Explaining the Methane Rule Panic

WSJ editorial.

"The Obama EPA in 2016 rushed out new regulations requiring oil and natural gas operators to limit methane emissions from wells, pipelines and storage facilities. As usual it ignored the law. Section 111 of the Clean Air Act directs the EPA to list stationary sources that contribute significantly to “air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.” Yet the Obama EPA never determined if methane from gas or oil production endangered public health, let alone if pipelines or storage were major pollution sources.

The Obama EPA claimed it didn’t need to make a separate “endangerment” finding for methane from oil and gas because it had already done so for greenhouse gases from motor vehicles in 2009. But cars primarily spew CO2, which is less potent than methane but has a much longer atmospheric lifespan.

Methane makes up only 10% of global greenhouse-gas emissions with wetlands the biggest source. Of the 60% of methane emissions attributable to human activity, oil and gas account for a third. Oil and gas production makes up a mere 1.2% of U.S. greenhouse-gas emissions.

The Obama Administration also overlooked that energy producers have a financial motive to reduce methane leaks. Some oil producers flare excess methane because it’s too expensive or there aren’t pipelines to transport it to markets. But they lose money on natural gas that leaks from pipelines or storage.

Hence most energy companies have adopted technologies to limit leaks. Methane emissions from U.S. oil and gas have declined 12% since 2005 even as oil and gas production increased 80% and 51%, respectively. Methane emissions from the prolific Permian Basin fell 4% while energy production doubled.

The EPA estimates that a mere 1.4% of natural gas pumped from the ground escapes into the atmosphere. A 2015 Carnegie Mellon University study found greenhouse-gas reductions even with a lifecycle leakage rate of 9% from liquefied natural gas displacing coal for electricity. In sum, the Obama rule would have subjected producers to costly reporting requirements and liabilities for minimal climate benefits."