The hidden truth behind existing sources (of methane pollution)

Over the past year, the chatter on methane pollution from oil and gas operations has gotten much louder—and that's a good thing. This has been helped along by the fact that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed rules in August 2015 to cut methane pollution from new and modified sources in the oil and gas industry. Going a step further, Gov. Tom Wolf proposed a four-point plan in January 2016 to curb methane pollution from new and existing sources of oil and gas operations in Pennsylvania. Last month, President Obama and Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau pledged to work on rules for existing sources of oil and gas methane pollution that would address emissions across the U.S. and Canada.

It's the latter proposals to cut existing sources of oil and gas methane pollution that have caused much consternation among oil and gas producers. These companies, and their lobbyists, are quick to offer sound bites suggesting that they've got this, they are addressing existing sources of pollution voluntarily as it's in their best interest, and that there's no need for what they view as unnecessary and duplicative standards. The short answers, from where we sit, are no, no and no.

Existing sources of oil and gas operations, or the hundreds of thousands of wells, tanks, and compressor stations across the U.S., routinely vent, flare and leak methane. Methane, or CH4, is the primary constituent of natural gas and is a potent greenhouse gas, 86 times more so than carbon dioxide in the first 20 years after its release into the atmosphere. This airborne pollution is a public health problem, a waste of our natural resources, and a climate disaster in the making.

When oil and gas producers refer to methane pollution and say they've got this, they're wrong. Methane pollution from existing sources—the bulk of the problem—continue to increase as both Pennsylvania and EPA inventories indicate. Where we have seen some marked declines is in the category of green well completions, or the process of completing a well and readying it for production. It's worth noting that green completions are the one regulated category of methane emissions. Two words: Rules work.

As to voluntary compliance, that's pretty much another fallacy. The EPA's Natural Gas STAR program, which promotes voluntary efforts to rein in oil and gas pollution, struggles with woefully low buy-in from the industry. While Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) Secretary John Quigley has singled out Southwestern, Shell, Chevron and CONSOL as large producers that work to cut methane pollution, he also acknowledges that the bulk of small-mid size producers are nowhere near curbing emissions on a voluntary basis. Further, Quigley has stated that methane emission figures in the state are "unrealistically low" because leaks are so common and rarely measured.

Lastly, the suggestion that proposed methane rules for existing sources in Pennsylvania would be unnecessary and duplicative is absurd. Unnecessary? See the two previous paragraphs. Duplicative? Impossible, as Pennsylvania currently has no comprehensive regulatory framework for methane pollution from oil and gas operations. Colorado does, Pennsylvania is working on it, and California recently proposed its own suite of methane rules. We applaud Sec. Quigley's continued call for "best-in-the-nation" standards on methane pollution in PA.

Existing sources of methane pollution are a clear and present danger and must be addressed. The Wolf administration is on its way to doing just that, and 70 percent of Pennsylvanians in a recent poll support the effort. The proposed rules are laudable, and we thank the governor for his bold leadership.

In the weeks and months ahead, PennFuture will provide ample opportunity for citizens of the commonwealth to show their support for rules that cover existing sources of methane pollution. It's time to rein in this harmful pollution and protect our communities. We stand ready to help.

Elaine Labalme is strategic campaigns director for PennFuture and is based in Pittsburgh.

Why voluntary standards alone will not reduce harmful methane emissions

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently expanded its Natural Gas STAR Methane Challenge Program, a voluntary framework for the reduction of methane emissions from the oil and gas sector. While all efforts to reduce the emissions of methane, a potent greenhouse gas, are welcome, it is clear that voluntary standards alone don't work as less than one percent of oil and gas producers are currently participating in the Natural Gas STAR program.

Methane has a global warming potential 84 times greater than carbon in the first 20 years after its release into the atmosphere. Along with other co-pollutants, it leads to the formation of ground-level ozone, or smog, a known contributor to asthma attacks and lung and heart disease. These twin climate killers are putting both public health and our environment at risk.

Photo credit: WCN 24/7 via Flickr Creative Commons

The technology exists today to capture and control methane emissions for pennies per thousand cubic feet of gas. What Pennsylvania needs are strong rules to curb methane emissions from both new and existing sources that include a robust leak detection and repair program. While programs that help achieve that goal are welcome, it's clear that voluntary standards alone won't do the trick.

Read more on the need for strong, enforceable standards on methane emissions from the National Wildlife Federation and the Environmental Defense Fund.

Elaine Labalme is Strategic Campaigns Director for PennFuture and is based in Pittsburgh. She tweets @NewGirlInTown.

