Assessment of methane emissions from the U.S. oil and gas supply chain
A leaky endeavor
Considerable amounts of the greenhouse gas methane leak from the U.S. oil and natural gas supply chain. Alvarez et al. reassessed the magnitude of this leakage and found that in 2015, supply chain emissions were ∼60% higher than the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency inventory estimate. They suggest that this discrepancy exists because current inventory methods miss emissions that occur during abnormal operating conditions. These data, and the methodology used to obtain them, could improve and verify international inventories of greenhouse gases and provide a better understanding of mitigation efforts outlined by the Paris Agreement.
Science, this issue p. 186
Abstract
Methane emissions from the U.S. oil and natural gas supply chain were estimated by using ground-based, facility-scale measurements and validated with aircraft observations in areas accounting for ~30% of U.S. gas production. When scaled up nationally, our facility-based estimate of 2015 supply chain emissions is 13 ± 2 teragrams per year, equivalent to 2.3% of gross U.S. gas production. This value is ~60% higher than the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency inventory estimate, likely because existing inventory methods miss emissions released during abnormal operating conditions. Methane emissions of this magnitude, per unit of natural gas consumed, produce radiative forcing over a 20-year time horizon comparable to the CO2 from natural gas combustion. Substantial emission reductions are feasible through rapid detection of the root causes of high emissions and deployment of less failure-prone systems.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
Already a Subscriber?Sign In
Supplementary Material
Summary
Materials and Methods
Additional Author Disclosures
Figs. S1 to S11
Tables S1 to S12
Databases S1 and S2
Resources
References and Notes
1
G. Myhre et al., in Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, UK, 2013); www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter08_FINAL.pdf.
2
J. K. Shoemaker, D. P. Schrag, M. J. Molina, V. Ramanathan, Climate change. What role for short-lived climate pollutants in mitigation policy? Science 342, 1323–1324 (2013).
3
U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), “Annual Energy Outlook 2017” (EIA, 2017); www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/.
4
R. W. Howarth, R. Santoro, A. Ingraffea, Methane and the greenhouse-gas footprint of natural gas from shale formations. Clim. Change 106, 679–690 (2011).
5
R. A. Alvarez, S. W. Pacala, J. J. Winebrake, W. L. Chameides, S. P. Hamburg, Greater focus needed on methane leakage from natural gas infrastructure. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 109, 6435–6440 (2012).
6
U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), “Ninety-day report of the Secretary of Energy Advisory Board’s Shale Gas Subcommittee” (2011); https://energy.gov/downloads/90-day-interim-report-shale-gas-production-secretary-energy-advisory-board.
7
National Petroleum Council (NPC), “Prudent Development: Realizing the Potential of North America’s Abundant Natural Gas and Oil Resources” (NPC, 2011); www.npc.org.
8
A. R. Brandt, G. A. Heath, E. A. Kort, F. O’Sullivan, G. Pétron, S. M. Jordaan, P. Tans, J. Wilcox, A. M. Gopstein, D. Arent, S. Wofsy, N. J. Brown, R. Bradley, G. D. Stucky, D. Eardley, R. Harriss, Energy and environment. Methane leaks from North American natural gas systems. Science 343, 733–735 (2014).
9
D. T. Allen, Emissions from oil and gas operations in the United States and their air quality implications. J. Air Waste Manag. Assoc. 66, 549–575 (2016).
10
P. Balcombe, K. Anderson, J. Speirs, N. Brandon, A. Hawkes, The natural gas supply chain: The importance of methane and carbon dioxide emissions. ACS Sustain. Chem.& Eng. 5, 3–20 (2017).
11
J. A. Littlefield, J. Marriott, G. A. Schivley, T. J. Skone, Synthesis of recent ground-level methane emission measurements from the U.S. natural gas supply chain. J. Clean. Prod. 148, 118–126 (2017).
12
See supplementary materials.
13
Drillinginfo, Inc., Drillinginfo Production Query (2015); https://info.drillinginfo.com/.
14
K. McKain, A. Down, S. M. Raciti, J. Budney, L. R. Hutyra, C. Floerchinger, S. C. Herndon, T. Nehrkorn, M. S. Zahniser, R. B. Jackson, N. Phillips, S. C. Wofsy, Methane emissions from natural gas infrastructure and use in the urban region of Boston, Massachusetts. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 112, 1941–1946 (2015).
