Although natural gas produces fewer greenhouse gas emissions and other pollutants than coal or oil, it is a major contributor to climate change, an urgent global problem. Skitterphoto / PIxabay
By Emily Grubert
Natural gas is a versatile fossil fuel that accounts for about a third of U.S. energy use. Although it produces fewer greenhouse gas emissions and other pollutants than coal or oil, natural gas is a major contributor to climate change, an urgent global problem. Reducing emissions from the natural gas system is especially challenging because natural gas is used roughly equally for electricity, heating, and industrial applications.
<p>There's an emerging argument that maybe there could be a direct substitute for fossil natural gas in the form of renewable natural gas (RNG) – a renewable fuel designed to be nearly indistinguishable from fossil natural gas. RNG could be made from biomass or from captured carbon dioxide and electricity.</p><p>Based on what's known about these systems, however, I believe climate benefits might not be as large as advocates claim. This matters because RNG isn't widely used yet, and decisions about whether to invest in it are being made now, in places like <a href="https://www.cleanenergyfuels.com/blog/influx-of-california-rng-fuels-local-economy-protects-climate" target="_blank">California</a>, <a href="https://www.oregon.gov/energy/Get-Involved/Pages/RNG-Advisory-Committee.aspx" target="_blank">Oregon</a>, <a href="http://biomassmagazine.com/articles/15172/inslee-signs-bill-to-promote-rng-in-state-of-washington" target="_blank">Washington</a>, <a href="https://energynews.us/2019/12/03/midwest/michigan-utilities-see-role-for-renewable-natural-gas-but-cost-barrier-remains/" target="_blank">Michigan</a>, <a href="https://investor.southerncompany.com/information-for-investors/latest-news/latest-news-releases/press-release-details/2020/Southern-Company-Gas-grows-leadership-team-to-focus-on-climate-action-innovation-and-renewable-natural-gas-strategy/default.aspx" target="_blank">Georgia</a> and <a href="https://www.epa.gov/natural-gas-star-program/rng-interconnect-guideline-new-york" target="_blank">New York</a>.</p><p>As someone who studies <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=3RI02dcAAAAJ&hl=en" target="_blank">sustainability</a>, I research how decisions made now might influence the environment and society in the future. I'm particularly interested in how energy systems contribute to climate change.</p><p>Right now, energy is responsible for most of the pollution worldwide that <a href="https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/syr/" target="_blank">causes climate change</a>. Since energy infrastructure, like power plants and pipelines, <a href="http://emilygrubert.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/eia_860_2017_map.html" target="_blank">lasts a long time</a>, it's important to consider the climate change emissions that society <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-019-1364-3" target="_blank">is committing to</a> with new investments in these systems. At the moment, renewable natural gas is more a proposal than reality, which makes this a great time to ask: What would investing in RNG mean for climate change?</p>
<span style="display:block;position:relative;padding-top:56.25%;" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="6bd9fda1316965a9ba24dd60fd9cc34d"><iframe lazy-loadable="true" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/3KaMnkmf0tc?rel=0" width="100%" height="auto" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" style="position:absolute;top:0;left:0;width:100%;height:100%;"></iframe></span>
What RNG Is and Why it Matters
<p>Most equipment that uses energy can only use a single kind of fuel, but the fuel might come from different resources. For example, you can't charge your computer with gasoline, but it can run on electricity generated from coal, natural gas or solar power.</p><p>Natural gas is almost pure methane, <a href="https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/natural-gas/" target="_blank">currently sourced</a> from raw, fossil natural gas produced from <a href="https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/natural-gas/where-our-natural-gas-comes-from.php" target="_blank">deposits deep underground</a>. But methane could come from renewable resources, too.</p><p><span></span>Two main methane sources could be used to make RNG. First is <a href="https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/inventory-us-greenhouse-gas-emissions-and-sinks" target="_blank">biogenic methane</a>, produced by bacteria that digest organic materials in manure, landfills and wastewater. Wastewater treatment plants, landfills and dairy farms have captured and used biogenic methane as an energy resource for <a href="http://emilygrubert.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/eia_860_2017_map.html" target="_blank">decades</a>, in a form usually called <a href="https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/biomass/landfill-gas-and-biogas.php" target="_blank">biogas</a>.</p><p>Some biogenic methane is generated naturally when organic materials break down without oxygen. Burning it for energy can be beneficial for the climate if doing so prevents methane from escaping to the atmosphere.</p><p>In theory, there's enough of this climate-friendly methane available to replace <a href="https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ab9335/meta" target="_blank">about 1% of the energy</a> that the current natural gas system provides. The largest share is found at landfills.</p><p>The other source for RNG doesn't exist in practice yet, but could theoretically be a much larger resource than biogenic methane. Often called <a href="https://www.powermag.com/why-power-to-gas-may-flourish-in-a-renewables-heavy-world/" target="_blank">power-to-gas</a>, this methane would be intentionally manufactured from carbon dioxide and hydrogen using electricity. If all the inputs are climate-neutral – meaning, for example, that the electricity used to create the RNG is generated from resources without greenhouse gas emissions – then the combusted RNG would also be climate-neutral.</p><p>So far, RNG of either type isn't widely available. Much of the current conversation focuses on whether and how to make it available. For example, <a href="https://www.sempra.com/socalgas-takes-next-step-toward-offering-renewable-natural-gas" target="_blank">SoCalGas in California</a>, <a href="https://energynews.us/2019/01/30/midwest/minnesota-utility-wants-to-offer-customers-renewable-natural-gas-option/" target="_blank">CenterPoint Energy in Minnesota and Vermont Gas Systems in Vermont</a> either offer or have proposed offering RNG to consumers, in the same way that many utilities allow customers to opt in to renewable electricity.</p>
Renewable Isn’t Always Sustainable
<p>If RNG could be a renewable replacement for fossil natural gas, why not move ahead? Consumers have shown that they are <a href="https://www.nrel.gov/analysis/green-power.html" target="_blank">willing to buy renewable electricity</a>, so we might expect similar enthusiasm for RNG.</p><p>The key issue is that methane isn't just a fuel – it's also a <a href="https://www.eia.gov/environment/emissions/ghg_report/ghg_overview.php" target="_blank">potent greenhouse gas</a> that contributes to climate change. Any methane that is manufactured intentionally, whether from biogenic or other sources, will contribute to climate change if it enters the atmosphere.</p><p>And <a href="http://doi.org/10.1126/science.aar7204" target="_blank">releases</a> <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2019.07.029" target="_blank">will happen</a>, from newly built production systems and <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-methane-emissions-matter-to-climate-change-5-questions-answered-122684" target="_blank">existing, leaky transportation and user infrastructure</a>. For example, the moment you smell gas before the pilot light on a stove lights the ring? That's methane leakage, and it contributes to climate change.</p><p>To be clear, RNG is almost certainly better for the climate than fossil natural gas because byproducts of burning RNG won't contribute to climate change. But doing somewhat better than existing systems is no longer enough to respond to the <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2923" target="_blank">urgency</a> of climate change. The world's <a href="https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/chapter/spm/" target="_blank">primary international body on climate change</a> suggests we need to decarbonize by 2030 to mitigate the worst effects of climate change.</p>Scant Climate Benefits
<p><a href="https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ab9335/meta" target="_blank">My recent research</a> suggests that for a system large enough to displace a lot of fossil natural gas, RNG is probably not as good for the climate as <a href="https://investor.southerncompany.com/information-for-investors/latest-news/latest-news-releases/press-release-details/2020/Southern-Company-Gas-grows-leadership-team-to-focus-on-climate-action-innovation-and-renewable-natural-gas-strategy/default.aspx" target="_blank">is publicly claimed</a>. Although RNG has lower climate impact than its fossil counterpart, likely high demand and methane leakage mean that it probably will contribute to climate change. In contrast, renewable sources such as wind and solar energy do not <a href="https://www.eia.gov/environment/emissions/carbon/" target="_blank">emit climate pollution directly</a>.</p><p>What's more, creating a large RNG system would require building mostly new production infrastructure, since RNG comes from different sources than fossil natural gas. Such investments are both long-term commitments and opportunity costs. They would devote money, political will and infrastructure investments to RNG instead of alternatives that could achieve a zero greenhouse gas emission goal.</p><p>When climate change first <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/1988/06/24/us/global-warming-has-begun-expert-tells-senate.html" target="_blank">broke into the political conversation</a> in the late 1980s, investing in long-lived systems with low but non-zero greenhouse gas emissions was still compatible with aggressive climate goals. Now, zero greenhouse gas emissions is the target, and my research suggests that large deployments of RNG likely won't meet that goal.</p>From Your Site Articles
- Solar Employs More Workers Than Coal, Oil and Natural Gas ... ›
- The Truth About Natural Gas: A 'Green' Bridge to Hell - EcoWatch ›
- Why Natural Gas Is a Bridge Fuel to Nowhere - EcoWatch ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Mountains of produce, including eggs, milk and onions, are going to waste as the COVID-19 pandemic shutters restaurants, restricts transport, limits what workers are able to do and disrupts supply chains. United States government work
By Emma Charlton
Gluts of food left to rot as a consequence of coronavirus aren't just wasteful – they're also likely to damage the environment.
