ShareThis Page

Nations worry methane will undercut economic benefits of gas

| Saturday, June 6, 2015, 9:00 p.m.

The grainy black-and-white photograph taken with an infrared camera shows a smoky haze wafting from a natural gas storage tank.

That cloud is methane escaping, said Philip Swanson, administrator of a United Nations-led industry partnership aimed at curbing leakage of the primary component of natural gas. His recent presentation at the World Gas Conference in Paris highlighted how the energy being promoted as one of the solutions to fighting climate change is contributing to the build-up of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

“This is a reputational issue for the industry,” Swanson said. Methane is 84 times more potent than carbon dioxide, another greenhouse gas, and yet data on emissions during production and transport of natural gas “are still patchy.”

Conference discussion of methane leakage came in the midst of an industry offensive by the biggest oil companies to promote natural gas as the cleanest fossil fuel. Exxon Mobil Corp., Chevron Corp., Royal Dutch Shell Plc., Total SA and BP Plc CEOs spoke in favor of using natural gas that would supplant dirtier coal-fired power.

Demand for the energy is expected to outpace oil over the coming decades.

“Governments are seeing increasing natural gas in their economies but are starting to be concerned methane is undermining the economic benefits of gas,” Swanson said.

“Some companies know more about methane emissions than others.”

Evaluating methane

The Oil & Gas Methane Partnership, started in September as part of the Climate and Clean Air Coalition hosted by the UN Environment Program, was founded by seven gas-producing companies including Total, Statoil ASA and BG Group Plc.

The group is evaluating how much methane is emitted as natural gas is produced as well as looking at technological solutions to plugging the leaks, according to its website.

Flaring natural gas from oil wells, which produces carbon dioxide, is a far more visible way the industry emits greenhouse gases.

It can be seen by satellite imagery, and a World Bank-led movement is aimed at phasing out routine flaring by 2030.

The methane seeping from production, processing and transport installations like valves, pumps and pipes is less obvious.

“Methane is less visible, so it's not talked about as much,” said Jerome Schmitt, executive vice president of sustainable development at Total, who spoke at the conference.

Natural gas is less polluting than coal as long as less than 3 percent escapes into the atmosphere, he said.

New rules

“What we measure is about 1 percent so it's not close but remains a factor in emissions,” he said. “We can only be credible on gas if we do it well.”

The Environmental Protection Agency will issue rules this year targeting production and transmission systems to reduce methane leaks by 40 percent to 45 percent by 2025.

Climate activists including the Environmental Defense Fund have pushed President Obama to target methane seeping from the oil and gas production and distribution networks, arguing it represents the largest source of greenhouse gases so far unaddressed by any regulation.

The industry in the United States has pushed back, saying voluntary measures are sufficient.

Both Exxon and Chevron have addressed the issue on their websites.

“It's not rocket science” to fix the leaks, Swanson said.

The partnership has identified nine “core” sources including pneumatic devices, seals and venting.

The EPA has estimated that about 30 million metric tons of methane was emitted in 2012, 9 percent of total greenhouse gas emissions.

Carbon dioxide accounted for more than 80 percent.

While methane is more potent, it only remains in the atmosphere about 12 years.

Carbon dioxide lingers for decades, according to the EPA.

About one-third of the methane emissions come from oil and gas production and transmission.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.