Confused Over Methane Data? Stand in Line

Over the past two years large variations in the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimates of the volume of methane released during natural gas production have been used by organizations arguing respectively that natural gas is cleaner than or dirtier than coal.

The data variation is confusing to the public as well as Washington, D.C., policy makers who could choose to restrict or encourage natural gas production based on its assumed environmental impact.

The confusion is justified: It is not simple to estimate how much methane escapes from half a million wells that use varied completion and production techniques.

It is especially difficult to assure the existing small sample of wells reflects the universe of well-completion operations such as flowback and liquids unloading. These operations are poorly sampled and show highly most variable methane emission volumes – more about this later in the article.

The best news is the technologies to reduce fugitive methane emissions, such as green completions, are improving and more widely used.

Also encouraging is the fact that additional studies are expected to define and constrain some of the poorly documented statistics for flowback and well unloading.

A timeline of methane emission studies may help explain how the discrepancies developed:

The EPA launched its greenhouse gas (GHG) Inventory, a national-level estimate of large and small emitters, 20 years ago.

The GHG Reporting Program (GHGRP), which collects data from the largest GHG emitting facilities in the United States, was launched in response to 2008 legislation.

Most sources, including petroleum refineries, started reporting 2010 emissions to the GHGRP in 2011. Petroleum and natural gas systems and CO2 injection projects (for enhanced oil recovery or geologic sequestration) reported emissions for the first time in September 2012 (for 2011 emissions).

Only facilities that emit over 25,000 metric tons of CO2 equivalents (MMCO2e) are required to submit reports.

EPA received 2011 emissions reports from 1,880 petroleum and natural gas facilities, including natural gas production, processing, transmission, distribution, storage and LNG facilities. These were used to estimate the 2011 Inventory that was released in April 2013.

EPA’s April 2012 GHG Inventory Report for the first time used Natural Gas Star data (industry reports that bragged about methane emissions reduction successes for 8,800 wells) as a surrogate for 2010 emissions from 488,000 wells.

Compared to prior years, the 2012 report revised the estimated 2010 emissions from natural gas systems up by about 11 percent, to 215.4 MMCO2e.

In response to the high EPA estimate, the American Petroleum Institute and America’s Natural Gas Alliance (API/ANGA) surveyed industry to collect data from nearly 91,000 wells, which projected that methane emissions from natural gas systems were 102.6 MMCO2e – about half the EPA estimate.

More importantly, the API/ANGA September 2012 report pointed out the need for additional sampling of well unloadings, which are poorly sampled but account for 51 percent of methane emissions from natural gas systems in EPA’s 2012 report.

EPA released the 2011 inventory in April 2013. The inventory revised the estimate of 2010 emissions for natural gas systems downward to 143.6 MMCO2e, a 33 percent reduction from the prior year’s report.

This change evidently reflects consideration of the API/ANGA survey results.

David T. Allen, the Melvin H. Gertz Regents Chair in Chemical Engineering at the University of Texas (UT), and 13 other researchers reported in the September 2013 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences on their study of 190 natural gas sites. The study, which was supported by the Environmental Defense Fund, yielded national estimates similar to that in EPA’s 2013 report on the 2011 inventory: methane emissions were 0.42 percent of gross gas production, versus 0.47 percent for the EPA 2011 inventory.

The Allen group plans additional studies to better define the emissions profile of pneumatic pumps ­– the largest source of methane emissions in their initial study – and liquids unloading, a technology defined by few measurements.

The University of Texas Environmental Defense Fund Study made direct measurements of 150 production sites that included 489 wells that were hydraulically fractured, 27 well-completion flowbacks, nine well unloadings and four workovers.

Well-completion flowbacks, which clear liquids from the wellbore to allow gas production, showed methane emissions from 0.01 million grams or metric ton (Mg) to 17 Mg, compared with an average of 81 Mg per event in the EPA 2011 national emission inventory, reported in April 2013.

The lower UT results reflect the growth in green completions, in which methane is captured or controlled – UT samples were collected in 2012, but the EPA data is from 2011.

Well unloading technologies vary, but the ones of interest divert gas production from the separator, reducing the backpressure and allowing more gas to flow, which lifts liquids out of the wellbore and improves gas flow.

The UT group monitored nine unloading events and the API/ANGA survey used by EPA included several thousand wells. Both studies showed a large variation in emissions levels between wells, while a small number of wells accounted for the majority of emissions.

Pneumatic pumps and controllers showed higher emissions than in the EPA 2011 inventory, as did equipment leaks.

The UT report highlights weaknesses in all the existing data sets – a fact that should encourage restraint by policy makers and advocates for and against natural gas development. 

Comments (0)


Policy Watch

Policy Watch - Edie Allison
Edie Allison began as the Director of the AAPG Geoscience and Energy Office in Washington D.C. in 2012.

Policy Watch

Policy Watch - Aaron Rodriguez

Aaron Rodriguez is the AAPG/AGI spring intern at the American Geosciences Institute. He is a student at Southern Utah University in Cedar City, Utah.

Policy Watch

Policy Watch is a monthly column of the EXPLORER written by the director of AAPG's  Geoscience and Energy Office in Washington, D.C. *The first article appeared in February 2006 under the name "Washington Watch" and the column name was changed to "Policy Watch" in January 2013 to broaden the subject matter to a more global view.

View column archives

New Tools from GEO-DC Office

GEO-DC now has a variety of tools to help you get the latest information on federal energy policy activity that affects petroleum E&P – all without filling your email box with clutter.

