissions controls. It is crucial for the states to have strong standards in place, especially for a state such as Texas, which has experienced exponential production increases in a short period of time. Furthermore, it’s imperative that the state environmental agency, Texas Commission for Environmental Quality, install air monitoring networks early in the development of oil and gas operations to monitor the impact on air quality.

How is the Eagle Ford different from other shale formations?

As outlined in the AACOG report, the Eagle Ford Shale is known for high oil yields, unlike the Haynesville and Barnett Shale formations in northern Texas which primarily produce natural gas. As a result, equipment types, processes, and activities in the Eagle Ford may differ from those employed in more traditional shale formations.

Nearly every month, for the past six months, a new scientific study has been released that provides new insights in to where methane, a highly potent, climate-destabilizing greenhouse gas, could be reduced across the entire natural gas system – the next six months will be no different. But this week, a new joint Purdue-Cornell study […]

By Steven Hamburg

Nearly every month, for the past six months, a new scientific study has been released that provides new insights in to where methane, a highly potent, climate-destabilizing greenhouse gas, could be reduced across the entire natural gas system – the next six months will be no different. But this week, a new joint Purdue-Cornell study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences revealed high emissions from drilling.

The study reports very high methane emissions during the pre-production phase of developing natural gas. Purdue scientists flew an instrumented aircraft in close proximity to a relatively small but intensive oil and gas producing area of Pennsylvania (roughly 2,800 square kilometers), in order to collect atmospheric methane concentration data. Charting a flight path that took the plane both up-wind and down-wind of an area with previously observed methane plumes, the researchers  were able to attribute high methane emissions to the actual process of drilling a well, before any hydraulic fracturing or production had taken place – phases more commonly associated with the greatest share of production emissions. The researchers also reported data that further validates the presence of “super-emitters” (a small number of sources that represent the largest portion of emissions).Their results were based on observations made of seven well pads, using data from aerial measurements taken on two days.

The Purdue aircraft team, led by Paul Shepson, is one of a small number of groups conducting research from the air with the objective of determining the emissions from individual sites, multiple sites or broad geographic regions. It’s an approach that Shepson is also bringing to the Barnett Campaign, one of the 16 EDF-initiated methane studies including a broad aerial measurement component. Four of the 12 research teams in this project specialize in a variety of aircraft-based techniques to measure emissions that are being layered in with other measurements teams gathered through vehicle and ground-based techniques. The idea is to apply multiple approaches to measuring methane in one place, at one time as a way to compare methodologies and gain new insights, including a better understanding of the  differences between top-down and bottom-up techniques.

The Purdue-Cornell paper contributes to our growing understanding of human-caused methane emissions in the United States. While there are often differences among emissions reported by different studies, with variability observed between individual well sites and specific regions, they all support a pair of conclusions: methane emissions are a problem and there are viable solutions available. This includes the September 2013 University of Texas study – the first in EDF’s coordinated series that reported the results of some of the first direct measurements ever taken at hydraulically fractured well sites. Though the study found total emissions for the natural gas production segment were similar to EPA’s estimates in 2011 it revealed that emissions were much higher than estimated for some specific sources – valves, compressors, and pipes located at the well pad. The study also found emissions during “well completions”, after hydraulic fracturing when a well is cleared of liquids to allow production to begin, were dramatically lower when reduced emissions completions (RECs) were deployed. In 2012, when the measurements were made, drillers were accelerating deployment of REC equipment that was required by EPA late in 2012.

Conducting science to clarify our understanding is challenging work. It often takes time to define a problem and for enough data to be collected to ensure that differing insights converge. On the issue of methane emissions from the natural gas supply chain the scientific evidence is growing quickly, thus the call for action is getting louder. At the same time we’re beginning to see that effective policy is taking shape in leading states and at the federal level. The Purdue-Cornell study is yet another study that shows methane emissions from oil and gas operations is an urgent issue to address and that continued state and federal action is needed to reduce it.