<p>Mountains of produce, including eggs, milk and onions, are going to waste as the COVID-19 pandemic shutters restaurants, restricts transport, limits what workers are able to do and disrupts supply chains. And as that food decays, it releases methane, a powerful greenhouse gas.</p><p>Fresh milk and eggs have been dumped, and some ripe crops reploughed back into fields, according to reports in the <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/closed-due-to-coronavirus-restaurants-clear-out-their-pantries-11586005203?mod=article_inline" target="_blank">Wall Street Journal</a> and the <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/11/business/coronavirus-destroying-food.html" target="_blank">New York Times</a>. While consumer demand for some supermarket items has risen as a result of lockdowns, it's unlikely to offset steep declines elsewhere, such in restaurants and school and workplace canteens.</p>
Methane on the Rise
<p>Not only is this a tragic waste of food at a time when many are going hungry, it is also an <a href="https://donatedontdump.net/2014/07/07/the-effects-of-food-waste-on-the-environment-by-junemy-pantig/" target="_blank">environmental hazard</a> and could contribute to global warming. Landfill gas – <a href="https://www.epa.gov/lmop/basic-information-about-landfill-gas" target="_blank">roughly half methane and half carbon dioxide (CO2)</a> – is a natural byproduct of the decomposition of organic material.</p><img lazy-loadable="true" src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMzQyOTEyMi9vcmlnaW4ucG5nIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYwODYyODk1N30.AyyC8WbvDKRQeTPpTksAIkGT_Sy5qJqK3ok1_GiaNWc/img.png?width=980" id="49c22" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="48f85bf45b5f3ba2648a87bedab555bc" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" />
Food decay leads to production of greenhouse gases, methane and carbon dioxide. EPA
<p>Methane is a potent greenhouse gas, 28 to <a href="https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/SYR_AR5_FINAL_full.pdf" target="_blank">36 times more effective than CO2 at trapping heat</a> in the atmosphere over a 100-year period, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.</p><p>"Many export-oriented producers produce volumes far too large for output to be absorbed in local markets, and thus <a href="https://unctad.org/en/pages/newsdetails.aspx?OriginalVersionID=2333" target="_blank">organic waste levels have mounted substantially</a>," says Robert Hamwey, Economic Affairs Officer at UN agency UNCTAD. "Because this waste is left to decay, levels of methane emissions, a greenhouse gas, from decaying produce are expected to rise sharply in the crisis and immediate post-crisis months."</p><img lazy-loadable="true" src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMzQyOTE3Ny9vcmlnaW4ucG5nIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYwNzYyMzEzNH0.ckRClc0SX50kOEZYHgLLx_OoFHMIxtPVF4BBc4eDoBo/img.png?width=980" id="3a11c" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="6fe3b382949cce9971508db403d0973d" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" />
Food supply chains are easily disrupted. UN FAO
<p>Dumping food was already a problem before the crisis. In America alone, <a href="https://www.refed.com/?sort=economic-value-per-ton" target="_blank">$218 billion is spent growing, processing, transporting</a> and disposing of food that is never eaten, estimates ReFED, a collection of business, non-profit and government leaders committed to reducing food waste. That's equivalent to around 1.3% of GDP.</p><p>Since the pandemic took hold, <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-52267943" target="_blank">farmers are dumping 14 million liters</a> of milk each day because of disrupted supply routes, estimates Dairy Farmers of America. A chicken processor was forced to <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/11/business/coronavirus-destroying-food.html" target="_blank">destroy 750,000 unhatched eggs a week</a>, according to the New York Times, which also cited an onion farmer letting most of his harvest decompose because he couldn't distribute or store them.</p>Food Prices Collapsing
<p>The excess has also seen prices collapse. The <a href="http://www.fao.org/worldfoodsituation/foodpricesindex/en/" target="_blank">FAO Food Price Index</a> (FFPI) averaged 162.5 points in May 2020, down 3.1 points from April and reaching the lowest monthly average since December 2018. The gauge has dropped for four consecutive months, and the latest decline reflects falling values of all the food commodities – dairy, meat, cereal, vegetable – except sugar, which rose for the first time in three months.</p><p>All this while the pandemic is exacerbating other global food trends.</p><p>"This year, some 49 million extra people may fall into extreme poverty due to the COVID-19 crisis," said António Guterres, Secretary-General of the UN. "The number of people who are acutely food or nutrition insecure will rapidly expand. <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fGhLKAbNDiY&feature=youtu.be" target="_blank">Even in countries with abundant food, we see risks of disruptions in the food supply chain</a>."</p><div id="c20f1" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="9bd104b5fbd7a34965124f57f3c1357a"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1271747397002067968" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">Our food systems are failing us. And #COVID19 is making things worse.
We must invest in the future & transform our… https://t.co/uV8Kkn78Q1</div> — FAO (@FAO)<a href="https://twitter.com/FAO/statuses/1271747397002067968">1592043182.0</a></blockquote></div><p>The World Economic Forum has launched its <a href="https://www.weforum.org/great-reset/about" target="_blank">Great Reset initiative</a>, which urgently calls for global stakeholders to cooperate in managing the consequences of the COVID-19 crisis. It calls on policymakers to put the environment at the heart of plans to rebuild as we emerge from the pandemic.</p>
<p class=""><em>Reposted with permission from <a href="https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/06/covid-19-food-waste-mountains-environment/" target="_blank">World Economic Forum</a>.</em></p>From Your Site Articles
- Food Waste Set to Increase by 33 Percent Within 10 Years - EcoWatch ›
- Reducing Food Waste Is Good for Economy and Climate, Report Says ›
- 23 Organizations Eliminating Food Waste During COVID-19 ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
EcoWatch Daily Newsletter
A fire in Greenland on July 10. Zombie fires smolder underground for months, notably in dense peatlands, and then flare-up when it grows warmer and drier. NASA
By Mark Kaufman
Some fires won't die.
They survive underground during the winter and then reemerge the following spring, as documented in places like Alaska. They're called "overwintering," "holdover," or "zombie" fires, and they may have now awoken in the Arctic Circle — a fast-warming region that experienced unprecedented fires in 2019. The European Union's Copernicus Atmosphere Monitoring Service is now watching these fires, via satellite.
<img lazy-loadable="true" src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.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.pjiv81dzvE2uWSwZVXH_hhoYKLl6go7m4QXYRodC8aQ/img.jpg" id="d48aa" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="79880bae7db4253c569739c541d26709" />Zombie fires could be awakening in the Arctic <p>Zombie fires smolder underground for months, notably in dense <a href="https://www.iucn.org/resources/issues-briefs/peatlands-and-climate-change" target="_blank">peatlands</a> (wetlands composed of ancient, decomposed plants), and then flare-up when it grows warmer and drier. "Zombie" is fitting.</p><p is="">"It really does describe what these fires do," said Thomas Smith, an assistant professor in environmental geography at the London School of Economics. "They recover and they're difficult to kill."</p><p is="">In April, two snowmachine-riding fire technicians <a href="https://akfireinfo.com/2020/04/24/despite-heavy-snow-melt-deshka-landing-hot-spots-still-smoldering/" target="_blank">found a zombie fire still smoldering</a> near Willow, Alaska. The fire <a is="" href="https://inciweb.nwcg.gov/incident/article/6532/50551/" target="_blank">started in August 2019</a>.</p><p is="">This smoldering can quickly escalate to new blazes. "Zombie fires start burning as soon as the snow melts," said Jessica McCarty, an Arctic fire researcher and assistant professor in the Department of Geography at Miami University.</p><p is="">These overwintering fires are most likely to emerge <a href="https://presentations.copernicus.org/EGU2020/EGU2020-6013_presentation.pdf" target="_blank">after big wildfire years</a> with lots of burned land. They often light up on the edge of the previous year's blazes. "It suggests a fire might have survived," said Smith. Then, the fires can ignite dried-out vegetation. </p><p is="">Importantly, it's difficult to say with certainty that the remote, early-season Arctic Circle fires identified by the European Union's Copernicus Atmosphere Monitoring Service are all actually zombie fires. It's possible people lit some or many of the blazes for agricultural purposes, or by accident. "It's really difficult to say for sure," noted Smith. </p>
<div id="48215" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="4e094a6eb3039925709e345158051f4b"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1258045476731002882" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">Are these 'zombie' fires? As the snow melted in Arctic Siberia last week, a number of fires have been detected by s… https://t.co/MBZbBYqA2o</div> — Dr Thomas Smith 🔥🌏 (@Dr Thomas Smith 🔥🌏)<a href="https://twitter.com/DrTELS/statuses/1258045476731002882">1588776389.0</a></blockquote></div>
<div id="9867e" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="1ca30a2e1254c46ee7d050fcc62cf14f"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1265305088077312001" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">🟠 Siberian #wildfire🔥 within the #Arctic Circle at 68.6°N in the #SakhaRepublic, South of #Chersky, #Russia🇷🇺 26 Ma… https://t.co/dV5qtewcQC</div> — Pierre Markuse (@Pierre Markuse)<a href="https://twitter.com/Pierre_Markuse/statuses/1265305088077312001">1590507215.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p is="">If they are truly zombie fires, that means 2019's blazes may ignite robust 2020 fires this summer.</p><p is="">"If this is the case, then under certain environmental conditions, we may see a cumulative effect of last year's fire season in the Arctic, which will feed into the upcoming season and could lead to large-scale and long-term fires across the same region once again," Mark Parrington, a senior scientist and wildfire expert at the European Union's Copernicus Atmosphere Monitoring Service, said in a statement.</p><p is="">Overall, fires in the Arctic Circle — which can release colossal amounts of heat-trapping carbon dioxide and methane into the atmosphere — have been normal this year, but they're expected to pick up steam in June. What's more, they'll likely be enhanced by both <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/04/europe/russia-warm-temperatures-moscow-climate-intl/index.html" target="_blank">Russia's hottest winter on record</a> and recent <a is="" href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2020/05/22/siberia-heat-wave/" target="_blank">Siberian heat waves</a>, where temperatures reached some 40 degrees Fahrenheit above average.</p><p>"We could have quite a lengthy fire season," said Smith. Wildfires feast on dry vegetation, Smith emphasized, and there will likely be ample amounts of parched land this summer.</p>
So What Happens Now?
