America Cracks Down on Methane Emissions from Oil and Gas Facilities (msn.com) 36
Friday America's Environmental Protection Agency "proposed steep new fees on methane emissions from oil and gas facilities," reports the Washington Post, "escalating a crackdown on the fossil fuel industry's planet-warming pollution."
Methane does not linger in the atmosphere as long as carbon dioxide, but it is far more effective at trapping heat — roughly 80 times more potent in its first decade. It is responsible for roughly a third of global warming today, and the oil and gas industry accounts for about 14 percent of the world's annual methane emissions, according to estimates from the International Energy Agency. Other large methane sources include livestock, landfills and coal mines.
So America's new Methane Emissions Reduction Program "levies a fee on wasteful methane emissions from large oil and gas facilities," according to the article: The fee starts at $900 per metric ton of emissions in 2024, increasing to $1,200 in 2025 and $1,500 in 2026 and thereafter. The EPA proposal lays out how the fee will be implemented, including how the charge will be calculated...
At the U.N. Climate Change Conference in Dubai in December, EPA Administrator Michael Regan announced final standards to limit methane emissions from U.S. oil and gas operations. Fossil fuel companies that comply with these standards will be exempt from the new fee... Fred Krupp, president of the Environmental Defense Fund, said the fee will encourage fossil fuel firms to deploy innovative technologies that detect methane leaks. Such cutting-edge technologies range from ground-based sensors to satellites in space. "Proven solutions to cut oil and gas methane and to avoid the fee are being used by leading companies in states across the country," Krupp said in a statement...
In addition to methane, the EPA proposal could slash emissions of hazardous air pollutants, including smog-forming volatile organic compounds and cancer-causing benzene [according to an EPA official].
The federal government also gave America's fossil fuel companies nearly $1 billion to help them comply with the methane regulation, according to the article.
The article also includes this statement from an executive at the American Petroleum Institute, the top lobbying arm of the U.S. oil and gas industry, complaining that the fines create a "regime" that would "stifle innovation," and urging Congress to repeal it.
Methane does not linger in the atmosphere as long as carbon dioxide, but it is far more effective at trapping heat — roughly 80 times more potent in its first decade. It is responsible for roughly a third of global warming today, and the oil and gas industry accounts for about 14 percent of the world's annual methane emissions, according to estimates from the International Energy Agency. Other large methane sources include livestock, landfills and coal mines.
So America's new Methane Emissions Reduction Program "levies a fee on wasteful methane emissions from large oil and gas facilities," according to the article: The fee starts at $900 per metric ton of emissions in 2024, increasing to $1,200 in 2025 and $1,500 in 2026 and thereafter. The EPA proposal lays out how the fee will be implemented, including how the charge will be calculated...
At the U.N. Climate Change Conference in Dubai in December, EPA Administrator Michael Regan announced final standards to limit methane emissions from U.S. oil and gas operations. Fossil fuel companies that comply with these standards will be exempt from the new fee... Fred Krupp, president of the Environmental Defense Fund, said the fee will encourage fossil fuel firms to deploy innovative technologies that detect methane leaks. Such cutting-edge technologies range from ground-based sensors to satellites in space. "Proven solutions to cut oil and gas methane and to avoid the fee are being used by leading companies in states across the country," Krupp said in a statement...
In addition to methane, the EPA proposal could slash emissions of hazardous air pollutants, including smog-forming volatile organic compounds and cancer-causing benzene [according to an EPA official].
The federal government also gave America's fossil fuel companies nearly $1 billion to help them comply with the methane regulation, according to the article.
The article also includes this statement from an executive at the American Petroleum Institute, the top lobbying arm of the U.S. oil and gas industry, complaining that the fines create a "regime" that would "stifle innovation," and urging Congress to repeal it.
Give back the Billion, then. (Score:4)
If they got a billion to do the thing and now they don't want to do the thing, then they need to return the billion.
The whole project may be a bad idea, but c'mon now.
Not as bad as when the Baby Bells took $4B in the 90's to run FTTH to every American and just didn't do anything, but still bad.
Re: (Score:2)
>>Not as bad as when the Baby Bells took $4B in the 90's to run FTTH to every American and just didn't do anything, but still bad.
The baby bells got the right to restrict common carrier access to any segment with a fiber optic installation [upi.com], so it worked out great for them
Oh, what? That wasn't what it was supposed to do?