By Steven Hamburg

Nearly every month, for the past six months, a new scientific study has been released that provides new insights in to where methane, a highly potent, climate-destabilizing greenhouse gas, could be reduced across the entire natural gas system – the next six months will be no different. But this week, a new joint Purdue-Cornell study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences revealed high emissions from drilling.

The study reports very high methane emissions during the pre-production phase of developing natural gas. Purdue scientists flew an instrumented aircraft in close proximity to a relatively small but intensive oil and gas producing area of Pennsylvania (roughly 2,800 square kilometers), in order to collect atmospheric methane concentration data. Charting a flight path that took the plane both up-wind and down-wind of an area with previously observed methane plumes, the researchers  were able to attribute high methane emissions to the actual process of drilling a well, before any hydraulic fracturing or production had taken place – phases more commonly associated with the greatest share of production emissions. The researchers also reported data that further validates the presence of “super-emitters” (a small number of sources that represent the largest portion of emissions).Their results were based on observations made of seven well pads, using data from aerial measurements taken on two days.

The Purdue aircraft team, led by Paul Shepson, is one of a small number of groups conducting research from the air with the objective of determining the emissions from individual sites, multiple sites or broad geographic regions. It’s an approach that Shepson is also bringing to the Barnett Campaign, one of the 16 EDF-initiated methane studies including a broad aerial measurement component. Four of the 12 research teams in this project specialize in a variety of aircraft-based techniques to measure emissions that are being layered in with other measurements teams gathered through vehicle and ground-based techniques. The idea is to apply multiple approaches to measuring methane in one place, at one time as a way to compare methodologies and gain new insights, including a better understanding of the  differences between top-down and bottom-up techniques.

The Purdue-Cornell paper contributes to our growing understanding of human-caused methane emissions in the United States. While there are often differences among emissions reported by different studies, with variability observed between individual well sites and specific regions, they all support a pair of conclusions: methane emissions are a problem and there are viable solutions available. This includes the September 2013 University of Texas study – the first in EDF’s coordinated series that reported the results of some of the first direct measurements ever taken at hydraulically fractured well sites. Though the study found total emissions for the natural gas production segment were similar to EPA’s estimates in 2011 it revealed that emissions were much higher than estimated for some specific sources – valves, compressors, and pipes located at the well pad. The study also found emissions during “well completions”, after hydraulic fracturing when a well is cleared of liquids to allow production to begin, were dramatically lower when reduced emissions completions (RECs) were deployed. In 2012, when the measurements were made, drillers were accelerating deployment of REC equipment that was required by EPA late in 2012.

Conducting science to clarify our understanding is challenging work. It often takes time to define a problem and for enough data to be collected to ensure that differing insights converge. On the issue of methane emissions from the natural gas supply chain the scientific evidence is growing quickly, thus the call for action is getting louder. At the same time we’re beginning to see that effective policy is taking shape in leading states and at the federal level. The Purdue-Cornell study is yet another study that shows methane emissions from oil and gas operations is an urgent issue to address and that continued state and federal action is needed to reduce it.

By Steven Hamburg

Nearly every month, for the past six months, a new scientific study has been released that provides new insights in to where methane, a highly potent, climate-destabilizing greenhouse gas, could be reduced across the entire natural gas system – the next six months will be no different. But this week, a new joint Purdue-Cornell study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences revealed high emissions from drilling.

The study reports very high methane emissions during the pre-production phase of developing natural gas. Purdue scientists flew an instrumented aircraft in close proximity to a relatively small but intensive oil and gas producing area of Pennsylvania (roughly 2,800 square kilometers), in order to collect atmospheric methane concentration data. Charting a flight path that took the plane both up-wind and down-wind of an area with previously observed methane plumes, the researchers  were able to attribute high methane emissions to the actual process of drilling a well, before any hydraulic fracturing or production had taken place – phases more commonly associated with the greatest share of production emissions. The researchers also reported data that further validates the presence of “super-emitters” (a small number of sources that represent the largest portion of emissions).Their results were based on observations made of seven well pads, using data from aerial measurements taken on two days.