<p>In the future, fire researchers expect an uptick in zombie fires. That's because the <a is="" href="https://mashable.com/article/climate-change-business-as-usual-catastrophic/" target="_blank">planet is relentlessly warming</a>, particularly in the Arctic, which means more ready-to-burn vegetation. It's already happening. "Arctic fires<strong> </strong>are becoming more common overall," explained Miami University's McCarty.</p><p is="">And some of these fires will inevitably smolder all winter, under the snow. "With a warmer Arctic, we're more likely to see overwintering fires," noted Smith.</p><p is="">It's challenging to stop zombie fires. They can happen in extremely remote places, without any roads or means of dousing them before they erupt. "We have no way of fighting them," said McCarty. "They're often fairly far-removed. How are we going to put them out?"</p><p is="">It's a question of profound importance in the decades ahead. Preventing human-caused Arctic wildfires will be critical, emphasized McCarty. That's because Arctic fires aren't just burning trees, they're often burning through <a is="" href="https://blogs.agu.org/geospace/2019/12/06/peatlands-release-more-methane-when-disturbed-by-roads/" target="_blank">peatlands</a>, which release bounties of the heat-trapping greenhouse gas methane into the air. When it comes to trapping heat, methane is <a href="https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/overview-greenhouse-gases" target="_blank">25 times more potent</a> than carbon dioxide over the course of a century.</p><p is="">It's a vicious cycle. The warming Arctic produces more fires. More fires burn more forests and peatlands. This releases more methane and carbon dioxide into the air. This contributes to ever more planetary heating.</p><p is="">"Not stopping these zombie fires means further degrading these Arctic ecosystems," said McCarty. "Further warming leads to more zombie fires. It's not great."</p><a target="_blank"></a><blockquote><a href="https://mashable.com/article/zombie-fires-arctic/#" target="_blank"></a></blockquote>From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
A gas flare burns in the Permian Basin in Texas. Bronte Wittpenn / Bloomberg Creative Photos
The largest oil and gas producing area in the U.S. is emitting more than twice as much methane as previously believed.
<p>The calculations came in a study of the Permian Basin published in <a href="https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/6/17/eaaz5120" target="_blank">Science Advances Wednesday</a> and undertaken by scientists at Harvard University and the <a href="https://www.edf.org/" target="_blank">Environmental Defense Fund</a> (EDF). The findings cast doubt on the argument that <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/natural-gas" target="_self">natural gas</a> is a cleaner energy source than <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/coal" target="_self">coal</a> when it comes to fueling the <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/climate-change/" target="_self">climate crisis</a>.</p><p>"Our study found that the quantity of methane emitted in the Permian Basin [is] the highest ever measured from any U.S. oil and gas basin. This is a really big deal from a climate standpoint," lead authors Harvard atmospheric scientist Yuzhong Zhang and EDF scientist Ritesh Gautam said in an <a href="https://news.bloomberglaw.com/environment-and-energy/permian-basin-oil-fields-leak-enough-methane-for-7-million-homes" target="_blank">email to Bloomberg Wednesday</a>.</p>
<div id="10cec" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="bb6b222d01cf4c76a45619b2033c42f1"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1254153333079707649" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">New satellite study: "There's so much methane escaping from Permian oil and gas operations that it nearly triples t… https://t.co/WBc9ADUjxT</div> — Fred Krupp (@Fred Krupp)<a href="https://twitter.com/FredKrupp/statuses/1254153333079707649">1587848430.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p>The Permian Basin, which straddles West Texas and New Mexico, produces more than a third of the country's oil and 10 percent of its natural gas, according to <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/methane-permian-basin-oil-gas-climate-change/?fbclid=IwAR2TIwNX6rZpo3ErIXu8O4fc0A7Uu07oWEA7WRpXyZsk3jyNX_EHJLyE4nM" target="_blank">CBS News</a>. The researchers used 200,000 individual readings from the European Space Agency's TROPOMI satellite instrument to determine the field was leaking 3.7 percent of the methane it produces, <a href="http://blogs.edf.org/energyexchange/2020/04/22/satellites-and-state-regulators-new-data-spotlights-extreme-emissions-and-need-for-action-in-nations-largest-oilfield/?utm_source=twitter&utm_campaign=fkrupp_none_upd_marcomm&utm_medium=social-media&utm_id=1587752428" target="_blank">EDF reported</a>. That's more than two times the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimate, according to <a href="https://insideclimatenews.org/news/22042020/permian-basin-methane-emissions-texas-new-mexico" target="_blank">InsideClimate News</a>. It's also enough wasted gas to power 7 million Texas homes and as much greenhouse gas pollution as the carbon dioxide emissions of all U.S. homes, the study found.</p><p>What's more, it nearly triples the climate impact of the natural gas produced in the region over the last 20 years, according to EDF, challenging the argument that natural gas can be a cleaner bridge fuel in the transition from coal to renewable energy.</p>
<p>"The most <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ese3.35" target="_blank">up-to-date thinking</a> is that for comparing coal and natural gas to generate electricity, gas is worse than coal if the methane emission rate is greater than 2.7%," Cornell University methane expert Dr. Robert Howarth, who was not involved in the study, told CBS News. At 3.7 percent, the Permian Basin leakage rate definitely fits the bill.</p><p>Methane is so dangerous for the climate because it is around 28 times more powerful than carbon dioxide at warming the planet over 100 years and more than 80 times more powerful over 20 years, according to <a href="https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/methane/" target="_blank">National Geographic</a>. Because it only stays in the atmosphere for 12 years, however, reducing its emissions can have a more immediate impact on fighting global warming, InsideClimate News pointed out.</p><p>The increased emissions are partly linked to the rise of <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/fracking/" target="_self">fracking</a>, which, along with horizontal drilling, has driven the increase in U.S. oil and gas production since 2005, according to CBS News.</p><p>"After staying level for the first decade of the 21st century, methane emissions have been rising quickly over the past decade," Howarth told CBS. "My <a href="https://www.biogeosciences.net/16/3033/2019/" target="_blank">research</a> indicates that shale gas development in the U.S. is responsible for at least one-third of the total increase in these emissions globally."</p>
<p>The study's authors had several recommendations for how oil and gas producers could reduce methane emissions, such as improving design, management, regulation and infrastructure.</p><p>However, the <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/trump-administration" target="_self">Trump administration</a> is making it easier for the industry to sidestep improvements.</p><p>"Trump's EPA has proposed to substantially weaken or even eliminate regulations, adopted during the Obama administration, to control methane emissions from oil and gas facilities," Romany Webb, a senior fellow at the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia Law School, told CBS.</p><p>There is also the question of how the <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/oil-prices-fall-below-zero-2645784342.html" target="_self">fall in oil demand</a> prompted by the <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/coronavirus" target="_self">coronavirus</a> pandemic will impact methane emissions. The data in the study was collected over 11 months in 2018 and 2019, when production and demand was normal.</p><p>"There is going to be a lot less wells being drilled, probably less gas being flared, even wells [that] will [probably] be shut in," study coauthor and EDF scientist David Lyon told InsideClimate News. "If that is done properly, then I think you will have less emissions. At the same time, I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of operators cut back on their environmental staff and they do [fewer] leak inspections and other activities that would reduce emissions. They may have less ability to respond to malfunctions and things that cause emissions."</p>
From Your Site Articles
- Exxon Now Wants to Write the Rules for Regulating Methane ... ›
- CEO of Major Shale Oil Company 'Has Second Thoughts' on ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
A gas flare from the Shell Chemical LP petroleum refinery illuminates the sky on August 21, 2019 in Norco, Louisiana. Drew Angerer / Getty Images.