15
B. K. Lamb, M. O. L. Cambaliza, K. J. Davis, S. L. Edburg, T. W. Ferrara, C. Floerchinger, A. M. F. Heimburger, S. Herndon, T. Lauvaux, T. Lavoie, D. R. Lyon, N. Miles, K. R. Prasad, S. Richardson, J. R. Roscioli, O. E. Salmon, P. B. Shepson, B. H. Stirm, J. Whetstone, Direct and indirect measurements and modeling of methane emissions in Indianapolis, Indiana. Environ. Sci. Technol. 50, 8910–8917 (2016).
16
D. Wunch, G. C. Toon, J. K. Hedelius, N. Vizenor, C. M. Roehl, K. M. Saad, J.-F. L. Blavier, D. R. Blake, P. O. Wennberg, Quantifying the loss of processed natural gas within California’s South Coast Air Basin using long-term measurements of ethane and methane. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 16, 14091–14105 (2016).
17
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), “Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2015” (EPA, 2017); www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/inventory-us-greenhouse-gas-emissions-and-sinks-1990-2015.
18
D. Zavala-Araiza, D. R. Lyon, R. A. Alvarez, K. J. Davis, R. Harriss, S. C. Herndon, A. Karion, E. A. Kort, B. K. Lamb, X. Lan, A. J. Marchese, S. W. Pacala, A. L. Robinson, P. B. Shepson, C. Sweeney, R. Talbot, A. Townsend-Small, T. I. Yacovitch, D. J. Zimmerle, S. P. Hamburg, Reconciling divergent estimates of oil and gas methane emissions. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 112, 15597–15602 (2015).
19
C. W. Rella, T. R. Tsai, C. G. Botkin, E. R. Crosson, D. Steele, Measuring emissions from oil and natural gas well pads using the mobile flux plane technique. Environ. Sci. Technol. 49, 4742–4748 (2015).
20
M. Omara, M. R. Sullivan, X. Li, R. Subramanian, A. L. Robinson, A. A. Presto, Methane emissions from conventional and unconventional natural gas production sites in the Marcellus Shale Basin. Environ. Sci. Technol. 50, 2099–2107 (2016).
21
A. M. Robertson, R. Edie, D. Snare, J. Soltis, R. A. Field, M. D. Burkhart, C. S. Bell, D. Zimmerle, S. M. Murphy, Variation in methane emission rates from well pads in four oil and gas basins with contrasting production volumes and compositions. Environ. Sci. Technol. 51, 8832–8840 (2017).
22
A. R. Brandt, G. A. Heath, D. Cooley, Methane leaks from natural gas systems follow extreme distributions. Environ. Sci. Technol. 50, 12512–12520 (2016).
23
D. Zavala-Araiza, R. A. Alvarez, D. R. Lyon, D. T. Allen, A. J. Marchese, D. J. Zimmerle, S. P. Hamburg, Super-emitters in natural gas infrastructure are caused by abnormal process conditions. Nat. Commun. 8, 14012 (2017).
24
D. R. Lyon, R. A. Alvarez, D. Zavala-Araiza, A. R. Brandt, R. B. Jackson, S. P. Hamburg, Aerial surveys of elevated hydrocarbon emissions from oil and gas production sites. Environ. Sci. Technol. 50, 4877–4886 (2016).
25
A. L. Mitchell, D. S. Tkacik, J. R. Roscioli, S. C. Herndon, T. I. Yacovitch, D. M. Martinez, T. L. Vaughn, L. L. Williams, M. R. Sullivan, C. Floerchinger, M. Omara, R. Subramanian, D. Zimmerle, A. J. Marchese, A. L. Robinson, Measurements of methane emissions from natural gas gathering facilities and processing plants: Measurement results. Environ. Sci. Technol. 49, 3219–3227 (2015).
26
D. J. Zimmerle, L. L. Williams, T. L. Vaughn, C. Quinn, R. Subramanian, G. P. Duggan, B. Willson, J. D. Opsomer, A. J. Marchese, D. M. Martinez, A. L. Robinson, Methane emissions from the natural gas transmission and storage system in the United States. Environ. Sci. Technol. 49, 9374–9383 (2015).