New name, old problem, easy solution for oil and gas drillers

A series of just-published scientific studies are showing methane emissions from oil and gas operations in Texas' sprawling Barnett Shale region to be 50 percent higher than previous estimates by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

The problem of methane emissions from this industry is well known, however, this newest research, undertaken by institutions including Duke University, Penn State and Princeton, is now using the term "functional super-emitter" to better classify sites with the greatest level of emissions relative to their production. There has long been concern that diffuse and unpredictable sources are a significant part of the problem, and this has now been credibly established.

What is also well known is that this is a problem with a ready solution: frequent leak detection and repair (LDAR). As noted by Steve Hamburg of the Environmental Defense Fund in a blog post this week, "Frequency is critical...monthly inspections resulted in reducing emissions by 80 percent, while annual inspections reduced emissions by less than half."

The technology is readily available today to cut methane emissions by over 40 percent over five years for a penny per thousand feet of produced gas. However, most companies are not availing themselves of this easy fix.

Here in Pennsylvania, industry lobbyists are pleading for voluntary standards while bemoaning the perceived "operational disruption" of asking drillers to capture and sell more of their own product since methane is the main component of natural gas.

Colorado is currently the only state in the nation that directly regulates methane emissions from oil and gas operations, and insists on frequent LDAR. Pennsylvania, as a longtime oil and gas producing state and ground zero for the burgeoning Marcellus Shale play, clearly needs to follow Colorado's lead. The science is becoming ever clearer -- it is time to act.

Elaine Labalme is Strategic Campaigns Director for PennFuture and is based in Pittsburgh.

Proposed revisions to state oil and gas regulations announced by DEP

We offered our support this week for proposed revisions to Pennsylvania's oil and gas regulations in the following statement: 

PennFuture today signaled its support for comments made by John Quigley, acting secretary of the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), as he announced revisions to the state's proposed oil and gas drilling regulations as listed in 25 pa. Code Chapter 78 (for conventional oil and gas operations) and Chapter 78a (for unconventional oil and gas operations). 

The revised proposal is an update to regulations that were proposed by DEP in December 2013. Those draft regulations were the subject of more than 24,000 comments from stakeholders on all sides of the issue. PennFuture submitted detailed comments urging DEP to strengthen the regulations to better protect public health and the environment. The organization was gratified to learn that the revised regulations are expected to incorporate many of the ideas included in its 46-page comment letter, including:

• elimination of the use of well-site waste storage pits by unconventional well operators;
• permitting of centralized wastewater impoundments only through the Residual Waste Regulations at 25 Pa. Code Chapter 299, which have more stringent engineering requirements and environmental protections than those the DEP originally proposed to include in Chapter 78;
• extension of the time period for agencies in charge of “public resources” to review and comment on plans for oil and gas drilling operations that may impact public resources; and
• explicit language making clear that a drinking water supply contaminated by oil and gas operations must be restored to the better of pre-drill conditions or Safe Drinking Water Act standards.
  "We're pleased to hear Acting Secretary Quigley emphasize the importance of 'protecting public health and the environment,' and undertaking a process that is 'thoughtful, deliberate, and transparent,' as DEP moves toward finalizing these vital regulations by spring of 2016," said John Norbeck, acting president and CEO of PennFuture. "It is paramount that we have strong rules of the road for oil and gas operations in the state. Our citizens have been demanding this, as witnessed by the 70 percent of Pennsylvanians who support the direct regulation of methane emissions."
  The environmental advocacy organization will review the draft Chapter 78 regulations in full when they are made available by DEP. It will then offer additional comment during the upcoming 30-day period for public participation.
  Elaine Labalme is director of communications for PennFuture and is based in Pittsburgh. She tweets @NewGirlInTown.

Industry cherry-picks data to downplay methane problem

Our friends at the Allegheny Front provide an excellent "cheat sheet" on President Obama's new methane rules. Not surprisingly, the oil and gas industry opposes the regulations and says self-policing is the answer. (Stop me if you've heard that one before.)

To bolster their position, industry claims that methane emissions are down:

"Industry points to the EPA’s own numbers, which show that, even as oil and gas production has surged, methane emissions have declined by 17 percent."

This is a point that has been made repeatedly by industry types so it's helpful to unpack it -- and set the record straight.

Although Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program data shows the industry’s total methane emissions fell 12 percent between 2011 and 2013, emissions from key activities not currently covered by federal standards went up substantially.

Reported declines after 2009 also completely ignore oil well emissions, which account for a substantial share of the sector’s total methane footprint. 

Even those numbers don’t paint the whole picture.

Two other recent national studies suggest EPA’s overall estimates of methane emissions from the oil and gas industry are too low by half based on actual methane emissions measured by scientists.