Methane levels in the atmosphere experienced a dramatic rise in 2019, preliminary data released Sunday shows.
<p>The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration found that methane levels increased by 11.54 parts per billion (ppb) in 2019 over 2018 levels, the largest increase since 2014. "Last year's jump in methane is one of the biggest we've seen over the past twenty years," Rob Jackson, professor of Earth system science at Stanford University and chair of the Global Carbon Project, told Bloomberg.</p>
<p>"It's too early to say why, but increases from both agriculture and natural gas use are likely. Natural gas consumption surged more than two percent last year." In the United States, the fossil fuel industry is the largest source of methane pollution, and emissions from the oil and gas sector have grown at least 40% over the last decade. </p>
<h4>For a deeper dive:</h4><p><a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-04-06/methane-emissions-hit-a-new-record-and-scientists-can-t-say-why" target="_blank">Bloomberg</a>, <a href="Renewable%20Sources%20Made%20up%2072%%20of%20New%20Energy%20Added%20in%202019" target="_blank">The Hill</a>, <a href="https://climatenexus.org/climate-change-news/methane-surge/?utm_campaign=Hot%20News&utm_source=hs_email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=85944970&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-8C0yCNC7TWzjZEJq0igia-QWOy4iub7Sn8fOwOt3QloNO9PwifgZDyoLzWQXRgaT9jHlohnP5UKzH35BKjo9KjuuSd8w&_hsmi=85944970" target="_blank">Climate Signals</a></p><p><em>For more </em><a href="http://ecowatch.com/climate-change-news/" target="_blank"><em>climate change</em></a><em> and </em><a href="http://ecowatch.com/business/renewables/" target="_blank"><em>clean energy</em></a><em> news, you can follow Climate Nexus on </em><a href="https://twitter.com/ClimateNexus" target="_blank"><em>Twitter</em></a><em> and </em><a href="https://www.facebook.com/ClimateNexus/" target="_blank"><em>Facebook</em></a><em>, and sign up for daily </em><a href="http://climatenexus.us4.list-manage1.com/subscribe?u=d1f5797e59060083034310930&id=7c84c08aaa" target="_blank"><em>Hot News</em></a><em>.</em></p>From Your Site Articles
- Carbon Emissions Rise to Highest Level in at Least Three Million ... ›
- New 3D Methane Models Help NASA to Track Global Trends ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
A three-dimensional portrait of methane concentrations around the world is helping researchers to understand the complex gas, which constitutes the second largest contributor to greenhouse gas (GHG) warming after carbon dioxide.
<p>Methane is an important GHG that is emitted during the production and transport of coal, natural gas and oil as well from agricultural practices like rice cultivation and the raising of livestock, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (<a href="https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/overview-greenhouse-gases" target="_blank">EPA</a>). Once lofted into the atmosphere, high-altitude winds can transport methane far beyond its source, disproportionately impacting communities around the world.</p><p>"There's an urgency in understanding where the sources are coming from so that we can be better prepared to mitigate methane emissions where there are opportunities to do so," <a href="https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2020/new-3d-view-of-methane-tracks-sources-and-movement-around-the-globe" target="_blank">said</a> research scientist Ben Poulter at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland.</p>
<p>During extraction processes, if methane leaks into the air before being used, a single molecule can trap the sun's heat and warm the atmosphere, according to the <a href="https://www.edf.org/climate/methane-other-important-greenhouse-gas" target="_blank">Environmental Defense Fund</a>. The largest source of man-made methane production is attributed to the oil and gas industry; about 10 percent of all GHG emissions from <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/fossil-fuels" target="_self">fossil fuels</a> in the U.S. can be attributed to methane. Though methane has a shorter lifetime with lower concentrations in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide, the gas is eighty-four times more potent and needs to be considered when evaluating the impact of global <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/climate-change">climate change</a>.</p>
<p>"It is estimated that up to 60 percent of the current methane flux from land to the atmosphere is the result of human activities," said Abhishek Chatterjee, a carbon cycle scientist with Universities Space Research Association based at Goddard.</p><p>"Similar to carbon dioxide, human activity over long time periods is increasing atmospheric methane concentrations faster than the removal from natural 'sinks' can offset it. As human populations continue to grow, changes in energy use, agriculture and rice cultivation [and] livestock raising will influence methane emissions. However, it's difficult to predict future trends due to both lack of measurements and incomplete understanding of the carbon-climate feedbacks."</p>
<p>To determine methane's role on Earth's carbon cycle and its impact on the climate system, researchers at NASA combined multiple data sets from self-reported fossil fuel producers, government overseers and satellite observations. These were put into a high-resolution computer model to simulate the global movement of methane emissions based on known processes in certain environments while accounting for weather models and natural processes that break down the gas.</p>
<p>Methane's global movements through space and landscapes are complex and can vary depending on many factors. Of note, the impacts of methane are felt disproportionately around the planet.</p><p>Europe was shown to be the only region to show a decrease in methane emissions over the last two decades, which may largely be due to measures prioritizing the use of <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/renewable-energy/">renewable energy</a> in a <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/25-of-europe-quits-coal-1891078241.html" target="_self">shift</a> from fossil fuels like coal.</p><p>In South America, the Amazon River Basin and its associated wetlands flood seasonally, which creates oxygen-deprived environments that contribute a significant source of methane. Researchers estimate that around 60 percent of wetland methane emissions come from the tropics.</p><p>In Asia, more than 85 percent of methane emissions comes from human activities, with rice cultivation and livestock being the driving sources. Additionally, China's economic expansion and increasing population have driven the demand for energy and resources.</p><p>"<a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/agriculture">Agriculture</a> is responsible for about 20% of global methane emissions and includes enteric fermentation, which is the processing of food in the guts of cattle, mainly, but also includes how we manage the waste products that come from livestock and other agricultural activities," said Poulter.</p><p>Arctic and high-latitude regions account for about one-fifth of global methane emissions.</p><p>"What happens in the Arctic doesn't stay in the Arctic," said Ott, adding that the region is not currently a strong pulse of methane but "that could change dramatically over time."</p><p>The findings will help to inform future field and satellite missions, as well as policy decisions.</p>
From Your Site Articles
- Oil and Gas Industry Is 25 to 40% More Responsible for Global ... ›
- African Wetlands a Major Source of Methane Emissions, Study Finds ... ›
- Fracking Boom in U.S. and Canada Largely to Blame for Global ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Crude oil extraction pump pulling crude oil up to the surface and pushing it into pipelines in the Permian Basin in West Texas on May 27, 2018. ©Studio One-One / Moment / Getty Images
ExxonMobil is a company capable of contradictions. It has been lobbying against government efforts to address climate change while running ads touting its own efforts to do so.