27
T. Howard, T. W. Ferrara, A. Townsend-Small, Sensor transition failure in the high flow sampler: Implications for methane emission inventories of natural gas infrastructure. J. Air Waste Manag. Assoc. 65, 856–862 (2015).
28
R. A. Alvarez, D. R. Lyon, A. J. Marchese, A. L. Robinson, S. P. Hamburg, Possible malfunction in widely used methane sampler deserves attention but poses limited implications for supply chain emission estimates. Elem. Sci. Anth. 4, 000137 (2016).
29
A. J. Marchese, T. L. Vaughn, D. J. Zimmerle, D. M. Martinez, L. L. Williams, A. L. Robinson, A. L. Mitchell, R. Subramanian, D. S. Tkacik, J. R. Roscioli, S. C. Herndon, Methane emissions from United States natural gas gathering and processing. Environ. Sci. Technol. 49, 10718–10727 (2015).
30
A. M. Fiore, D. J. Jacob, B. D. Field, D. G. Streets, S. D. Fernandes, C. Jang, Linking ozone pollution and climate change: The case for controlling methane. Geophys. Res. Lett. 29, 21-1–25-4 (2002).
31
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ), “Houston-Galveston-Brazoria Attainment Demonstration State Implementation Plan Revision for the 1997 Eight-Hour Ozone Standard” (2010), pp. 3–18; www.tceq.texas.gov/assets/public/implementation/air/sip/hgb/hgb_sip_2009/09017SIP_completeNarr_ado.pdf.
32
A. P. Ravikumar, J. Wang, A. R. Brandt, Are optical gas imaging technologies effective for methane leak detection? Environ. Sci. Technol. 51, 718–724 (2017).
33
U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Advanced Research Projects Agency – Energy, (ARPA-E, 2014), “ARPA-E MONITOR Program” (ARPA-E); https://arpa-e.energy.gov/?q=programs/monitor.
34
Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), “Methane Detectors Challenge” (EDF, 2014); www.edf.org/energy/natural-gas-policy/methane-detectors-challenge.
35
J. D. Albertson, T. Harvey, G. Foderaro, P. Zhu, X. Zhou, S. Ferrari, M. S. Amin, M. Modrak, H. Brantley, E. D. Thoma, A mobile sensing approach for regional surveillance of fugitive methane emissions in oil and gas production. Environ. Sci. Technol. 50, 2487–2497 (2016).
36
D. J. Jacob, A. J. Turner, J. D. Maasakkers, J. Sheng, K. Sun, X. Liu, K. Chance, I. Aben, J. McKeever, C. Frankenberg, Satellite observations of atmospheric methane and their value for quantifying methane emissions. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 16, 14371–14396 (2016).
37
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), “Pipeline Data and Statistics” (PHMSA, 2017); https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/data-and-statistics/pipeline/data-and-statistics-overview.
38
H. L. Brantley, E. D. Thoma, W. C. Squier, B. B. Guven, D. Lyon, Assessment of methane emissions from oil and gas production pads using mobile measurements. Environ. Sci. Technol. 48, 14508–14515 (2014).
39
X. Lan, R. Talbot, P. Laine, A. Torres, Characterizing fugitive methane emissions in the Barnett Shale area using a mobile laboratory. Environ. Sci. Technol. 49, 8139–8146 (2015).
40
R. Subramanian, L. L. Williams, T. L. Vaughn, D. Zimmerle, J. R. Roscioli, S. C. Herndon, T. I. Yacovitch, C. Floerchinger, D. S. Tkacik, A. L. Mitchell, M. R. Sullivan, T. R. Dallmann, A. L. Robinson, Methane emissions from natural gas compressor stations in the transmission and storage sector: Measurements and comparisons with the EPA greenhouse gas reporting program protocol. Environ. Sci. Technol. 49, 3252–3261 (2015).
41
B. W. Yap, C. H. Sim, Comparisons of various types of normality tests. J. Stat. Comput. Simul. 81, 2141–2155 (2011).
42
N. M. Razali, Y. B. Wah, Power comparisons of Shapiro-Wilk, Kolmogorov-Smirnov, Lilliefors and Anderson-Darling tests. J. Statist. Model. Anal. 2, 21–33 (2011).
