Canadian satellite
gas detection company GHGSat reported in October 2024 that since late 2023 they
found 20,000 so-called super-emitters, up from 15,000 the year before. These
sites include oil and gas facilities, coal mines, and landfills. Super-emitters
are defined as those sites that emit at least 100 kilograms (220 pounds) of
methane per hour.
“Almost half of the methane emissions detected are coming
from the oil and gas industry, Germain said. About one-third came from “waste
management emissions,” and mining accounted for 16%.
Germain also
noted that North America and Eurasia were the biggest sources of emissions and that landfill emissions were the largest source in Canada. The
company added three satellites in 2023 but did not think that added
significantly to the emissions total.
Global Methane Detection Satellites and Companies
“GHGSat, based in Montreal, is one of a number of
for-profit and philanthropy-backed nonprofit methane satellite measurement and
analysis efforts that both collaborate and compete to provide an increasingly
clear view of the global issue. Others include Carbon Mapper, Kayrros and
MethaneSAT.”
It is great that
we now have much-improved emissions monitoring via satellites and that regions
and even companies emitting methane can be called out. GHGSat’s Stephane
Germain noted in a Real Clear Science op-ed:
“For our part, GHGSat has built a constellation of twelve
satellites producing more than three million site-level readings in 2023 alone.
In the coming years, that fleet will expand to 40+ satellites, with plans to
monitor every industrial site worldwide in near real-time by 2026.”
Carbon Mapper just
released its first images which I reported on a few weeks ago. MethaneSat involves
the Environmental Defense Fund which has been involved for several years in
methane emissions reduction efforts in partial collaboration with the oil
& gas industry.
Germain also emphasized
the need to act on the data and to involve collaboration with industrial
emitters:
“With effective emissions monitoring technologies now
more readily available than ever, both private industry and policymakers must
commit to incentivizing uptake globally. The data created by
emissions-detecting technologies is simply too critical to languish in a
database or on a website. It must be used for progress.”
“For emissions monitoring companies, the first step is
ensuring data accessibility for decisionmakers and encouraging its use.
Collaboration is key here. Working with the industry community most able to
solve the problem facilitates swift action. On the other hand, publicly shaming
industry operators risks disincentivizing emissions data use, undermining the
acceptance of satellites as a useful tool. It’s incumbent on industry to ensure
that decision-makers are presented with data that’s clear, relevant, and
facilitates action.”
“Organizations looking to effectively utilize emissions
data must adopt a data-centric approach that permeates all aspects of their
strategic planning processes, beyond a siloed view of meeting regulatory
requirements. For example, emissions data can inform financial planning by
pinpointing opportunities to capture methane before it leaks into the
atmosphere, minimizing product loss. Additionally, this data can be used as an
effective indicator of asset health, identifying critical infrastructure needs
and informing decisions about maintenance planning. Harnessing and deploying
emissions data beyond environmental reporting workflows empowers stakeholders
to fully capitalize on its value throughout their operations.”
The bottom line
is that the data cannot be ignored. Oil & gas operators need to be aware of
all of their emissions, particularly the super-emitters which are more
consequential to fix. The satellite networks can find and now quantify
emissions. This better detection should result in better mitigation, but as Germain
notes, the companies must adopt that “data-centered approach” and do what
id needed to reduce emissions.
AP’s Reporting and Reliance on Minority-View
Scientists for Commentary
Recently, I posted
about new research that identified the main sources, via carbon isotope analysis,
of global increases in atmospheric methane. The isotopes identified the vast
majority of the methane as coming from biogenic sources. The vast majority of
fossil fuel methane is thermogenic, not biogenic. Thus, the increases we have
been seeing over the last couple of decades have not come from the oil &
gas industry but from natural sources like wetlands and other anthropogenic
sources like landfills. Coal mines are another major source, with more emissions
coming from Chinese coal mines than the entire U.S. oil & gas industry.
A paper published
in Environmental Research Letters in September reported that global atmospheric
methane increased by 12% from 2000 to 2020, with natural emissions rising just
2% and anthropogenic emissions rising 28% over that period. The study’s lead
author, Stanford climate scientist Rob Jackson, also the head of the Global
Carbon Project, noted: “Methane is a climate menace that the world is
ignoring,” The study concluded that in 2000, about 60% of global methane emissions
were made by humans and by 2020 that share increased by 5% to 65%.
“In the last 20 years, methane emissions from coal
mining, oil and gas have jumped 33%, while landfill and waste increased 20% and
agriculture emissions rose 14%, according to the study. The biggest single
human-connected source of emissions are cows, Jackson said.
AP’s Seth
Borenstein has reported on the issue throughout the year and often utilizes Rob
Jackson and Robert Howarth as commentators. Both of these scientists seem to
get disproportionate mentions as experts on the subject and I would argue that
both are biased. Howarth, in particular, represents a minority view in that he
has a long history of inflating the emissions rates from the oil & gas
sector far beyond that of other studies. Jackson also has a history of trying
to link stray gas, emissions, and the dangers of gas stoves to the oil &
gas industry. I mention this because if one were to get a scientific opinion on
a subject, one generally would not go to a questionable minority source that disagreed
with the vast majority of other sources.