<p>And while the oil giant has been responsible for massive methane releases, Exxon has now proposed a new <a href="https://corporate.exxonmobil.com/~/media/Global/Files/newsroom/publications-and-reports/Mitigating-Methane-Emissions-from-the-Oil-and-Gas-Industry-Model-Regulatory-Framework.pdf" target="_blank">regulatory framework</a> for cutting emissions of this powerful greenhouse gas that it hopes regulators and industry will adopt. As Exxon put it, the goal is to achieve "<a href="https://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/121215-exxonmobil-urges-energy-industry-policymakers-to-embrace-methane-oversight" target="_blank">cost-effective and reasonable methane-emission regulations</a>."</p>
<p class=""><em>Reposted with permission from <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/2020/03/16/exxon-write-rules-regulating-methane-emissions">DeSmog</a>.</em></p>
<p>So, why is Exxon asking to be regulated?</p><p>The answer may be simply that Exxon is very good at public relations. As industry publication <a href="https://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/121215-exxonmobil-urges-energy-industry-policymakers-to-embrace-methane-oversight" target="_blank">Natural Gas Intelligence reported</a>, this announcement "comes as energy operators face increasing pressure from lenders and shareholders to engage in decarbonization by following environmental, social, and governance standards."</p>
<div id="3031e" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="A0CFO81584454354"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1234997313581375490" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">ExxonMobil is proposing new rules to cut methane emissions. We think it makes sense for industries to work together… https://t.co/NnLNZ2yO5O</div> — ExxonMobil (@ExxonMobil)<a href="https://twitter.com/exxonmobil/statuses/1234997313581375490">1583281279.0</a></blockquote></div><p>Exxon's proposed regulations have three main objectives: finding and detecting leaks, minimizing the direct venting of methane as part of oil and gas operations, and record keeping and reporting.</p><p>Casey Norton, Exxon's Corporate Media Relations Manager, explained to DeSmog that Exxon's proposal was not expected to be adopted as-is by regulatory agencies. "This is a starting point for conversations with policy makers and other regulators," he said. "For example, New Mexico, Argentina, the EU, who are all considering new regulations for methane emissions."</p><p>Under President Trump, the federal government last year rolled back Obama-era rules for oil and gas companies to report methane emissions and <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/18/climate/trump-methane-rollback.html" target="_blank">for restricting these emissions during drilling</a> on public lands.</p><p>This isn't Exxon's first foray into voluntary regulations of methane. The corporation's natural gas subsidiary XTO started a <a href="https://news.exxonmobil.com/press-release/exxonmobil-expands-methane-emissions-reduction-program" target="_blank">voluntary methane emissions</a> program in 2017. In June 2018, XTO noted that the voluntary program, which was mostly about replacing leaking valves, had reduced <a href="https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20180625005080/en/ExxonMobil%25E2%2580%2599s-XTO-Energy-Announces-Progress-Methane-Emissions" target="_blank">methane emissions by 7,200 metric tons since 2016</a>.</p>
<p>However, leaking valves are not the biggest source of methane emissions. In February 2018, four months before XTO was touting the success of its methane reduction program, the company experienced the second largest methane leak in U.S. history. A gas well it operated in Ohio suffered a blowout, releasing huge amounts of the heat-trapping gas.</p><p>Did XTO's voluntary program accurately report this? As The <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/16/climate/methane-leak-satellite.html" target="_blank">New York Times reported</a>, "XTO Energy said it could not immediately determine how much gas had leaked."</p><p>But a group of scientists using satellite data eventually did pin down the amount released — 120 metric tons an hour for 20 days. That adds up to roughly 50,000 metric tons more released than the 7,200 metric tons in reductions XTO was claiming months later. That one leak was estimated to be more than the methane emissions of the total oil and gas industry of countries like Norway.</p><p>As <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/2020/03/11/future-exxon-permian-flaring-crisis-air-pollution" target="_blank">DeSmog reported</a>, XTO is also <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/2019/01/29/fracking-industry-gas-flaring-problem" target="_blank">flaring </a>the most natural gas of any company in the Permian oil field (natural gas is almost 90 percent methane). While flaring isn't as bad for the climate as directly venting the methane into the atmosphere, it is increasing the levels of carbon dioxide and toxic air pollutants and is another problem the industry is saying it will address even as the practice <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-02-11/permian-s-gas-burning-black-eye-is-30-worse-than-thought" target="_blank">continues on a large scale</a>.</p>
<p>And now the same company is recommending that the rest of the industry and regulators <a href="https://corporate.exxonmobil.com/~/media/Global/Files/newsroom/publications-and-reports/Mitigating-Methane-Emissions-from-the-Oil-and-Gas-Industry-Model-Regulatory-Framework.pdf" target="_blank">adopt their approach</a> to regulating methane emissions.</p><p>"It is not target-based, it is not volume-based," Exxon's Norton said. "Again, it's starting a conversation, saying these are things that you can look at."</p><p>Robert Howarth, <a href="https://ecologyandevolution.cornell.edu/robert-warren-howarth" target="_blank">a biogeochemist at Cornell University</a> whose work focuses on methane emmissions in the oil and gas industry, drew attention to areas of Exxon's framework he thought were lacking. For starters, he pointed out that the proposed framework does not mention emissions from "imperfect well casings and from abandoned wells," which Howarth says "can be significant." He also noted that the proposal does not describe "a methodology for characterizing any of these emissions; there are techniques for doing so, but there is not much demonstrated use of these techniques by industry."</p><p>Finally — and this is the real danger with any sort of industry self-regulation — Howarth said there must be some type of independent oversight to assess actual emissions instead of relying on the industry to self-report. XTO's well blowout in Ohio is an excellent example of why this third-party verification is critical. Without oversight, the "system is ripe for abuse," according to Howarth.</p><p>Sharon Wilson of environmental advocacy group Earthworks <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/2020/01/30/sharon-wilson-methane-leaks-permian-basin-oilfields" target="_blank">documents</a> the oil and gas industry's current widespread practices of <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/2018/11/14/methane-sharon-wilson-earthworks-permian-basin-fracking" target="_blank">flaring and venting methane. </a>Sharing her concerns about Exxon's methane emissions proposal, she told DeSmog,"Exxon's recent announcement is too little too late when it comes to the climate crisis they've help cause and are still making worse. Reducing methane emissions by any percentage is not enough when Exxon continues to expand sources of the same climate pollution." </p><p>Wilson called for the company to support federal and state rules to cut methane.</p>
Trump Administration Reversed Existing Methane Regulations
<p>Methane emissions have become <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/2019/08/14/fracking-shale-gas-drilling-methane-spike-howarth" target="_blank">a much bigger issue</a> in the last decade since the <span style="background-color: initial;">U.S.</span> boom in shale <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/oil-and-gas">oil and gas</a> produced by <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/fracking" rel="noopener noreferrer">fracking</a>. Despite <a href="https://money.cnn.com/2016/07/21/investing/trump-energy-plan-obama-oil-boom/index.html" target="_blank">overseeing a huge rise in oil and gas production</a>, the Obama administration acknowledged the methane problem and <a href="https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/blog/2016/05/12/administration-takes-historic-action-reduce-methane-emission-oil-and-gas-sector" target="_blank">proposed and adopted new methane emissions regulations</a>, which the <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/2019/09/10/key-facts-trump-epa-plan-obama-methane-leaks-rule" target="_blank">Trump administration has since repealed</a>.</p><p>The Trump administration has staffed regulatory agencies with former industry executives and lobbyists who have been quite successful at rolling back environmental, health, and safety rules.</p><p>Last August former coal lobbyist and current administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/andrew-wheeler" target="_blank">Andrew Wheeler</a> <a href="https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-proposes-updates-air-regulations-oil-and-gas-remove-redundant-requirements-and-1" target="_blank">explained the reasoning</a> for removing the Obama methane rules.</p><p>"EPA's proposal delivers on President Trump's executive order and removes unnecessary and duplicative regulatory burdens from the oil and gas industry," Wheeler said. "The Trump administration recognizes that methane is valuable, and the industry has an incentive to minimize leaks and maximize its use."</p><p>The problem with this free-market assumption is that Wheeler is wrong about the industry's financial incentive to limit methane emissions.</p><div id="8445e" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="72W83E1584454354"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1113551571755982855" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">The unreal natural gas prices in the #Permian get even more unreal:
Nat gas at the Waha hub (near El Paso) have ho… https://t.co/Zfj0XfXIJh</div> — Javier Blas (@Javier Blas)<a href="https://twitter.com/JavierBlas/statuses/1113551571755982855">1554326358.0</a></blockquote></div><p><a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/2020/03/11/us-natural-gas-lng-export-chesapeake-financial-struggle" target="_blank">There is too much natural gas</a>, aka methane, flooding world energy markets right now. Current prices to buy it are lower than the costs to produce it. The methane currently produced in Texas' Permian Basin spent a good portion of last year at negative prices. There is no financial incentive for producers in the Permian to voluntarily cut methane emissions in the current market environment.</p><p>That is why Permian producers <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/2019/01/29/fracking-industry-gas-flaring-problem" target="_blank">are flaring</a> (openly burning) it at record levels as well as directly releasing (venting) methane into the rapidly warming atmosphere. So much for letting the free market address the issue.</p>
Even the Remaining Regulations Are Controlled by Industry