Re: Give back the Billion, then. (Score:2)
Did you even read the TITLE of the link provided? Let me help you...
TFS says:
The federal government also gave America's fossil fuel companies nearly $1 billion to help them comply with the methane regulation, according to the article.
Got that, "gave" $1BN.
The linked article (from June, 2023) is entitled:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Department of Energy Announce Intent to Fund Efforts to Reduce Methane Emissions from Oil and Gas Sector
"...Intent to fund..."
The oil companies haven't gotten the money, and surprise, surprise, they haven't been able to remediate the methane leaks in the past six months.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah yes, "stifling" innovation (Score:5, Insightful)
complaining that the fines create a "regime" that would "stifle innovation," and urging Congress to repeal it.
It's always amusing when a company trots out the whole, "It will stifle innovation if we have to do . . ." I'm pretty sure car companies said the same thing when the country went to unleaded gasoline. Or window manufacturers were told to increase the efficiency of their product. Or when air conditioner manufacturers couldn't use chlorofluorocarbons any more.
Funny how making people change willl "stifle" innovation while doing nothing changes . . . nothing.
If they want Congress to repeal this, might as well go whole hog and repeal those billions in subsidies they get every year. Quite clearly they're not doing any "innovation" with the massive amount of taxpayer money they're receiving.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Ah yes, "stifling" innovation (Score:5, Funny)
complaining that the fines create a "regime" that would "stifle innovation," and urging Congress to repeal it.
It's always amusing when a company trots out the whole, "It will stifle innovation if we have to do . . ."
To be fair, I imagine this actually will stifle new/innovative ways companies might use to *avoid* capturing methane. :-) More seriously, while it may be more hassle and less profitable to capture methane rather than let it leak and/or flair it off, there are uses [wikipedia.org] for it if companies would stop being lazy and take a long(er) term look at things -- don't the SpaceX Raptor engines [wikipedia.org] burn methane? Those Starships are going to need a bunch of it...
Re: (Score:2)
It's going to drive up lng prices by mixing cost-ineffective sources into the market.
Maybe if we're lucky, someone will eventually develop more cost-effective methods of low-density methane capture. But I wouldn't count on it.
Re: (Score:3)
Higher prices due to increased supply?
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe if we're lucky, someone will eventually develop more cost-effective methods of low-density methane capture.
Maybe if we give an incentive someone will eventually develop more cost-effective methods of low-density methane capture.
Like, for example, putting a cost on leaking methane to the atmosphere.
But I wouldn't count on it.
Unless there were some incentive to capture methane or stop leaks, I wouldn't count on it either.
Re: (Score:2)
They've always had an incentive. It's called making money. Flaring off methane - or just letting it leak - is not profitable. Currently the alternatives are just that much worse.
Here we have just another example of government forcing industry to do something when government has no idea how to do that something.
Re: (Score:2)
They've always had an incentive. It's called making money.
That's a small incentive. It does not, account for the cost to the environment of the leaks. So it's an incentive, but not a sufficient incentive.
Flaring off methane - or just letting it leak - is not profitable.
To the contrary. NOT leaking methane is not profitable. If it weren't profitable to let it leak, they wouldn't do it.
Currently the alternatives are just that much worse. Here we have just another example of government forcing industry to do something
To the contrary. The government is not forcing industry to do anything. Indeed, they COULD do that if they wanted to: they could simply make leaking methane illegal. But they're not; they are simply implementing a cost to do so.
when government has no idea how to do that something.
Somehow you see "they
Re: Ah yes, "stifling" innovation (Score:2)
Sure, we'll just capture random methane leaks at the countless million spots around the world is leaking out of active and capped oil facilities and ship it all to Soace X - I'm sure they'll pay enough to cover the insane shipping costs for a gas they used to just order from a supply company.
Makes perfect sense.
Next we can start shipping table scraps to third-world countries and put an end to world hunger.
Re: (Score:2)
"Stifle" is a peculiar word. It's really a museum-piece word that people don't actually use in day to day conversation -- except in this *one* phrase. Its historical pattern of use [google.com] suggests that there's a lot of people parroting this phrase out there without thinking about what it means for themselves.