  • Daily Tweets from the GEO-DC director: 140 characters directing you to information about new regulations, scientific studies or major legislation. See @EdieAllisonAAPG on Twitter.
  • GEO-DC blog: Weekly, slightly longer explanations of regulations or laws that are in the news. Enter the AAPG Blog Zone on the AAPG website.
  • Policy Watch column in your AAPG EXPLORER: Every month, featuring indepth coverage of a topic that is in the news or soon will be.
  • Action Alerts: Sign up for alerts about draft regulations or pending legislation, with guides for sending a formal response to Congress or a federal agency. Go to the AAPG GEO-DC home page.

See Also: Bulletin Article

The Tarim Basin is one of the most important hydrocabon-bearing evaporite basins in China. Four salt-bearing sequences, the Middle and Lower Cambrian, the Mississippian, the Paleogene, and the Neogene, have various thickness and areal distribution. They are important detachment layers and intensely affect the structural deformation in the basin. The Kuqa depression is a subordinate structural unit with abundant salt structures in the Tarim Basin. Salt overthrusts, salt pillows, salt anticlines, salt diapirs, and salt-withdrawal basins are predominant in the depression. Contraction that resulted from orogeny played a key function on the formation of salt structures. Growth strata reveal that intense salt structural deformation in the Kuqa depression occurred during the Himalayan movement from Oligocene to Holocene, with early structural deformation in the north and late deformation in the south. Growth sequences also record at least two phases of salt tectonism. In the Yingmaili, Tahe, and Tazhong areas, low-amplitude salt pillows are the most common salt structures, and these structures are commonly accompanied by thrust faults. The faulting and uplifting of basement blocks controlled the location of salt structures. The differences in the geometries of salt structures in different regions show that the thickness of the salt sequences has an important influence on the development of salt-cored detachment folds and related thrust faults in the Tarim Basin.

Salt sequences and salt structures in the Tarim Basin are closely linked to hydrocarbon accumulations. Oil and gas fields have been discovered in the subsalt, intrasalt, and suprasalt strata. Salt deformation has created numerous potential traps, and salt sequences have provided a good seal for the preservation of hydrocarbon accumulations. Large- and small-scale faults related with salt structures have also given favorable migration pathways for oil and gas. When interpreting seismic profiles, special attention needs to be paid to the clastic and carbonate interbeds within the salt sequences because they may lead to incorrect structural interpretation. In the Tarim Basin, the subsalt anticlinal traps are good targets for hydrocarbon exploration.

Desktop /Portals/0/PackFlashItemImages/WebReady/salt-structures-and-hydrocarbon-accumulations-in-the-Tarim-Basin,-northwest-China.jpg?width=50&h=50&mode=crop&anchor=middlecenter&quality=90amp;encoder=freeimage&progressive=true 3254 Bulletin Article

This article addresses the controls exerted by sedimentologic and diagenetic factors on the preservation and modification of pore-network characteristics (porosity, pore types, sizes, shapes, and distribution) of carbonates belonging to the Bolognano Formation. This formation, exposed at the Majella Mountain, Italy, is composed of Oligocene–Miocene carbonates deposited in middle- to outer-ramp settings. The carbonates consist of (1) grainstones predominantly composed of either larger benthic foraminifera, especially Lepidocyclina, or bryozoans; (2) grainstones to packstones with abundant echinoid plates and spines; and (3) marly wackestones to mudstones with planktonic foraminifera.

The results of this field- and laboratory-based study are consistent with skeletal grain assemblages, grain sizes, sorting, and shapes, all representing the sedimentologic factors responsible for high values of connected primary macroporosity in grainstones deposited on the high-energy, middle to proximal outer ramp. Cementation, responsible for porosity reduction and overall macropore shape and distribution in grainstones to packstones deposited on the intermediate outer ramp, was mainly dependent on the following factors: (1) amount of echinoid plates and spines, (2) grain size, (3) grain sorting and shapes, and (4) clay amount. Differently, in the wackestones to mudstones, laid down on the low-energy, distal outer ramp, matrix is the key sedimentologic factor responsible for low values of scattered macroporosity and dominance of microporosity. The aforementioned results may be useful to improve the prediction of reservoir quality by means of mapping, simulating, and assessing individual carbonate facies with peculiar pore-network characteristics.

Desktop /Portals/0/PackFlashItemImages/WebReady/sedimentologic-and-diagenetic-controls-italy.jpg?width=50&h=50&mode=crop&anchor=middlecenter&quality=90amp;encoder=freeimage&progressive=true 3706 Bulletin Article

See Also: CD DVD

Desktop /Portals/0/images/_site/AAPG-newlogo-vertical-morepadding.jpg?width=50&h=50&mode=crop&anchor=middlecenter&quality=90amp;encoder=freeimage&progressive=true 3979 CD-DVD
Desktop /Portals/0/images/_site/AAPG-newlogo-vertical-morepadding.jpg?width=50&h=50&mode=crop&anchor=middlecenter&quality=90amp;encoder=freeimage&progressive=true 4324 CD-DVD

See Also: Online e Symposium

This e-symposium presents techniques for predicting pore pressure in seals by examining case studies from the Gulf of Mexico and incorporating the relationship between rocks, fluids, stress, and pressure.

Desktop /Portals/0/PackFlashItemImages/WebReady/oc-es-exploring-the-geopressure-risk-in-deep-water-frontier-plays.jpg?width=50&h=50&mode=crop&anchor=middlecenter&quality=90amp;encoder=freeimage&progressive=true 1484 Online e-Symposium