43
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), “Public Review of Draft U.S. Inventory of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2016” (EPA, 2018); www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/inventory-us-greenhouse-gas-emissions-and-sinks).
44
A. Townsend-Small, T. W. Ferrara, D. R. Lyon, A. E. Fries, B. K. Lamb, Emissions of coalbed and natural gas methane from abandoned oil and gas wells in the United States. Geophys. Res. Lett. 43, 2283–2290 (2016).
45
M. Kang, C. M. Kanno, M. C. Reid, X. Zhang, D. L. Mauzerall, M. A. Celia, Y. Chen, T. C. Onstott, Direct measurements of methane emissions from abandoned oil and gas wells in Pennsylvania. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 111, 18173–18177 (2014).
46
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program, (EPA, 2017); http://ghgdata.epa.gov/ghgp/main.do.
47
S. Schwietzke, G. Pétron, S. Conley, C. Pickering, I. Mielke-Maday, E. J. Dlugokencky, P. P. Tans, T. Vaughn, C. Bell, D. Zimmerle, S. Wolter, C. W. King, A. B. White, T. Coleman, L. Bianco, R. C. Schnell, Improved mechanistic understanding of natural gas methane emissions from spatially resolved aircraft measurements. Environ. Sci. Technol. 51, 7286–7294 (2017).
48
A. Gvakharia, E. A. Kort, A. Brandt, J. Peischl, T. B. Ryerson, J. P. Schwarz, M. L. Smith, C. Sweeney, Methane, black carbon, and ethane emissions from natural gas flares in the Bakken Shale, North Dakota. Environ. Sci. Technol. 51, 5317–5325 (2017).
49
J. Peischl, A. Karion, C. Sweeney, E. A. Kort, M. L. Smith, A. R. Brandt, T. Yeskoo, K. C. Aikin, S. A. Conley, A. Gvakharia, M. Trainer, S. Wolter, T. B. Ryerson, Quantifying atmospheric methane emissions from oil and natural gas production in the Bakken shale region of North Dakota. J. Geophys. Res. D Atmospheres 121, 6101–6111 (2016).
50
B. K. Lamb, S. L. Edburg, T. W. Ferrara, T. Howard, M. R. Harrison, C. E. Kolb, A. Townsend-Small, W. Dyck, A. Possolo, J. R. Whetstone, Direct measurements show decreasing methane emissions from natural gas local distribution systems in the United States. Environ. Sci. Technol. 49, 5161–5169 (2015).
51
J. Peischl, T. B. Ryerson, K. C. Aikin, J. A. de Gouw, J. B. Gilman, J. S. Holloway, B. M. Lerner, R. Nadkarni, J. A. Neuman, J. B. Nowak, M. Trainer, C. Warneke, D. D. Parrish, Quantifying atmospheric methane emissions from the Haynesville, Fayetteville, and northeastern Marcellus shale gas production regions. J. Geophys. Res. D Atmospheres 120, 2119–2139 (2015).
52
M. L. Smith, A. Gvakharia, E. A. Kort, C. Sweeney, S. A. Conley, I. Faloona, T. Newberger, R. Schnell, S. Schwietzke, S. Wolter, Airborne quantification of methane emissions over the Four Corners region. Environ. Sci. Technol. 51, 5832–5837 (2017).
53
J. D. Maasakkers, D. J. Jacob, M. P. Sulprizio, A. J. Turner, M. Weitz, T. Wirth, C. Hight, M. DeFigueiredo, M. Desai, R. Schmeltz, L. Hockstad, A. A. Bloom, K. W. Bowman, S. Jeong, M. L. Fischer, Gridded national inventory of U.S. methane emissions. Environ. Sci. Technol. 50, 13123–13133 (2016).
54
D. T. Allen, V. M. Torres, J. Thomas, D. W. Sullivan, M. Harrison, A. Hendler, S. C. Herndon, C. E. Kolb, M. P. Fraser, A. D. Hill, B. K. Lamb, J. Miskimins, R. F. Sawyer, J. H. Seinfeld, Measurements of methane emissions at natural gas production sites in the United States. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 110, 17768–17773 (2013).