The Purdue aircraft team, led by Paul Shepson, is one of a small number of groups conducting research from the air with the objective of determining the emissions from individual sites, multiple sites or broad geographic regions. It’s an approach that Shepson is also bringing to the Barnett Campaign, one of the 16 EDF-initiated methane studies including a broad aerial measurement component. Four of the 12 research teams in this project specialize in a variety of aircraft-based techniques to measure emissions that are being layered in with other measurements teams gathered through vehicle and ground-based techniques. The idea is to apply multiple approaches to measuring methane in one place, at one time as a way to compare methodologies and gain new insights, including a better understanding of the  differences between top-down and bottom-up techniques.

The Purdue-Cornell paper contributes to our growing understanding of human-caused methane emissions in the United States. While there are often differences among emissions reported by different studies, with variability observed between individual well sites and specific regions, they all support a pair of conclusions: methane emissions are a problem and there are viable solutions available. This includes the September 2013 University of Texas study – the first in EDF’s coordinated series that reported the results of some of the first direct measurements ever taken at hydraulically fractured well sites. Though the study found total emissions for the natural gas production segment were similar to EPA’s estimates in 2011 it revealed that emissions were much higher than estimated for some specific sources – valves, compressors, and pipes located at the well pad. The study also found emissions during “well completions”, after hydraulic fracturing when a well is cleared of liquids to allow production to begin, were dramatically lower when reduced emissions completions (RECs) were deployed. In 2012, when the measurements were made, drillers were accelerating deployment of REC equipment that was required by EPA late in 2012.

Conducting science to clarify our understanding is challenging work. It often takes time to define a problem and for enough data to be collected to ensure that differing insights converge. On the issue of methane emissions from the natural gas supply chain the scientific evidence is growing quickly, thus the call for action is getting louder. At the same time we’re beginning to see that effective policy is taking shape in leading states and at the federal level. The Purdue-Cornell study is yet another study that shows methane emissions from oil and gas operations is an urgent issue to address and that continued state and federal action is needed to reduce it.

By Ilissa Ocko

(This post originally appeared on EDF Voices)

Yesterday, the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released its last report in a three-part series that makes up the fifth assessment report (AR5) on the latest data and research on climate change. The reports have been issued approximately every five years since 1990.

This latest round of reports began in September 2013 with anupdate on the latest science behind climate change (known as Working Group I). Last month, the second report was released and discussed climate change impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability already observed and projected in the future (known as Working Group II).

The new report released yesterday (known as Working Group III) discusses actions to limit the magnitude and rate of climate change, termed mitigation. Over 400 experts from over 50 countries were involved in the development of the report, which was accepted by representatives from 195 nations.

Here are 5 key findings from the new lPCC report:

1. Global emissions of heat-trapping gases from human activities have continued to rise. Emissions are dominated by carbon dioxide (mainly from fossil fuel combustion and industrial processes), which account for 78% of total greenhouse gas emissions from 1970 to 2010 (when other gas emissions are weighted to incorporate warming capability relative to CO2). Greenhouse gas emissions have grown more rapidly between 2000 and 2010 than in previous decades despite a recent push to limit emissions; economic and population growth are driving these increases and continue to outgrow emission savings from energy improvements.

2. Action to limit the magnitude and rate of climate change is needed immediately. Climate conditions are changing rapidly as shown in Working Group I, and the impacts to society and ecosystems are unequivocal, consequential, and increasing as shown in Working Group II. Scenarios to limit warming to 2ºC (3.6ºF) relative to preindustrial levels require drastic cuts in greenhouse gas emissions by mid-century through large-scale changes in energy systems and land-use practices. The longer we delay action, the more expensive it will be.

