Assessment of methane emissions from the U.S. oil and gas supply chain
A leaky endeavor
Abstract
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
Select the format you want to export the citation of this publication.
AAAS login provides access to Science for AAAS members, and access to other journals in the Science family to users who have purchased individual subscriptions, as well as limited access for those who register for access.
Purchase digital access to this article
Download and print this article for your personal scholarly, research, and educational use.
Buy a single issue of Science for just $15 USD.
No eLetters have been published for this article yet.
eLetters is an online forum for ongoing peer review. Submission of eLetters are open to all. eLetters are not edited, proofread, or indexed. Please read our Terms of Service before submitting your own eLetter.
RE: Natural gas as a bridge fuel to a carbon free future is still a myth
Alvarez et al. (1) summarized extensive measurements of methane emissions from oil and gas operations in the U.S. in 2015. They estimated emissions of 13 ± 2 Tg/y, equivalent to a mean of 2.3% of gross U.S. gas production. A national methane emission rate is fundamental to policy decisions concerning switching from other fossil fuels to natural gas. Previous work by Alvarez et al. (2) introduced the concept of technology warming potential (TWP) to relate emission rate to potential climate benefits from fuel switching for auto and truck transportation and for electricity generation.
Previously published (3) implications of fuel switching on climate benefit were based on estimates of emission rate and other factors needed to use the TWP approach. For example, new, high-efficiency natural gas power plants were shown to produce net climate benefits relative to efficient, new coal plants using low gassy coal on all time frames if leakage in the natural gas system is less than 2.7% from well through delivery at a power plant. Alvarez et al. did not update these implications in (1).
We have updated the TWP approach based on the new information provided in (1) and (4). Updated methane emission rates are normalized based on natural gas delivered to consumers in 2015, 25 Tcf (5), resulting in rates of 2.9% and 2.4% for well-to-pump and well-to-city gate, respectively.
Our analysis shows lower rates of emission are now required to show long-term climate benefits in all three sectors. The breakeven emission rate for coal switching is now about 2.2%: emission rates lower than these would result in immediate and long-term climate benefit. However, the current well-to-city gate emission rate of 2.4% is above this breakeven rate and would indicate a substantial delay in climate benefit. Moreover, for policy decisions it would be unwise to use a mean value for emission rate. Using a higher value to reflect uncertainty would further delay climate benefit.
Thus, the much-vaunted climate benefits of switching from coal to gas for power generation do not exist without substantial reductions in current upstream methane leakage, beyond the reductions in which the industry has already invested heavily. Moreover, while the industry has been trying to eliminate leakage sources in some instances, it is simultaneously and substantially increasing the volume of methane being mined, 20 Tcf in 2006, 25.2 TCF in 2016 (5), with concomitant increases in infrastructure and the number of potential leak sources.
Methane leakage makes natural gas a more climate damaging power generation source than coal over at least the first decade and a half of plant life. This updated analysis also confirms that switching from gasoline and diesel to compressed natural gas would benefit climate only if emission rate was substantially lower than that reported in (1). Natural gas as a bridge fuel to a carbon free future is a myth: the world does not have decades to wait to reduce usage of fossil fuels in transportation and power generation.
References:
1. Alvarez et al. Assessment of methane emissions from U.S. oil and gas supply chain. Science 186-188 (2018).
2. Alvarez et al. Greater focus needed on methane leakage from natural gas infrastructure. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 109, 6435–6440 (2012).
3. http://blogs.edf.org/energyexchange/2013/11/05/methane-a-key-to-dealing-..., retrieved September 5, 2018.
4. Etminan et al. Radiative forcing of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide: A significant revision of the methane radiative forcing. Geophys. Res. Lett. 43, 12614–12623 (2016).
5. EIA Natural Gas Consumption by End Use, retrieved September 5 2018, https://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/ng_cons_sum_dcu_nus_a.htm.