55
D. T. Allen, A. P. Pacsi, D. W. Sullivan, D. Zavala-Araiza, M. Harrison, K. Keen, M. P. Fraser, A. Daniel Hill, R. F. Sawyer, J. H. Seinfeld, Methane emissions from process equipment at natural gas production sites in the United States: Pneumatic controllers. Environ. Sci. Technol. 49, 633–640 (2015).
56
D. T. Allen, D. W. Sullivan, D. Zavala-Araiza, A. P. Pacsi, M. Harrison, K. Keen, M. P. Fraser, A. Daniel Hill, B. K. Lamb, R. F. Sawyer, J. H. Seinfeld, Methane emissions from process equipment at natural gas production sites in the United States: Liquid unloadings. Environ. Sci. Technol. 49, 641–648 (2015).
57
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), “AP-42: Compilation of Air Emission Factors, Volume 1, Section 3.2, Natural Gas-fired Reciprocating Engines” (EPA, 2000); www.epa.gov/air-emissions-factors-and-quantification/ap-42-compilation-air-emission-factors.
58
J. Veil, “U.S. Produced Water Volumes and Management Practices in 2012” (Groundwater Protection Council, 2015); http://www.gwpc.org/sites/default/files/Produced%20Water%20Report%202014-GWPC_0.pdf.
59
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Oil and Gas Emission Estimation Tool 2014 (EPA, 2015); ftp://ftp.epa.gov/EmisInventory/2011nei/doc/Tool_and_Report112614.zip.
60
U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), “Natural Gas Consumption by End Use” (EIA, 2017); www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/ng_cons_sum_dcu_nus_a.htm.
61
N. N. Clark, D. L. McKain, D. R. Johnson, W. S. Wayne, H. Li, V. Akkerman, C. Sandoval, A. N. Covington, R. A. Mongold, J. T. Hailer, O. J. Ugarte, Pump-to-wheels methane emissions from the heavy-duty transportation sector. Environ. Sci. Technol. 51, 968–976 (2017).
62
T. N. Lavoie, P. B. Shepson, C. A. Gore, B. H. Stirm, R. Kaeser, B. Wulle, D. Lyon, J. Rudek, Assessing the methane emissions from natural gas-fired power plants and oil refineries. Environ. Sci. Technol. 51, 3373–3381 (2017).
63
C. Frankenberg, A. K. Thorpe, D. R. Thompson, G. Hulley, E. A. Kort, N. Vance, J. Borchardt, T. Krings, K. Gerilowski, C. Sweeney, S. Conley, B. D. Bue, A. D. Aubrey, S. Hook, R. O. Green, Airborne methane remote measurements reveal heavy-tail flux distribution in Four Corners region. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 113, 9734–9739 (2016).
64
T. N. Lavoie, P. B. Shepson, M. O. L. Cambaliza, B. H. Stirm, A. Karion, C. Sweeney, T. I. Yacovitch, S. C. Herndon, X. Lan, D. Lyon, Aircraft-based measurements of point source methane emissions in the Barnett Shale basin. Environ. Sci. Technol. 49, 7904–7913 (2015).
65
T. I. Yacovitch, S. C. Herndon, G. Pétron, J. Kofler, D. Lyon, M. S. Zahniser, C. E. Kolb, Mobile laboratory observations of methane emissions in the Barnett Shale region. Environ. Sci. Technol. 49, 7889–7895 (2015).
66
M. Etminan, G. Myhre, E. J. Highwood, K. P. Shine, Radiative forcing of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide: A significant revision of the methane radiative forcing. Geophys. Res. Lett. 43, 12614–12623 (2016).
67
Z. R. Barkley, T. Lauvaux, K. J. Davis, A. Deng, N. L. Miles, S. J. Richardson, Y. Cao, C. Sweeney, A. Karion, M. K. Smith, E. A. Kort, S. Schwietzke, T. Murphy, G. Cervone, D. Martins, J. D. Maasakkers, Quantifying methane emissions from natural gas production in north-eastern Pennsylvania. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 17, 13941–13966 (2017).
