For the first time, we use a large-scale controlled study of O&G #methane emissions to answer a basic question: How effective are commonly used Leak Detection & Repair (LDAR) programs?
EPA has proposed regulations to reduce #methane emissions from O&G sector. If global energy sector methane were a country, it would be the third largest emitter behind only China & US.
LDAR program are where O&G operators survey their facilities with IR cameras to find and fix leaks (see NYT article for videos).
But, we didn't really know if these LDAR programs are effective in reducing #methane, beyond anecdotal evidence. Until now! 3/ nytimes.com/interactive/20…
Why? Because it's hard. Need to meet 5 conditions:
1. Control group where leaks are not repaired 2. Treatment group where leaks are repaired 3. Measure all emissions incl. vents, not just leaks 4. Repeat measurements 5. Avoid selection bias (select only low emitting sites) 4/
But that's what we did.
We randomly selected ~180 O&G sites in Alberta.
We split them into 4 groups - 1 control (C) & 3 treatment (T1-3) - with ~45 sites each.
Control - operators not informed about leaks.
Treatment - operators asked to fix leaks.
Survey schedule below. 5/
To track emissions over time & across surveys, we put physical tags on leaks. When operators fix leaks, they note a 'date of repair' on tag (that's how we know leaks were fixed).
No tags were left on leaks at control sites.
Based on these tags, we have 4 treatment effects. 6/
We find repairs are highly effective. Look at comparison between tagged leaks that were not repaired vs. tagged leaks that were repaired.
Gray: initial survey
Pink: follow-up survey
1) After repairs, emissions ~0. 2) Even if not repaired, emissions do not grow with time. 7/
At treatment sites that were repaired consistently, average number of leaks reduced by 50% (5 to 2.5).
At control, little change (2.2 to 2.0) - slight decrease possibly from voluntary maintenance.
At treatment sites where repairs were *not* done, leaks went up (1.3 to 1.6). 8/
What does this mean?
First, high survey frequency + repairs ➡️fewer leaks.
Second, voluntary inspection many reduce emissions, but reductions much smaller compared to LDAR programs➡️importance of regs.
Third, consistent repairs after surveys key to reducing emissions. 9/
Not all operators are created equal. You can see ~2 orders of magnitude difference in average site emissions across 18 operators. We can speculate why:
1) Different asset portfolio (more oil production, more emissions) 2) Different maintenance practices 3) Super-emitters 10/
Not all sites are created equal.
Oil sites emit, on average, 2x that of gas sites.
Sites with multiple wells emit, on average, 2x that of sites with single wells. 11/
Venting is a much bigger problem than leaks. Part of the reason is the way we classify many emissions as vents even though they can be fixed (e.g., open thief hatch on a tank).
This is why LDAR surveys can help find anomalous vents even if they are only targeted at leaks. 12/
Last thing: Tanks and pneumatics are the biggest sources of emissions. Look at distributions of tank and non-tank emissions and how they changed over the course of the year!
In 2019,
Avg. tank emission = 105 kg/d
Avg. non-tank emission = 14 kg/d, order of magnitude smaller. 13/
There's a LOT more in the paper! I was a @Stanford post-doc when this start, now I'm faculty at @UT_PGE! And big congrats to @Lyra_Wang, who led the analysis!
These are preliminary results. We are releasing all data so others can conduct more analyzes! /End
First, why is #methane fee a great idea? Recent data show that #methane emissions from operators vary by many orders of magnitude. So it makes sense that under a fee, responsible operators will be rewarded and those with high emissions will be penalized.
Good summary of what went wrong with the TX grid. I am going to try to explain what happened on the natural gas supply chain.
TL;DR: Combination of extended cold, unique basin properties, old pipes, and gas/electricity dependence. Thread. 1/ bloomberg.com/news/features/…
First, here's the natural gas supply chain. The parts that failed were in 3 areas:
1) oil & gas wells 2) Gathering lines 3) Equipment malfunction at power plants 4) Outage cut power to compressor stations that moved gas
+Other long-term issues like limited storage in TX. 2/
1) Why did O&G wells fail?
Permian basin is a liquids-rich basin. In addition to gas, wells also produce oil & water. For e.g., for every barrel of oil produced, you bring up 2-3 barrels of water.
In extended cold, water freezes and blocks the flow of gas from the well.
Today's @Ben_Geman generate shows that #methane venting and flaring in TX and ND reached record highs in 2019.
This has serious implications for the lifecycle GHG emissions of natural gas power plants. US average leakage rate masks a lot of variation. 1/ axios.com/venting-flarin…
So, Alan Strayer - UG student in our lab, painstakingly traced gas flow from production basins to power plants to estimate state-specific leakage rates.
US avg. leak rate is ~2%, but states in the Midwest/SW have far higher leakage while states in NE/SE are lower. 2/
Part of this is because of high venting/flaring as @Ben_Geman reports, in the Permian & Bakken basins, but also Canadian imports.
Looking at power plants by state, we see that states in MW/SW have higher emissions intensity than plants in the NE. 3/
Folks citing direct employment numbers in the gas industry in PA to suggest Biden is wrong on his "no fracking ban" policy don't get the ecosystem of people in these communities. It's not just a job - it's family, it's small businesses, & entire communities that will be affected.
I have been in these towns, I collect data in these towns, & it's not hard to see how entire community revolves around an industry.
It's not just a job, it's a way of life.
To suggest that it's only 10K jobs or votes is patronizing, elitist, reductive, and importantly, wrong.
I am one of the few in this country to engage with this issue intellectually while also forging a personal connection with these towns & workers.
And I have come to understanding their perspective, their hopes & challenges, and how we should really talk about energy transition.
🚨New Paper Alert🚨In a first study of this kind, we *empirically* show that leak detection and repair programs - a common methane policy tool - are indeed effective at reducing emissions over many years of implementation. We also found a few surprises. 1/ iopscience.iop.org/article/10.108…
First, emissions reduced by 44% between two LDAR surveys conducted over a period of 0.5 - 2 years from the initial survey.
Compare this to EPA (or other state policy) assumptions that annual surveys reduce leaks by 40%. Pretty close. But, note I said emissions, not leaks. 2/
Important context:
Methane emissions consists of leaks (unintentional, fixable) and vents (intentional, not fixable). Leak detection policies only target leaks.
But, some vents can be fixed because they vent far more than what they were designed for. These anomalous vents. 3/
Population growth in developed countries is below what's need to maintain a steady population.
So, when you're referring to "population reduction", you're specifically referring to the developing world.
Here's global fertility rate, where <2.3 is below replacement rate.
And saying population should be reduced when referring to the developing world has a long history in racism, eugenics, forced sterilizations, and other unspeakable horrors in our history.
This isn't new. There's a long history of well-funded Malthusian overpopulation alarmism.