<p>While the Trump administration has rolled back many regulations for the oil and gas industry, the regulatory system in the U.S. was already designed to protect industry profits — not the public or environment. When the federal government creates regulations, the process can be heavily influenced by industry lobbyists, and if they don't agree with the regulations, there are many ways they can get them revised to favor their companies.</p><p>While Exxon <a href="https://www.axios.com/exxon-epa-regulate-methane-emissions-oil-gas--0befdde6-e0fe-49db-a200-38299853b43d.html" target="_blank">did publicly say </a>in 2018 that it didn't support repealing the existing methane regulations, the company also wrote to the <span style="background-color: initial;">EPA</span> voicing support for certain aspects of the <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/american-petroleum-institute" target="_blank">American Petroleum Institute's</a> (<span style="background-color: initial;">API</span>) comments on the issue, and the <span style="background-color: initial;">API</span> <a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2019/08/oil-gas-lobby-split-by-trump-rollback-of-methane-rules/" target="_blank">approved removing the regulations.</a> In that letter Exxon used the same language it is now using with its propsed regulations, saying any rules need to be "cost-effective" and "reasonable." But if the regulations are cost-effective, will they actually be effective in reducing methane emissions in a meaningful way?</p><img lazy-loadable="true" src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMjg4MDY3NS9vcmlnaW4ucG5nIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY0NjAyNjM1NH0._FkQjtD7IdxsBjyG4C48LKbFNnq5d0dj7n6kYoadYjw/img.png?width=980" id="ef457" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="6a80e7ae5ddbf00618b6efbabd60441f" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" />
Excerpt from Exxon letter to EPA about methane regulations. ExxonMobil
<p><a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/when-safety-rules-on-oil-drilling-were-changed-some-staff-objected-those-notes-were-cut-11582731559" target="_blank">The Wall Street Journal</a> recently highlighted the influence that the oil and gas industry and its major U.S. trade group the American Petroleum Institute can have over regulations. After the deadly 2010 Deepwater Horizon explosion and oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, the federal government put into place new safeguards known as the "well control rule" in order to prevent another disaster during deepwater offshore drilling.</p><p>In 2019, the Trump administration revised the rule, <a href="https://www.npr.org/2019/05/03/720008093/trump-administration-moves-to-roll-back-offshore-drilling-safety-regulations" target="_blank">weakening it</a>, even though, as the Journal reported, federal regulatory staff did not agree "that an industry-crafted protocol for managing well pressure was sufficient in all situations, the records show." The staff was ignored. (And the move is <a href="https://www.maritime-executive.com/article/suit-filed-over-well-control-rule-repeal" target="_blank">undergoing a legal challenge</a>.)</p><p>Industry crafted protocol. Just the thing Exxon is now proposing.</p><p>This type of industry control over the regulatory process was also brought to light after two Boeing 737 MAX planes crashed and killed 346 people. Boeing had fought to make sure that pilots weren't required to undergo expensive and lengthy training to navigate the new plane.</p><p><a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-boeing-737max/designed-by-clowns-boeing-employees-ridicule-737-max-regulators-in-internal-messages-idUSKBN1Z902N" target="_blank">Reuters reported </a>on internal communications at Boeing which revealed the airplane maker simply would not let simulator training be required by regulators:</p><p>"I want to stress the importance of holding firm that there will not be any type of simulator training required to transition from NG to MAX," Boeing's 737 chief technical pilot said in a March 2017 email.</p><p>"Boeing will not allow that to happen. We'll go face to face with any regulator who tries to make that a requirement."</p><p>Boeing got its way. And 346 people died.</p><div id="384c1" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="BGIMBL1584454354"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1236300589262405632" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">Nearly a year after a second crash of a Boeing 737 MAX that led to its grounding, the full extent of the company’s… https://t.co/uUHyItbBrD</div> — The Daily Beast (@The Daily Beast)<a href="https://twitter.com/thedailybeast/statuses/1236300589262405632">1583592004.0</a></blockquote></div><p>For the past six years, I have reported on the failed regulatory process governing the moving of dangerous crude oil by rail (and even <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/2019/07/09/bomb-trains-oil-rail-threat-book" target="_blank">wrote a book about it</a>). The only meaningful safety regulation that resulted from a multi-year process was requiring oil trains to have modern electronically controlled pneumatic brakes.</p><p>As <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/2017/12/10/trump-admin-repeal-oil-train-safety-rule-electronically-controlled-pneumatic-brakes" target="_blank">I reported</a>, shortly after this regulation was enacted, Matthew Rose, CEO of the largest oil-by-rail company BNSF, told an industry conference that "the only thing we don't like about [the new regulation] is the electronic braking" and "this rule will have to be changed in the future." As per the wishes of Matthew Rose, <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/2017/12/10/trump-admin-repeal-oil-train-safety-rule-electronically-controlled-pneumatic-brakes" target="_blank">that rule was repealed </a>despite the substantial evidence clearly showing this modern braking system greatly increases train safety. </p><p>A recent op-ed from an editor at the trade publication Railway Age referred to these oil trains as a "<a href="https://www.railwayage.com/regulatory/double-trouble-in-saskatchewan/" target="_blank">clear and present danger</a>." Nevertheless, these trains hauling volatile oil through North American communities are still operating with braking systems engineered in the late 1800s.</p>
Exxon Touts 'Sound Science' Despite Its History
<p>Exxon's methane proposal states that any regulations should be based on "sound science." This statement is coming from a company whose scientists <a href="https://insideclimatenews.org/content/Exxon-The-Road-Not-Taken" target="_blank">accurately predicted the impacts of burning fossil fuels</a> on the climate decades ago and yet has spent the time since then <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/2017/09/03/study-finds-exxon-misled-public-withholding-climate-knowledge" target="_blank">misleading the public</a> about that science.</p><p>The current regulatory system in America does not protect the public interest. Letting Exxon take the lead in the place of regulators doesn't seem like it's going to help.</p><p>Megan Milliken Biven is a former federal analyst for the U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, the federal agency that regulates the oil industry's offshore activity. Milliken Biven explained to DeSmog what she saw as the root cause of the regulatory process's failure.<br><br>"Regulatory capture isn't really the problem," Milliken Biven said. "The system was designed to work for industry so regulatory capture isn't even required."</p>From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Oil and Gas Industry Is 25 to 40% More Responsible for Global Methane Emissions than Previously Thought
20 February
Popular
Flames from a flaring pit near a well in the Bakken Oil Field. The primary component of natural gas is methane, which is odorless when it comes directly out of the gas well. Orjan F. Ellingvag / Corbis / Getty Images
The oil and gas industry may be contributing even more to the climate crisis than we thought.
<p>A study <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-1991-8" target="_blank">published in Nature Wednesday</a> found that <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/methane" target="_self">methane</a> emissions from <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/fossil-fuels" target="_self">fossil fuel</a> extraction have been underestimated by 25 to 40 percent.</p><p>"This indicates that the fossil fuel sector has a much more polluting impact beyond being responsible for the overwhelming majority of carbon dioxide emissions," Dr. Joeri Rogelj, a climate change lecturer at the Grantham Institute who was not involved with the research, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/feb/19/oil-gas-industry-far-worse-climate-impact-than-thought-fossil-fuels-methane" target="_blank">told The Guardian</a>. "This is worrying and overall bad news."</p><p>While carbon dioxide is the greenhouse gas contributing the most to the climate crisis, methane is now responsible for 25 percent of current global warming, <a href="https://edition.cnn.com/2020/02/19/world/methane-emissions-humans-fossil-fuels-underestimated-climate-change/index.html" target="_blank">according to CNN</a>.</p><p>The amount of methane in the atmosphere has more than doubled since the preindustrial era, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/19/climate/methane-flaring-oil-emissions.html?te=1&nl=morning-briefing&emc=edit_MBE_p_20200220&section=whatElse&campaign_id=51&instance_id=16113&segment_id=21428&user_id=d8eb7cee9d3c5ab39515239b6ec54d19&regi_id=88631294ion=whatElse" target="_blank">according to The New York Times</a>, but it has been difficult to pinpoint its source. Methane is released naturally by the ocean and by formations on land known as mud volcanoes. But it is also released by the fossil fuel industry, and most current estimates of the industry release of methane have been grassroots and not comprehensive, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/feb/19/oil-gas-industry-far-worse-climate-impact-than-thought-fossil-fuels-methane" target="_blank">The Guardian pointed out</a>.</p>
<p>"We have a really good understanding of how much methane concentrations have increased in the atmosphere," study lead investigator and professor at the University of Rochester's Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences Vasilii Petrenko told CNN. "But it's difficult to track where the increases are coming from for a number of reasons."</p><p>In order to get a better estimate, the University of Rochester team looked at methane data from before the industrial era. They measured air from around 300 years ago trapped in bubbles in glaciers in Greenland, The Guardian reported. This showed that the natural contribution to methane emissions was much lower than the number currently used to estimate emissions, The New York Times explained.</p>
<p>"We've identified a gigantic discrepancy that shows the industry needs to, at the very least, improve their monitoring," study lead author Benjamin Hmiel told The New York Times. "If these emissions are truly coming from oil, gas extraction, production use, the industry isn't even reporting or seeing that right now."<br></p><p>The study does have a silver lining, however. If humans are responsible for the extra methane emissions, that means they can also control them, though this also means controlling the oil and gas sector.</p><p>"Placing stricter methane emission regulations on the fossil fuel industry will have the potential to reduce future global warming to a larger extent than previously thought," Hmiel told The Guardian. "Methane is important to study because if we make changes to our current methane emissions, it's going to reflect more quickly."</p>
From Your Site Articles
- Oil and Gas Operations Release 60 Percent More Methane than ... ›
- New NASA Study Solves Climate Mystery, Confirms Methane Spike ... ›
- How to Reduce Methane Emissions From the Oil and Gas Industry ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Trending
New Report Details Impacts of Oil and Gas Development on Public Lands
14 February
Insights + Opinion
Despite the industry's claims, oil and gas are far from being clean. Kanenori / Pixabay / The Wilderness Society
By Carla Ruas
The American Petroleum Institute has rolled out a multibillion-dollar public relations campaign stating that oil and gas can help to solve climate change. The association is claiming that expanding the use of fossil fuels can lower climate emissions that are trapping heat on our planet.