68
C. S. Foster, E. T. Crosman, L. Holland, D. V. Mallia, B. Fasoli, R. Bares, J. Horel, J. C. Lin, Confirmation of elevated methane emissions in Utah’s Uintah Basin with ground-based observations and a high-resolution transport model: Methane emissions in Utah’s Uintah Basin. J. Geophys. Res. D Atmospheres 122, 13026–13044 (2017).
69
A. Karion, C. Sweeney, G. Pétron, G. Frost, R. Michael Hardesty, J. Kofler, B. R. Miller, T. Newberger, S. Wolter, R. Banta, A. Brewer, E. Dlugokencky, P. Lang, S. A. Montzka, R. Schnell, P. Tans, M. Trainer, R. Zamora, S. Conley, Methane emissions estimate from airborne measurements over a western United States natural gas field. Geophys. Res. Lett. 40, 4393–4397 (2013).
70
G. Pétron, A. Karion, C. Sweeney, B. R. Miller, S. A. Montzka, G. J. Frost, M. Trainer, P. Tans, A. Andrews, J. Kofler, D. Helmig, D. Guenther, E. Dlugokencky, P. Lang, T. Newberger, S. Wolter, B. Hall, P. Novelli, A. Brewer, S. Conley, M. Hardesty, R. Banta, A. White, D. Noone, D. Wolfe, R. Schnell, A new look at methane and nonmethane hydrocarbon emissions from oil and natural gas operations in the Colorado Denver-Julesburg Basin. J. Geophys. Res. D Atmospheres 119, 6836–6852 (2014).
71
A. Karion, C. Sweeney, E. A. Kort, P. B. Shepson, A. Brewer, M. Cambaliza, S. A. Conley, K. Davis, A. Deng, M. Hardesty, S. C. Herndon, T. Lauvaux, T. Lavoie, D. Lyon, T. Newberger, G. Pétron, C. Rella, M. Smith, S. Wolter, T. I. Yacovitch, P. Tans, Aircraft-Based Estimate of Total Methane Emissions from the Barnett Shale Region. Environ. Sci. Technol. 49, 8124–8131 (2015).
72
M. L. Smith, E. A. Kort, A. Karion, C. Sweeney, S. C. Herndon, T. I. Yacovitch, Airborne ethane observations in the Barnett Shale: Quantification of ethane flux and attribution of methane emissions. Environ. Sci. Technol. 49, 8158–8166 (2015).
73
J. Garratt, Review: The atmospheric boundary layer. Earth Sci. Rev. 37, 89–134 (1994).
74
A. Townsend-Small, E. C. Botner, K. L. Jimenez, J. R. Schroeder, N. J. Blake, S. Meinardi, D. R. Blake, B. C. Sive, D. Bon, J. H. Crawford, G. Pfister, F. M. Flocke, Using stable isotopes of hydrogen to quantify biogenic and thermogenic atmospheric methane sources: A case study from the Colorado Front Range. Geophys. Res. Lett. 43, 11462–11471 (2016).
75
T. N. Lavoie, P. B. Shepson, M. O. L. Cambaliza, B. H. Stirm, S. Conley, S. Mehrotra, I. C. Faloona, D. Lyon, Spatiotemporal variability of methane emissions at oil and natural gas operations in the Eagle Ford Basin. Environ. Sci. Technol. 51, 8001–8009 (2017).
76
J. D. Goetz et al., Analysis of local-scale background concentrations of methane and other gas-phase species in the Marcellus Shale. Elem. Sci. Anth. 5, 1 (2017).
77
M. F. Hendrick, R. Ackley, B. Sanaie-Movahed, X. Tang, N. G. Phillips, Fugitive methane emissions from leak-prone natural gas distribution infrastructure in urban environments. Environ. Pollut. 213, 710–716 (2016).
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Science
Volume 361 | Issue 6398
13 July 2018
13 July 2018
Copyright
Copyright © 2018 The Authors, some rights reserved; exclusive licensee American Association for the Advancement of Science. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
This is an article distributed under the terms of the Science Journals Default License.
Article versions
You are viewing the most recent version of this article.