Re: Ah yes, "stifling" innovation (Score:2)
"Stifle innovation" (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm OK with stifling innovation in the oil & gas sector, especially if it's due to demanding they do it while complying with the law.
We don't need better ways of extracting, refining, and selling oil and gas anyway, we need better ways of NOT doing that.
Re: (Score:2)
This.
The American Petroleum Institute needs to understand that there are those who want to stifle their entire industry right into non existence. Clean up your act, or you'll just provide your enemies with more political ammunition.
You were given a $1 billion carrot. Now here comes the stick.
Re: "Stifle innovation" (Score:2)
The American Petroleum Institute needs to understand that there are those who want to stifle their entire industry right into non existence.
You think that escaped their notice? Really?
Re: "Stifle innovation" (Score:1)
Look around you, which of the things you currently are wearing, doing, working on does not require massive amounts of oil?
Biden is just levying a tax on fuel. It will increase inflation, it will decrease the value of your money. Go ahead and live in the woods if you donâ(TM)t want to use oil, letâ(TM)s see how long you survive.
I'm torn on this one (Score:4)
Re: (Score:2)
"wondered why we were SOOOO focuses on EV's as if they were the ultimate and only solution"
We weren't. Nobody was. You made that up.
"I don't have a lot of faith in the government to implement a Methane reduction plan that is effective and fair."
"The EPA proposal lays out how the fee will be implemented, including how the charge will be calculated", do you have a better suggestion?
Re: (Score:2)
"wondered why we were SOOOO focuses on EV's as if they were the ultimate and only solution"
We weren't. Nobody was. You made that up.
And, more specifically, it's focused on a lot on slashdot because it's a nerdy thing of the kind that nerds are good at discussing.
"I don't have a lot of faith in the government to implement a Methane reduction plan that is effective and fair."
"The EPA proposal lays out how the fee will be implemented, including how the charge will be calculated", do you have a better suggestion?
Exactly. Putting a cost on methane emission means the government isn't implementing a methane reduction plan; it's giving an incentive for each company to develop their own methane leak reduction plan.
Re: (Score:2)
I think that they are suggesting that blameshifting, smearing the government and refusing to cooperate will be the industry response
Re: (Score:2)
I release climate-killing methane every time I drop ass. Taxing me on a per-fart basis will not cause me to fart any less.
6.5 million metric tons [mit.edu] of methane leak from the oil and gas supply chain each year. If you are even emitting a small fraction of a million metric tons, you need to see a specialist.
Re: (Score:2)
He also lied because with a big enough fart tax, he would absolutely invest in fart capture technology.
Re: (Score:1)
why we were SOOOO focuses on EV's as if they were the ultimate and only solution
We're aren't. You just seem to be reading only car magazines. Every aspect of climate change is getting its dues.
The stupid part is methane would be far better simply burnt off which is something that is very cheap to do. Yet you can see massive methane releases from countries where regulations just don't push that agenda or aren't enforced. The latter part is a problem for America. It is quite disappointing to see Texas and Alberta show up in satellite scans of methane emitters in a similar colour to Russi
API and their ilk are full of it. (Score:2)
Instead of doing something about the obvious leaks they complain.
Most of my working life was in the international oil industry and the low level of compliance with environmental regulation (if they exists at all) in the USofA is sad.
Like, in the southern swamps they plain refuse to properly fix leaks on pipelines of small wells, if it gets really bad they at best pour some concrete around the leak.
This is one of their recent moaning articles: https://worldoil.com/new [worldoil.com]
America? (Score:1)
America is a pair of continents, and America has not cracked down on anything. The United States of America has a government agency that has taken some actions, but that does not affect the rest of either of those two continents. Canada, Mexico, Cuba, and about 31 other countries should feel insulted!
Tougher unenforced rules != Crack Down (Score:2)
It is “really frustrating that Texas continues to allow oil and gas companies to pollute with impunity when we’ve got a great solution staring us in the eye”, said Luke Metzger, executive director of Environment Texas. “Unfortunately it’s clear that Texas is not going to stand up to big oil and adopt sensible standards to cut methane.”
Didn't we... (Score:1)
Didn't we already 'crack down' on methane emissions from 'capped' oil wells?
Why do we keep have to revisit things prior (Democrat) administrations "fixed"? I'm thinking internet subsidies, broadband rollouts, etc...
Climate Change Crazies never change or learn (Score:1)