<p>If that sounds fishy, it's because it is.</p><p>The campaign, which includes online ads, airport displays and billboards, credits oil and gas for the <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/us-greenhouse-gas-emissions-fell-slightly-in-2019/2020/01/06/568f0a82-309e-11ea-a053-dc6d944ba776_story.html" target="_blank">recent dip of 2.1 percent</a> in the U.S. climate emissions. It also pushes the false narrative that fossil fuels — especially <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/natural-gas" rel="noopener noreferrer">natural gas</a> — are the energy sources of the future.</p>
<span style="display:block;position:relative;padding-top:56.25%;" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="7d16d90420814a091c178db05c8d2eb3"><iframe lazy-loadable="true" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/509RavJhNv0?rel=0" width="100%" height="auto" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" style="position:absolute;top:0;left:0;width:100%;height:100%;"></iframe></span><p>Our new report, <a href="https://www.wilderness.org/sites/default/files/media/file/TWS_The%20Climate%20Report%202020_Greenhouse%20Gas%20Emissions%20from%20Public%20Lands.pdf" target="_blank"><em>The Climate Report 2020: Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Public Lands</em></a>, shows that couldn't be farther from the truth.</p><p>While climate emissions went down slightly in 2018, the decline has more to do with the country's shift away from coal, a notoriously dirty energy source. And although the gap left by coal has been partially filled by oil and gas, to say dirty energy can stave off climate change is just plain wrong.</p><p><a href="https://www.wilderness.org/sites/default/files/media/file/TWS_The%20Climate%20Report%202020_Greenhouse%20Gas%20Emissions%20from%20Public%20Lands.pdf" target="_blank">Our experts found</a> that on <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/public-lands" rel="noopener noreferrer">public lands</a> alone, oil and gas development is set to generate a massive amount of climate emissions. Federal lands leased to the industry in the last three years could produce as much as 5.9 billion metric tonnes of greenhouse gases. That's more than half the emissions that China — the world's largest emitter — releases per year.</p><p>You won't see that number in the industry's advertisements.</p><p>The problem is that oil and gas are far from being clean energy sources. Even the most efficient natural gas plant still emits <a href="https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/environmental-impacts-natural-gas" target="_blank">about half of the carbon dioxide emitted by a coal plant</a>. That's still high considering the world needs to <a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/11/26/climate-emergency-u-n-report-urges-cuts-gas-emissions-immediately/4307991002/" target="_blank">slash carbon emissions</a> to avoid the worst effects of the climate crisis, according to the United Nations</p>
<p>Federal lands leased in the last three years could generate half of China's annual climate emissions.</p><p>That's not all. The extraction of natural gas also releases methane, widely known as a climate change accelerant. The gas is released in smaller quantities than carbon dioxide, but it's <a href="https://www.sightline.org/2019/02/12/methane-climate-change-co2-on-steroids/" target="_blank">87 times more powerful</a> in trapping heat in the Earth's atmosphere.</p><p>It's clear that by investing in oil and natural gas instead of coal, we're just replacing one emissions problem with another.</p><p>It's also clear that oil and gas companies are not interested in solving climate change. For instance, methane leaks could be easily cut with cost-effective solutions. But the industry has done the opposite, spending heavily to block the passage of any regulations.</p>
The Federal Government Has the Industry's Back
<img lazy-loadable="true" src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMjc2NzYzMS9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY1MjQxNDA4Nn0.Qu9phx0-eKvPREoclvRs7ECj8QOiZX6KC5h19WK1mxY/img.jpg?width=980" id="6f3f7" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="5a3fdcc821bb97b7f9406e711f04ba6c" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" />The federal government has been supportive of the oil and gas industry. Mason Cummings / The Wilderness Society
<p>As fossil fuel companies attempt to rebrand themselves as "clean" to expand operations, the federal government has been giving them full support. So far, the Trump administration has offered 461 million acres of American public lands and waters for the development of oil and gas — an area technically bigger than the state of Alaska.</p><p>Catering public lands to fossil fuel extraction is highly irresponsible. They already contribute greatly to the climate change problem: Over 20 percent of total U.S. climate emissions come from oil, gas and coal extracted on those lands.</p><p>But from the very beginning, the Trump administration has managed public lands on behalf of corporate interests instead of the public. They have been offering sites to the industry at below-market rates and have <a href="https://www.wilderness.org/trumpemissions" target="_blank">purposely hidden the climate impact</a> of fossil fuel developments.</p><p>As the world strives to solve the climate crisis, we seem to be going in the wrong direction. The results could be catastrophic — especially for lower-income and communities of color that are disproportionately impacted by extreme weather events including hurricanes, floods and wildfires.</p>The Real Solution: Healthy Lands
<p>Instead of putting a band-aid on a bullet wound by investing in dirty energy to solve climate change, we need a long-term plan to reduce climate emissions.</p><p>We can start right here in our backyard: our shared public lands.</p><p>The federal government can easily reduce emissions stemming from public lands. They just have to reinstate limits on methane pollution, restrict the number of acres available for the oil and gas industry and charge a fair price for the land that is leased.</p><p>It gets better.</p><p>We can use this land to build <a href="https://www.wilderness.org/articles/blog/we-need-transition-dirty-clean-energy-heres-why" target="_blank">responsible renewable energy projects</a> such as wind turbines and solar panels. You know, the type that's actually clean. We can also foster natural carbon sinks—magical landscapes like the <a href="https://www.wilderness.org/articles/blog/why-its-important-keep-wildest-forests-free-roads-and-logging" target="_blank">Tongass National Forest in Alaska</a> that have the power to absorb carbon emissions. With this recipe, we can reach net-zero emissions on public lands and waters by 2030.</p><p>What's more, this approach is good for both the environment and people.</p><p>Less fossil fuel development on public lands will reduce air and visual pollution that so often burden local communities. Responsible renewable energy projects will put people to work. And healthy landscapes will strengthen climate resiliency for all and preserve our shared air, lands and waters.</p><img lazy-loadable="true" src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMjc2NzYzMC9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTU5ODIzNTM2OX0.EdaSeIoyY7bx-8oPH04nkbOzuorDBM5in9VQP2uUXEw/img.jpg?width=980" id="47882" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="014c05ff934af8d11f0804e7f6ffc61e" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" />
The Tongass National Forest is a natural carbon sink. Nelson Guda / The Wilderness Society
<p><em>Reposted with permission from <a href="https://www.wilderness.org/articles/blog/report-oil-and-gas-drilling-definitely-fueling-climate-change" rel="noopener noreferrer">The Wilderness Society</a></em></p>From Your Site Articles
- Trump's Drilling Leases on Public Lands Could Lead to 4.7B Metric ... ›
- Trump Administration Sells Oil and Gas Leases Near Utah National ... ›
- Trump Admin Ordered 'Climate Censorship' in Plans to Lease Texas ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
A small thermokarst lake on the southern slopes of Pårte in the Arctic is seen. Permafrost is thawing so fast, in can turn a forest into a lake in the course of one month. distantranges / Flickr / CC BY-NC 2.0
Current estimates of carbon emissions from melting Arctic permafrost rely on a model of a gradual melt. New research has found abrupt thawing of permafrost which means carbon emissions estimates should be doubled. The rate at which permafrost is thawing in the Arctic is gouging holes in the landscape, according to a new study published in the journal Nature Geoscience.