3. It is key to reduce energy demand, deploy low-carbon technologies, and better conserve and manage forestry and agriculture. There is a range of technological and behavioral options for sustainable climate actions; nearly one thousand scenarios were analyzed in the report.

• Near-term reductions in energy demand through efficiency enhancements in transport, buildings, and industry sectors are cost-effective, provide flexibility for decarbonizing in the energy supply sector, reduce risks in energy supply, and prevent future lock-in to carbon-intensive infrastructures.
• Behavioral and lifestyle changes—such as lower energy use in households, buying longer-lasting products, changing dietary habits, and reducing food waste—can considerably lower greenhouse gas emissions alongside technological and structural changes. Further development and implementation of low-carbon energy and/or carbon removal technologies is important.
• Renewable energy technologies—such as wind, hydro, and solar power—have finally achieved a level of maturity to enable large-scale deployment. However, steep challenges exist, including varying costs, regional circumstances, and the existing background energy system.
• The best climate actions for forestry include afforestation, sustainable forest management, and reducing deforestation. For agriculture, best practices include cropland and grazing land management, and restoration of organic soil. Sustainable agriculture practices can also promote resilience to climate change impacts.

4. Effective actions will only be achieved by international cooperation. Climate change is a global problem because most heat-trapping gases accumulate over time and mix globally. Therefore, emissions by an individual, community, company, or country, affect the globe. The number of institutions for international cooperation is increasing, and sharing knowledge and technologies with other nations speeds up finding solutions. The issue is complicated by the fact that different countries’ past and future contributions to atmospheric greenhouse gas levels are different, as is their capacities to implement actions to limit climate change and build resilience.

5. Co-benefits strengthen the basis for undertaking climate action. Measures to limit energy demand (efficiency, conservation, and behavioral changes) and renewable alternatives can reduce the risk of energy supply, improve public health and the environment by limiting pollution, induce local and sectoral employment gains, support good business practices, improve security of energy supply at the national level, and eradicate poverty. Adverse side effects, such as reduced revenue from coal and oil exporters, can be to a certain extent avoided by the development of carbon capture and storage technologies.

The IPCC will conclude the AR5 in October 2014 with a final report that summarizes the three-part series, recapping the major findings of the physical science of climate change, its effects on society and ecosystems, and actions to avert catastrophic climate change.

There are many ways YOU can help promote climate actions, such as supporting the U.S. to continue its emission-reducing efforts like the EPA’s power plant standards.

By Ilissa Ocko

(This post originally appeared on EDF Voices)

Yesterday, the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released its last report in a three-part series that makes up the fifth assessment report (AR5) on the latest data and research on climate change. The reports have been issued approximately every five years since 1990.

This latest round of reports began in September 2013 with anupdate on the latest science behind climate change (known as Working Group I). Last month, the second report was released and discussed climate change impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability already observed and projected in the future (known as Working Group II).

The new report released yesterday (known as Working Group III) discusses actions to limit the magnitude and rate of climate change, termed mitigation. Over 400 experts from over 50 countries were involved in the development of the report, which was accepted by representatives from 195 nations.

Here are 5 key findings from the new lPCC report:

1. Global emissions of heat-trapping gases from human activities have continued to rise. Emissions are dominated by carbon dioxide (mainly from fossil fuel combustion and industrial processes), which account for 78% of total greenhouse gas emissions from 1970 to 2010 (when other gas emissions are weighted to incorporate warming capability relative to CO2). Greenhouse gas emissions have grown more rapidly between 2000 and 2010 than in previous decades despite a recent push to limit emissions; economic and population growth are driving these increases and continue to outgrow emission savings from energy improvements.

