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: Book

Desktop /Portals/0/images/_site/AAPG-newlogo-vertical-morepadding.jpg?width=50&h=50&mode=crop&anchor=middlecenter&quality=90amp;encoder=freeimage&progressive=true 4479 Book

See Also: Bulletin Article

Organic-carbon–rich shales of the lower Marcellus Formation were deposited at the toe and basinward of a prograding clinothem associated with a Mahantango Formation delta complex centered near Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. Distribution of these organic-carbon–rich shales was influenced by shifts in the delta complex driven by changes in rates of accommodation creation and by a topographically high carbonate bank that formed along the Findlay-Algonquin arch during deposition of the Onondaga Formation. Specifically, we interpret the Union Springs member (Shamokin Member of the Marcellus Formation) and the Onondaga Formation as comprising a single third-order depositional sequence. The Onondaga Formation was deposited in the lowstand to transgressive systems tract, and the Union Springs member was deposited in the transgressive, highstand, and falling-stage systems tract. The regional extent of parasequences, systems tracts, and the interpreted depositional sequence suggest that base-level fluctuations were primarily caused by allogenic forcing—eustasy, climate, or regional thermal uplift or subsidence—instead of basement fault reactivation as argued by previous workers. Paleowater depths in the region of Marcellus Formation black mudrock accumulation were at least 330 ft (100 m) as estimated by differences in strata thickness between the northwestern carbonate bank and basinal facies to the southeast. Geochemical analysis indicates anoxic to euxinic bottom-water conditions. These conditions were supported by a deep, stratified basin with a lack of circulation.
Desktop /Portals/0/PackFlashItemImages/WebReady/sequence-stratigrapy-and-depositional-environments-of.jpg?width=50&h=50&mode=crop&anchor=middlecenter&quality=90amp;encoder=freeimage&progressive=true 7963 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 16537 CD-DVD

See Also: Online Certificate Course

Geothermal Energy Basics is an online course that enables participants to review, analyze, and evaluate opportunities in the rapidly expanding market for geothermal energy.

Desktop /Portals/0/PackFlashItemImages/WebReady/oc-cc-geothermal-energy-basics.jpg?width=50&h=50&mode=crop&anchor=middlecenter&quality=90amp;encoder=freeimage&progressive=true 433 Online Certificate Course

See Also: Online e Symposium

Business and Economics, Economics, Reserve Estimation, Resource Estimates, Risk Analysis, Development and Operations, Engineering, Conventional Drilling, Coring, Directional Drilling, Infill Drilling, Drive Mechanisms, Production, Depletion Drive, Water Drive, Hydraulic Fracturing, Primary Recovery, Secondary Recovery, Gas Injection, Water Flooding, Tertiary Recovery, Chemical Flooding Processes, Microbial Recovery, Miscible Recovery, Thermal Recovery Processes, Reservoir Characterization, Environmental, Ground Water, Hydrology, Monitoring, Natural Resources, Pollution, Reclamation, Remediation, Remote Sensing, Water Resources, Geochemistry and Basin Modeling, Basin Modeling, Maturation, Migration, Oil and Gas Analysis, Oil Seeps, Petroleum Systems, Source Rock, Thermal History, Geophysics, Direct Hydrocarbon Indicators, Gravity, Magnetic, Seismic, Petrophysics and Well Logs, Carbonates, Sedimentology and Stratigraphy, (Carbonate) Shelf Sand Deposits, Carbonate Platforms, Carbonate Reefs, Dolostones, Clastics, Conventional Sandstones, Deep Sea / Deepwater, Deepwater Turbidites, Eolian Sandstones, Estuarine Deposits, Fluvial Deltaic Systems, High Stand Deposits, Incised Valley Deposits, Lacustrine Deposits, Low Stand Deposits, Marine, Regressive Deposits, Sheet Sand Deposits, Shelf Sand Deposits, Slope, Transgressive Deposits, Evaporites, Lacustrine Deposits, Salt, Sebkha, Sequence Stratigraphy, Structure, Compressional Systems, Extensional Systems, Fold and Thrust Belts, Geomechanics and Fracture Analysis, Salt Tectonics, Structural Analysis (Other), Tectonics (General), Deep Basin Gas, Diagenetic Traps, Fractured Carbonate Reservoirs, Structural Traps, Subsalt Traps, Alternative Resources, Uranium (Nuclear), Coal
Desktop /Portals/0/PackFlashItemImages/WebReady/oc-es-generic-hero.jpg?width=50&h=50&mode=crop&anchor=middlecenter&quality=90amp;encoder=freeimage&progressive=true 7817 Online e-Symposium