Taken together, there is a body of evidence that shows that methane emissions are a huge problem that needs to be addressed -- which is why EPA's new rules on methane are a solid first step. But much more remains to be done. The good news is that low-cost, high-impact regulations provide an opportunity to help fight climate change, improve air and public health -- and prevent waste of product. The time for action is now.  

Andrew Sharp is PennFuture's director of outreach and is based in Philadelphia. He tweets @RexBainbridge.

Regulating methane emissions makes dollars and $ense

Methane emissions from oil and gas development are contributing to the harmful impacts of climate change and it's not just environmentalists sounding the alarm bells. This week, leaders from the financial community took action regarding the urgent need to curb methane emissions from the oil and gas sector for the sake of our economy.  

"A group of investors managing more than $300 billion in market assets sent a letter to the U.S. Environmental Protection Administration and the White House, calling for the federal government to regulate methane emissions from the oil and gas sector. The letter urged covering new and existing oil and gas sites, including upstream and midstream sources, citing that strong methane policy can reduce business risk and create long-term value for investors and the economy. 

They spelled out in no uncertain terms that they regard methane as a serious climate and business problem – exposing the public and businesses alike to the growing costs of climate change associated with floods, storms, droughts, and other severe weather. 

The 18 signers make the point that proven, low-cost solutions already exist to cut methane emissions from the oil and gas sector by 40 percent."  

Colorado's smart methane policy serves as a national model and was developed with input from energy companies, state regulators, and environmentalists.  With the rapid expansion of the gas industry here in the Keystone State, Pennsylvania needs to follow Colorado's lead and regulate methane emissions for the sake of our communities, our climate, and our economy.


Jen Quinn is central Pennsylvania outreach coordinator for PennFuture and is based in Harrisburg. She tweets @QuinnJen1.

Speak now: Public hearings on new oil and gas regulations

The Pennsylvania Environmental Quality Board (EQB) has scheduled seven public hearings in January throughout the state on new regulations around oil and gas development, and is encouraging public comment during the rulemaking process.

At issue are the protection of streams and waterways from drilling operations; storage or freshwater and other fluids related to fracking; and the proper collection, analysis and disposal of waste materials at well sites, among many other concerns. 

The first hearing is scheduled on Tuesday, January 7, in northeastern Pennsylvania. A complete listing of hearing dates and locations, as well as registration information, can be found here. 

Listed below are a series of concerns we have with the proposed regulations. We encourage you to use these talking points to guide your testimony. If you do testify, keep in mind that you are only allotted five minutes so you will want to speak to the issues that resonate with you the most. 

*********

All fluids related to oil and gas development should be contained in engineered facilities, not "natural depressions." (Section 78.1, definition of "freshwater impoundment" and "pit," Section 78.56)

Our streams and groundwater should be secure from pollution caused by the storage of wastes and fluids associated with oil and gas production operations. The definitions of "pit" and “freshwater impoundment” raise questions about that objective because they continue to incorporate the concept of “natural topographic depressions” within the definitions. We should not even suggest that Pennsylvania will allow fluids related to oil and gas operations to be managed in "natural depressions." All facilities used to hold fluids that may contain potential water pollutants should be specifically engineered for the task.

The definition of "seasonal high groundwater table" should be retained in the proposed regulations, because the term continues to play a key role in regulating oil and gas activities. (Section 78.1)

Proposed section 78.1  deletes the definition of "seasonal high groundwater table" even though that term is still used throughout the regulations, including in sections 78.56(a)(11), 78.59b(e). This definition should be maintained to ensure clarity and consistent enforcement.

The permit applicant, not the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), should be responsible for determining whether proposed oil and gas operations would affect threatened or endangered 

species. (Section 78.15(d))

Protecting the habitat and physical safety of vulnerable species is a critical part of ensuring biodiversity and the quality of our environment. The federal Endangered Species Act was designed to achieve these goals by making it unlawful for any person to harass or take a listed species, including adversely affecting the habitat of a listed species in a manner that effects a take. Similarly, state law currently imposes the obligation on operators to ensure that their activities will not adversely affect listed species or their habitat. 

The proposed regulations change that obligation by only requiring gas operators to mitigate the impact of their operations on threatened or endangered species if the DEP determines that the well site location will adversely impact species or “critical habitat.”

Because an operator proposing an oil or gas project stands to gain financially from the project, and is in the best position to understand the scope and potential impact of its proposal, the operator (and not the DEP) should have the burden of determining whether its project would affect listed species and their habitat.