Submission history
Received: 19 December 2017
Accepted: 18 May 2018
Published in print: 13 July 2018
Acknowledgments
The authors are grateful to R. Harriss for support in the design and conduct of studies. We thank D. Zimmerle, A. Robertson, and A. Pintar for helpful discussions, and the scores of researchers that contributed to the body of work assessed here. Funding: Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, Fiona and Stan Druckenmiller, Heising-Simons Foundation, Bill and Susan Oberndorf, Betsy and Sam Reeves, Robertson Foundation, TomKat Charitable Trust, and the Walton Family Foundation (for EDF authors as well as support of related studies involving D.T.A, S.C.H., A.K., E.A.K., B.K.L., A.J.M., A.L.R., P.B.S., C.S., A.T.-S., S.C.W.); DOE National Energy Technology Laboratory (Z.R.B., K.J.D., T.L., A.L.R.); NASA Earth Science Division (D.J.J., E.A.K., J.D.M.); NOAA Climate Program Office (E.A.K., J.P., A.L.R., C.S.). Author contributions: R.A.A., D.Z-A., D.R.L., and S.P.H. conceived the study; R.A.A., D.Z-A., D.R.L., E.A.K., S.W.P. and S.P.H. designed the study and interpreted results with input from all authors; each author contributed to the collection, analysis, or assessment of one or more datasets necessary to perform this study; D.Z-A, D.R.L, and S.W.P, performed the analysis, with contributions from R.A.A., A.R.B., A.K., and M.O.; R.A.A., D.Z-A., D.R.L., S.W.P., S.C.W., and S.P.H. wrote the manuscript with input from all authors. Competing interests: None declared. Data and materials availability: All data and methods needed to reproduce the results in the paper are provided in the paper or as supplementary materials. Additional author disclosures (affiliations, funding sources, financial holdings) are provided in the supplementary materials.
Authors
Funding Information
U.S. Department of Energy: DE-FOA-0000894
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration: NA14OAR0110139
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration: NA14OAR4310135
National Energy Technology Laboratory:
Fiona and Stan Druckenmiller:
Bill and Susan Oberndorf:
Betsy and Sam Reeves:
TomKat Charitable Trust:
Robertson Foundation:
Heising-Simons Foundation:
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Article Usage
Altmetrics
Citations
Export citation
Select the format you want to export the citation of this publication.
Cited by
- Satellite-based survey of extreme methane emissions in the Permian basin, Science Advances, 7, 27, (2021)./doi/10.1126/sciadv.abf4507
- Big numbers for bold activists: A quick method for estimating potential emissions of fossil fuel projects, Energy Research & Social Science, 79, (102172), (2021).https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2021.102172
- Life Cycle Impact Assessment, Wells to Wire, (45-66), (2021).https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-71971-5
- Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Western Canadian Natural Gas: Proposed Emissions Tracking for Life Cycle Modeling, Environmental Science & Technology, 55, 14, (9711-9720), (2021).https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.0c06353
- The U.S. Gas Pipeline Transportation Market: An Introductory Guide with Research Questions for the Energy Transition, SSRN Electronic Journal, (2021).https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3775725
- Gas Flaring: A Review Focused On Its Analysis From Space, IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Magazine, 9, 1, (258-281), (2021).https://doi.org/10.1109/MGRS.2020.3007232
- Regional management of flare gas recovery based on water-energy-environment nexus considering the reliability of the downstream installations, Energy Conversion and Management, 239, (114189), (2021).https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2021.114189
- Emissions projections for US utilities through 2050, Environmental Research Letters, 16, 8, (084049), (2021).https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ac1628
- On the climate benefit of a coal-to-gas shift in Germany’s electric power sector, Scientific Reports, 11, 1, (2021).https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-90839-7
- Intermittency of Large Methane Emitters in the Permian Basin, Environmental Science & Technology Letters, 8, 7, (567-573), (2021).https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.estlett.1c00173
- See more
Loading...
View Options
Get Access
Log in to view the full text
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.
- Become a AAAS Member
- Activate your Account
- Purchase Access to Other Journals in the Science Family
- Account Help
Log in via OpenAthens.
Log in via Shibboleth.
More options
Register for free to read this article
As a service to the community, this article is available for free. Login or register for free to read this article.
Buy a single issue of Science for just $15 USD.
View options
PDF format
Download this article as a PDF file
Download PDF
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.