<p>The UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has not considered the phenomenon of thermokarst — the degraded land ravaged by an abrupt thaw. When the permafrost that supports the <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/soil" rel="noopener noreferrer">soil</a> disappears, then hillsides collapse and enormous sinkholes suddenly appear, as <a href="https://www.wired.com/story/abrupt-permafrost-thaw/?ref=hvper.com&utm_medium=website&utm_source=hvper.com" target="_blank">Wired reported</a>. The effect runs through meters of permafrost and takes a matter of months or a few years. That upends the traditional models of permafrost thawing, which look at a few centimeters of permafrost melt over several decades. The rapid change to the permafrost shocks the landscape, causing an enormous release of carbon. </p>
<p>"The amount of carbon coming off that very narrow amount of abrupt thaw in the landscape, that small area, is still large enough to double the climate consequences and the permafrost carbon feedback," said study lead author Merritt Turetsky, of the University of Guelph and University of Colorado Boulder, as <a href="https://www.wired.com/story/abrupt-permafrost-thaw/?ref=hvper.com&utm_medium=website&utm_source=hvper.com" target="_blank">Wired reported</a>.</p>
<p>The researchers found that abrupt thawing will happen in less than 20 percent of the permafrost zone, "but could affect half of permafrost carbon through collapsing ground, rapid erosion and landslides," the authors <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-019-0526-0" target="_blank">wrote in the study</a>. </p>
<p>Not only does an abrupt thaw release carbon, but it also releases a tremendous amount of <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/methane" rel="noopener noreferrer">methane</a>, a potent greenhouse gas. So, while only 5 percent of the permafrost may experience abrupt thaw at one time, the emissions will be equal to a much larger area going through a gradual thaw. This can rapidly change the landscape drastically. </p>
<p>"Forests can become lakes in the course of a month, landslides occur with no warning, and invisible methane seep holes can swallow snowmobiles whole," <a href="https://www.colorado.edu/today/2020/02/03/arctic-permafrost-thaw-plays-greater-role-climate-change-previously-estimated" target="_blank">Turetsky said in a statement</a> from the University of Colorado Boulder. "Systems that you could walk on with regular hiking boots and that were dry enough to support tree growth when frozen can thaw, and now all of a sudden these ecosystems turn into a soupy mess," Turetsky added.</p>
<p>The most worrisome permafrost is the type that holds a lot of water because frozen water takes up more space than water. When it thaws it loses a lot of volume. "Where permafrost tends to be lake sediment or organic soils, the type of earth material that can hold a lot of water, these are like sponges on the landscape," Turetsky said, as <a href="https://www.wired.com/story/abrupt-permafrost-thaw/?ref=hvper.com&utm_medium=website&utm_source=hvper.com" target="_blank">Wired reported</a>. "When you have thaw, we see really dynamic and rapid changes."</p><p>Turetsky has witnessed the rapid change in the course of the study. She has seen the melting submerge equipment she has placed to check temperature and methane. </p>
<p>"When you come back in, it's a lake and there's three meters of water at the surface. You have to probably say goodbye to your equipment," she <a href="https://www.wired.com/story/abrupt-permafrost-thaw/?ref=hvper.com&utm_medium=website&utm_source=hvper.com" target="_blank">told Wired</a>. "Essentially, we're taking terra firma and making it terra soupy."</p>
<p>The researchers realized that the thermokarst they observed was absent in climate emissions models and tried to account for its output. </p>
<p>"The impacts from abrupt thaw are not represented in any existing global model and our findings indicate that this could amplify the permafrost climate-carbon feedback by up to a factor of two, thereby exacerbating the problem of permissible emissions to stay below specific climate change targets," said David Lawrence, of the National Center for Atmospheric Research and a coauthor of the study in a <a href="https://www.colorado.edu/today/2020/02/03/arctic-permafrost-thaw-plays-greater-role-climate-change-previously-estimated" target="_blank">press release</a>. </p>
<p>The paper shows the sudden need to include permafrost thaw in all climate models. </p>
<p>"We can definitely stave off the worst consequences of climate change if we act in the next decade," <a href="https://www.colorado.edu/today/2020/02/03/arctic-permafrost-thaw-plays-greater-role-climate-change-previously-estimated" target="_blank">Turetsky said in a press release</a>. "We have clear evidence that policy is going to help the north and thus it's going to help dictate our future climate."</p>
From Your Site Articles
- 'Doomsday' Seed Vault Flooded After Arctic Permafrost Melts ... ›
- Arctic's Melting Permafrost Will Cost Nearly $70 Trillion, Study Finds ›
- Rapid Melting of Arctic Permafrost Shocks Scientists - EcoWatch ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Methane gas bubbles are seen trapped in the ice of a frozen thermokarst lake, which has an active methane seep. Kevin Hand, NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory
An international team of scientists says a new way of extracting methane gas trapped in permafrost has the potential to harvest more gas while burning fewer fossil fuels in the extraction process, as Newsweek reported.
<p>The scientists from Skoltech University in Russia and Heriot-Watt University in Scotland looked at the gas hydrates, which are ice-like structures made up of water and gas. Frequently, the gas trapped with the water is methane. They found that they could use flue gas, which is generated during fuel combustion, to recover methane. Their findings were published in the journal <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-52745-x" target="_blank">Scientific Reports</a>, as <a href="https://www.newsweek.com/scientists-methane-permafrost-environmental-safety-1480050" target="_blank">Newsweek</a> reported.</p><p>By injecting hot waste flue gas from industrial plants into the gas hydrates, the scientists may have found a carbon sink that can trap the greenhouse gases created by industrial fuel combustion, according to <a href="https://newatlas.com/science/flue-gases-extract-methane-permafrost-reducing-emissions/" target="_blank">New Atlas</a>.</p><p>The new method is important because gas and oil explorations in the <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/arctic" target="_self">Arctic</a> have the potential to accidentally release a lot of trapped methane into the atmosphere. Recently, the Arctic waters around Russia have become a hotbed of oil and gas exploration, but safely extracting the resources poses risks. The area is remote and desolate and lacks infrastructure, plus gas hydrates that are not handled properly may lead to unacceptable methane-levels released into the local atmosphere, according to <a href="https://newatlas.com/science/flue-gases-extract-methane-permafrost-reducing-emissions/" target="_blank">New Atlas</a>.</p>
<p>The <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/climate-crisis" target="_self">climate crisis</a> has triggered large swaths of ice melt in Russia's Arctic waters. The country is looking to exploit the new openings by rapidly expanding oil and gas development. Russia has offered large tax cuts to energy companies willing to tap into the fossil fuels from its recently discovered reserves that opened up due to melting <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/sea-ice" target="_self">sea ice</a>, as <a href="https://www.newsweek.com/scientists-methane-permafrost-environmental-safety-1480050" target="_blank">Newsweek</a> reported.</p><p>And yet, according to the scientists, those gas hydrates are also a potential source for natural gas and a place to put unwanted greenhouse gases.</p><p>"Our approach not only helps extract methane and prevent its free release into the atmosphere, but also reduces carbon dioxide emissions," said Evgeny Chuvilin, a leading research scientist at the Skoltech Center for Hydrocarbon Recovery (CHR), in a <a href="https://phys.org/news/2019-12-gas-efficiently-methane-permafrost.html" target="_blank">statement</a>. "I would say our method offers a double dividend in terms of environmental safety."</p>
<p>The method the scientists developed takes flue gas from coal-powered plants, metal refineries and other furnaces that use fuel combustion. It then takes the hot flue gas and pumps it into the gas hydrates. That starts a reaction where the methane is released and carbon dioxide replaces it and forms a new hydrate, as <a href="https://newatlas.com/science/flue-gases-extract-methane-permafrost-reducing-emissions/" target="_blank">New Atlas</a> reported.</p><p>The researchers found they were able to capture almost 82 percent of the carbon dioxide contained in the flue gas, as <a href="https://www.newsweek.com/scientists-methane-permafrost-environmental-safety-1480050" target="_blank">Newsweek</a> reported.</p><p>Finding a way to trap flue gas could reap large benefits in reducing global greenhouse emissions, since it consists of several gases produced during fuel combustion. In addition to carbon dioxide, it contains carbon monoxide, nitrogen, sulfur dioxide, and water vapor, according to <a href="https://newatlas.com/science/flue-gases-extract-methane-permafrost-reducing-emissions/" target="_blank">New Atlas</a>.</p><p>As for the liberated methane, it can be used in a closed cycled where the gas powers an industrial plant and the flue gases are recycled to reduce emissions and to release more methane for the plant to use, as <a href="https://newatlas.com/science/flue-gases-extract-methane-permafrost-reducing-emissions/" target="_blank">New Atlas</a> reported.</p><p>"In comparison with potential methods such as thermal stimulation, depressurization, chemical inhibitor injection, CO2, or CO2-mixed gases (e.g., flue gas) injection is more environmentally friendly because of the potential to capture CO2 simultaneously with methane recovery," the authors wrote in the <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-52745-x" target="_blank">study</a>.</p>
From Your Site Articles
- China's Methane Emissions Rise Despite Tougher Laws, Satellite ... ›
- Oil Companies in Alaska Refreeze Melting Permafrost to Keep Drilling ›
- Methane Meltdown: Thawing Permafrost Could Release More ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less