The DEP should respond to comments received about a permit that may affect an important public resource. (Section 78.15(d))

The proposed regulations allow for a public resource agency to receive notice of, and submit comments about, a proposed well permit that would affect its resources. The regulations, however, do not require the DEP to respond to those comments. To ensure that comments are adequately considered and that public resources are fully protected, the regulations should require the DEP to respond to comments submitted by public resource agencies.

The DEP should not compromise its obligation to protect the environment by balancing the citizens’ constitutionally guaranteed right against private interests in oil and gas. (Section 78.15(g))

The DEP is required by the Pennsylvania Constitution to protect the public’s right to a clean environment. The proposed regulations provide that even though the DEP determines that a proposed well will have a probable adverse impact on a public resource, the DEP still cannot impose conditions that will prevent or mitigate that harm without first considering the impact of the condition on the individual mineral right owner’s ability to “optimally” develop his or her oil and gas rights. This regulation inappropriately places the DEP, whose mission is supposed to be to protect and conserve Pennsylvania’s environment, in the position of balancing protection of important public resources against individual property rights. Furthermore, it inappropriately, and potentially illegally, elevates the “optimal” development of oil and gas over the protection of important public resources against likely adverse impacts. These draft regulations do not give proper weight to the DEP’s constitutional obligation to protect the environment. So long as the DEP’s actions do not affect a taking of private property, the DEP should be obligated to take whatever actions are necessary to condition permits in a manner that protects important public resources.

The DEP’s duty to investigate water pollution should extend to the all oil and gas activities. (Section 78.51(c)).

The Chapter 78 regulations require the DEP to investigate instances of water pollution that occur near oil and gas wells. As part of its investigation, the DEP may determine that water pollution was caused by the “well site construction, drilling, alteration or operation activities.” This set of activities is much more limited than the list of activities defined as “oil and gas activities” in Act 13. To ensure maximum protection of water resources, the DEP’s investigation should extend to all oil and gas activities.  

The prohibition on construction of fluid storage areas within 100 feet of certain water bodies should be extended to all water bodies. (Section 78.59c)

The current draft regulations prohibit well operators from building “centralized impoundments” for wastewaters within 100 feet of any “solid blue line stream” identified by the United States Geological Survey. Solid blue line streams flow consistently year round. This 100 foot buffer is important, but it should be extended to other streams that do not flow continuously. Although we recognize that Act 13 unwisely referred to “solid blue line streams,” intermittent and ephemeral streams need to be protected as well. Some of our most vulnerable waters are intermittent portions of high quality streams. Those waters would not be adequately protected by these regulations. Furthermore, the DEP has an obligation to protect intermittent streams under the Clean Streams Law. Rather than attempt to make that decision on a case by case analysis, the DEP should extend this buffer to all Pennsylvania streams.

The DEP should stop promoting the disposal of residual waste at well sites.  (Section 78.62)

The draft regulations would allow well operators to dispose of residual waste in pits on well sites as long as they comply with certain minimal requirements. Because waste generated at oil and gas sites is exempt from the hazardous waste regulations, the result is that hazardous waste can be managed as residual waste and disposed at well sites with a single synthetic liner and no long-term groundwater monitoring. These minimal protections are inadequate.

As the DEP knows, many well-site disposal pits have leaked in recent years, contaminating surface and groundwater and dotting the Pennsylvania countryside with brownfield sites. Given the high risks of these mini-landfills, and the fact that their one and only advantage is fewer truck trips to landfills (and reduced cost for operators), the DEP should prohibit well site disposal of residual waste entirely. To the extent that the DEP continues to allow this method of waste disposal it should, at a minimum, require long-term groundwater monitoring and public notice of existing and future disposal sites.

The DEP should strengthen its regulatory mechanisms for ensuring that pits and impoundments are constructed in a structurally sound manner and according to regulation. (Section 78.59c(m))

The rulemaking proposes to allow engineer certifications that pits and impoundments have been correctly constructed in lieu of DEP inspections. If the DEP is not itself capable of ensuring proper construction of facilities such as centralized impoundments, these certifications should be submitted under penalty of law for unsworn falsification to authorities (18 P.S. § 4904) so that any intentional falsification can be prosecuted criminally. The DEP should also mandate better self-monitoring by requiring that photographs or video be taken of the finished construction so that there is evidence of the site construction that can be reviewed after the fact.

Any disposal of waste materials at well sites should require that representative samples of the material be taken and analyzed and submitted to the agency to demonstrate that, for example, the drill cuttings are not contaminated, or that residual waste meets the regulatory standards. (Sections 78.61 and 78.62)

If waste is disposed at well sites, a sample of the material should be taken and analyzed. This sample should be sent to the agency to demonstrate that drill cuttings are not contaminated, and that any residual waste does not exceed legal limits. The regulations do not currently require that the operator use any scientific methodology to demonstrate compliance.