2. Action to limit the magnitude and rate of climate change is needed immediately. Climate conditions are changing rapidly as shown in Working Group I, and the impacts to society and ecosystems are unequivocal, consequential, and increasing as shown in Working Group II. Scenarios to limit warming to 2ºC (3.6ºF) relative to preindustrial levels require drastic cuts in greenhouse gas emissions by mid-century through large-scale changes in energy systems and land-use practices. The longer we delay action, the more expensive it will be.

3. It is key to reduce energy demand, deploy low-carbon technologies, and better conserve and manage forestry and agriculture. There is a range of technological and behavioral options for sustainable climate actions; nearly one thousand scenarios were analyzed in the report.

• Near-term reductions in energy demand through efficiency enhancements in transport, buildings, and industry sectors are cost-effective, provide flexibility for decarbonizing in the energy supply sector, reduce risks in energy supply, and prevent future lock-in to carbon-intensive infrastructures.
• Behavioral and lifestyle changes—such as lower energy use in households, buying longer-lasting products, changing dietary habits, and reducing food waste—can considerably lower greenhouse gas emissions alongside technological and structural changes. Further development and implementation of low-carbon energy and/or carbon removal technologies is important.
• Renewable energy technologies—such as wind, hydro, and solar power—have finally achieved a level of maturity to enable large-scale deployment. However, steep challenges exist, including varying costs, regional circumstances, and the existing background energy system.
• The best climate actions for forestry include afforestation, sustainable forest management, and reducing deforestation. For agriculture, best practices include cropland and grazing land management, and restoration of organic soil. Sustainable agriculture practices can also promote resilience to climate change impacts.

4. Effective actions will only be achieved by international cooperation. Climate change is a global problem because most heat-trapping gases accumulate over time and mix globally. Therefore, emissions by an individual, community, company, or country, affect the globe. The number of institutions for international cooperation is increasing, and sharing knowledge and technologies with other nations speeds up finding solutions. The issue is complicated by the fact that different countries’ past and future contributions to atmospheric greenhouse gas levels are different, as is their capacities to implement actions to limit climate change and build resilience.

5. Co-benefits strengthen the basis for undertaking climate action. Measures to limit energy demand (efficiency, conservation, and behavioral changes) and renewable alternatives can reduce the risk of energy supply, improve public health and the environment by limiting pollution, induce local and sectoral employment gains, support good business practices, improve security of energy supply at the national level, and eradicate poverty. Adverse side effects, such as reduced revenue from coal and oil exporters, can be to a certain extent avoided by the development of carbon capture and storage technologies.

The IPCC will conclude the AR5 in October 2014 with a final report that summarizes the three-part series, recapping the major findings of the physical science of climate change, its effects on society and ecosystems, and actions to avert catastrophic climate change.

There are many ways YOU can help promote climate actions, such as supporting the U.S. to continue its emission-reducing efforts like the EPA’s power plant standards.

Barataria Bay, 4 Years After The Deepwater Horizon Disaster
By Eileen Fleming, WWNO. April 16, 2014.
“As Sunday’s four-year anniversary of the BP oil spill approaches, environmental groups headed out…” (read more)

Final stretch of Gulf coast removed from active cleanup status
By Amy Wold, The Advocate. April 16, 2014.
“The active search for Deepwater Horizon oil along the Gulf Coast ended Tuesday…” (read more)

Coast Guard, BP end 'active cleanup' of Louisiana's coast, nearly four years after 2010 spill
By Manuel Torres, The Times-Picayune. April 15, 2014.
“BP on Tuesday said it has ended its "active cleanup" of Louisiana's coast, nearly four years…” (read more)

3 Louisiana congressmen say Obama administration too slow to release BP oil spill recovery funds
By Bruce Alpert, The Times-Picayune. April 15, 2014.
“Three Louisiana Republicans are accusing the Obama administration of taking too much time…” (read more)

West Bank levee authority to turn to private contractor for help with feral hog problem
By Andrew Shaw, The Times-Picayune. April 15, 2014.
“Feral hogs that have been rooting up West Bank levees will be targeted by a private contractor…” (read more)