Borenstein,
apparently often relies on frequent comments from minority sources: i.e. Howarth
and Jackson. He is not the only one. The Biden administration, in enacting the
pause of LNG facility permitting, was directly influenced by Howarth’s minority
analysis of LNG emissions which includes (as always) his incorrect analysis of
methane emissions from the natural gas sector. While it is true that some LNG
will come from Permian Basin associated gas, much of it will come from the
Haynesville and Appalachian dry natural gas regions which have very low
emissions rates. Much of that gas has been certified through third-party
analysis as low emissions. Jackson was proved wrong as part of a group of
researchers attempting to link stray gas occurrences in Northeastern
Pennsylvania early in the Marcellus Shale play with Marcellus gas. In that
case, it was also carbon isotope analysis that confirmed that the source was
not Marcellus but shallow gas zones that occur naturally just below groundwater
aquifers. He has also been instrumental in doing studies trying to link natural
gas stoves with dangerous levels of contaminants like nitrogen oxides (NOx) and
other contaminants utilizing non-real-world conditions such as a complete lack
of ventilation. The study was challenged as inaccurate. Both of these
scientists seem to be frequent commentators on any study that challenges
mainstream science on these issues, and both seem to be adamantly against
fossil fuel development. Jackson was a contributing author on the recent paper
that linked the global methane emissions increase to biogenic microbial gas. In
that case, he was not being biased. He is also head of the Global Carbon
Project and as such, he should not be biased. I am working on another post arguing
against mixing politics with science in which these two scientists are
mentioned as examples of politicizing science.
One of Borenstein’s
September 2024 articles summarizes commentary by Howarth:
“Cornell University climate scientist Robert Howarth
faulted the study for not sufficiently emphasizing methane emissions from the
boom in shale gas drilling, known as fracking. He said that boom began in 2005
and coincided with a sharp rise in methane emissions, including a spike of
about 13 million tons (11.7 million metric tons) in the United States alone
since then.”
I would only note
that the methane released before 2015 is now long gone from the atmosphere
since it only stays in the atmosphere for about 10 years. Thus, I am not sure
what he is trying to say there. While there may have been more methane released
during the early part of shale gas drilling, that rate came down a few years
later as better leak detection and repair and prevention of emissions became
more widespread.
Jackson is
probably right that warmer global temperatures have caused natural methane to
increase since the microbes that produce it do it better at warmer temperatures.
The biggest human-caused increases in global methane were found in Asia, mostly
in China and India.
Jackson’s colleague
at Stanford, Evan Sherwin, now a science and policy researcher at Berkeley
Labs, led a study, published in Nature in March 2024 that concluded that average
emissions from oil & gas systems were up to 3% of gas produced. The study
utilized “one million anonymized measurements from airplanes that flew over
52% of American oil wells and 29% of gas production and delivery system sites
over a decade.” Even so, the study was not comprehensive. The fact that
most methane emissions come from the oil sector rather than the natural gas sector
means that it is weighted over the higher emitters. Thus, the average, over the
whole oil & gas sector is likely much less than 3%. Satellite detection has
indeed gotten better at quantifying emissions. One of its best capabilities is
to detect super-emitters. While Howarth may believe the study vindicates his
high estimates, it does not, since it does not address the emissions from
natural gas plays.
The study noted that the biggest area of leakage is clearly the Permian Basin of West Texas and New
Mexico, where flaring of gas is still rampant, although it has been regulated
more recently. As the natural gas play emissions clearly show, mitigation is possible,
However, it is more difficult and potentially much more costly in oil play
areas.
“Contrast that with tiny leak rates found in drilling in
the Denver region and the Pennsylvania area. Denver leaks are so low because of
local strictly enforced regulations and Pennsylvania is more gas-oriented,
Sherwin said.
Jackson and
Howarth both commented in Borenstein’s article about the study, noting that this
is proof the emissions are undercounted and that the industry basically ignores
the issue. There may be truth to that in the Permian Basin. New federal methane
emissions rules should help to reduce those emissions further. It is not just
flaring but also some methane venting (which is far worse) and other issues where
a lot of natural gas is dissolved in the oil and comes out as it is produced,
leaking from separators and tanks. It is clear, however, that Permian Basin companies
can and should do more to reduce emissions.
As noted, no
studies have shown any increases in methane emissions from the natural gas
sector. The so-called dry gas plays in the Appalachian Basin, the Utica and Marcellus
plays, have the lowest emissions rates along with the dry gas play in the
Haynesville Shale in Louisiana and Texas. Those rates are demonstrably lower
than the EPA estimates. Thus, methane emissions from the oil sector are by far the
main issue.
References:
US
energy industry methane emissions are triple what government thinks, study
finds. Seth Borenstein. AP. March 13, 2024. US
energy industry methane emissions are triple what government thinks, study
finds | AP News
Pollution
of the potent warming gas methane soars and people are mostly to blame. Seth
Borenstein. AP. September 10, 2024. Pollution
of the potent warming gas methane soars and people are mostly to blame | AP
News
World
may be merely scratching the surface on the scope of climate-changing methane
emissions. Seth Borenstein. AP. October 31, 2024. World
may be merely scratching the surface on the scope of climate-changing methane
emissions
Rocket
Science Is Easy, Now We Must Turn Emissions Data into Action. Stephane Germain.
Real Clear Science. September 17, 2024. Rocket
Science Is Easy, Now We Must Turn Emissions Data into Action | RealClearScience
GHGSat.
(website). Oil and Gas
Global | Emissions Monitoring - GHGSat
US oil
and gas system emissions from nearly one million aerial site measurements. Evan
D. Sherwin, Jeffrey S. Rutherford, Zhan Zhang, Yuanlei Chen, Erin B. Wetherley,
Petr V. Yakovlev, Elena S. F. Berman, Brian B. Jones, Daniel H. Cusworth,
Andrew K. Thorpe, Alana K. Ayasse, Riley M. Duren & Adam R. Brandt. Nature
volume 627, pages328–334 (March 2024). US oil and gas system
emissions from nearly one million aerial site measurements | Nature
No comments:
Post a Comment