The collection and analysis of chemical samples of waste that the operator intends to dispose on site should not be discretionary; the regulations should be clear that is a mandatory obligation. This is particularly of concern where the disposal site does not need to be inspected by the agency prior to closure, and there is no long-term groundwater monitoring.  (Section 78.63(19))

Collection and analysis of chemical waste samples that are intended to be disposed of onsite needs to be a mandatory requirement. The draft regulations leave this to the discretion of the operator, which should not be permitted. This is particularly important where a disposal site does not need to be inspected by the agency prior to closure, and there is no provision for long term monitoring of ground water.

The DEP’s proposed regulations for the road-spreading of brine pose unacceptable threats to the Commonwealth’s water resources – and would be unlawful. (Section 78.70a)

Section 78.70 of the DEP’s proposed oil and gas regulations would authorize the road-spreading of brine from conventional wells for dust control on dirt and gravel roads. Proposed section 78.70a would authorize the road-spreading of brine for de-icing purposes. Both sections would deem any operator that spreads brine on roads to have a “permit-by-rule” for the beneficial use of residual waste as long as the operator complies with the proposed Chapter 78 regulatory scheme.

DEP’s approach is troublesome for two reasons. First, because the proposed regulations do not ensure compliance with the DEP’s anti-degradation program or contain adequate chain-of-custody requirements, the risks of spreading brine on roads outweigh the benefits, which are largely confined to disposal-cost savings for the industry.

The second problem with sections 78.70 and 78.70a is a legal one. All wastewaters from oil and gas operations, including brine, are residual waste under the Pennsylvania Solid Waste Management Act (“SWMA”). It follows that any beneficial use of brine, including dust suppression and de-icing, is subject to regulation under the DEP’s SWMA regulations at 25 Pa. Code Chapter 287. These regulations do not currently allow permits-by-rule for road-spreading or any other beneficial use of brine. Beneficial uses of brine may be approved only under the general permit scheme set forth in Subchapter H of Chapter 287. Thus, the permit-by-rule scheme proposed in sections 78.70 and 78.70a is not only imprudent; it would also be illegal.

The DEP’s revisions to Chapter 78 should establish meaningful standards for the restoration of well sites and impoundment sites. (Sections 78.65, 78,59b, and 78.59c)

Act 13 requires two stages of restoration for well sites. On the one hand, section 3216(c) requires partial restoration after the conclusion of drilling and fracturing operations. On the other hand, section 3216(d) requires final restoration after the last well on the site has been plugged. The DEP is proposing to implement these sections in proposed regulation 78.65, which provides that a well site will be considered restored if it is returned to its “approximate original conditions, including preconstruction contours,” and if it “can support the original land uses to the extent practicable.” Similar language appears in the DEP’s proposed regulations for freshwater impoundments (78.59b) and centralized wastewater impoundments (78.59c), which also contain restoration requirements.

A return to original conditions, contours, and uses is a laudable goal for the restoration of well sites (both post-drilling and post-plugging) and impoundment sites. Currently, though, the DEP’s general restoration standards are practically unenforceable because the DEP’s regulations (i) fail to require environmental baseline site assessments, (ii) fail to require site-specific standards and criteria for restoration, (iii) fail to require environmental professionals to sign off on site restorations, and (iv) establish no process whereby the DEP can finally approve or disapprove restoration. The DEP should require site-specific baseline assessments and restoration plans for all well sites and impoundment sites, require professional certification that restoration goals have been met, and require DEP approval before a site can be considered to be restored.

The DEP’s proposed regulations regarding bonding are inadequate, because they fail to ensure that well sites and impoundment sites will be finally restored before they are released from operators’ bonds. (Subchapter G)

Under Act 13, an operator can obtain one blanket bond in the amount of $600,000 that covers all of an operator’s well sites in the Commonwealth. Despite the extremely low amount of this bonding requirement (and of all of Act 13’s bonding requirements), the bond is supposed to secure all of the operator’s legal duties regarding water supply replacement, restoration and well-plugging. 

The DEP may not have the power to require higher amounts for bonds than the Act 13 amounts, but it can and should establish a process to ensure that operators are not released from liability for particular well sites until those sites are properly restored. The DEP’s proposed revised bonding regulations (set forth in Subchapter G of Chapter 78) fail to do this. They condition release from liability only on the filing of a certificate of plugging. Release from liability should also be conditioned on the adequate final restoration of the well site after the last well on the site has been plugged. 

Andrew Sharp is PennFuture's Director of Outreach and works out of our Philadelphia office.