On January 25, ProPublica published a story disclosing that
the EPA had more than doubled its estimates of the amount of greenhouse gases
believed to be leaked into the atmosphere from the natural gas drilling and
extraction processes. The article used these new EPA estimates, combined with
peer-reviewed research methodologies, to compare the total lifecycle emissions
from natural gas use to the total lifecycle emissions from coal. We found that
in a worst-case — but very common — scenario, the advantage of using natural
gas was substantially diminished from the advantage held by conventional
wisdom. To be clear, our article did not say that the EPA had conducted the
lifecycle analysis of the fuels, or that the EPA had concluded gas was
disadvantageous.
Last week the industry-funded pro-drilling group Energy in Depth
– which has not contacted ProPublica directly to express concerns about
the article’s accuracy – issued
a statement challenging the facts of our story. The EID release states that
the EPA data cited in the article is not new, that the agency never undertook a
lifecycle assessment of natural gas, that ProPublica ignored other EPA
documents, and that ProPublica’s conclusions are based on a “pamphlet” by a
university researcher.
These assertions amount to a misunderstanding of the article
and a distortion and mischaracterization of the facts.
For one, EID inexplicably claims that ProPublica’s
characterizations are made “absent any data.” ProPublica’s finding is based on several
interviews with agency officials and the recent publication by the EPA of a working
document that clearly outlines the EPA’s revision of its older figures. Page
10 of that document states that greenhouse gas emissions from the
production stage of oil and gas alone are now believed to be 198 MMtCo2e, an
upward revision from 90 MMtCo2e under the agency’s old analysis. Broken down,
that same page states that total methane leaked and vented from all natural gas
systems — not just production, but
also including processing and transmission – was about 261 MMtCo2e, far
more than double the comparable amount the EPA had last reported on page
3-45 of its annual published greenhouse gas inventory. EPA officials told
ProPublica that their research was on this topic was evolving quickly, that the
figures published in the working document represented the latest and most
accurate understanding held by the agency, and that they supersede the
comparable data published in the EPA’s
April, 2010 Greenhouse Gas Inventory. They advised that because the figures
seemed to be changing frequently, we generalize our conclusions to say that
emissions estimates had “at least doubled.”
The EID statement argues that no new EPA research exists
concerning the lifecycle of natural gas, and states that ProPublica’s report is
based on “a six-page pamphlet.” ProPublica’s
original story is clear in explaining that EPA provided revised estimates
for gas field emissions, not the lifecycle assessment. The lifecycle analysis
itself is based on a peer-reviewed article published in the highly-regarded
scientific journal Environmental
Science and Technology. That
journal article explains in detail the methodology used to calculate the
lifecycle emissions from natural gas compared to the lifecycle emissions from
coal, depending on multiple variables including the various efficiencies and
heat rates of the power plants where the fuel is ultimately burned. The author
of that paper worked with ProPublica to provide a formula, which ProPublica
then used to calculate a new lifecycle estimate based on the updated emissions
figures set by the EPA.
The EID response points to a chart contained on page 3-45 of
the EPA’s 2010 Greenhouse Gas Inventory that shows declining annual emissions
from natural gas drilling and alleges that ProPublica ignored this data. In
fact, ProPublica’s article not only linked to this document and referenced this
exact chart as one measure of the government and industry’s success in working
to cut emissions, but factored an estimate for the EPA’s emission-reduction
program, called GasSTAR, into its calculations.
EID suggests that this older EPA document reflects the best
known data for emissions. It does not. The new EPA estimates are more recent
and more accurate, according to the EPA, and when the Greenhouse Gas Inventory
is updated in April 2011 it will reflect the revisions.
The EID statement, referencing the chart on p. 3-45 of the
old 2010 inventory, states that “methane that escapes into the air pursuant to
natural gas operations in the United States continues to go down. By a lot.” In
fact, when these numbers are updated to reflect the EPA’s latest figures, the
chart is expected to change and the net amount of emissions will have gone up,
not down, according to an explanation given by the EPA to ProPublica.
The EID response criticizes the
EPA technical paper itself, stating incorrectly that on p. 84 the EPA based
all of its findings “on a single data point.” In fact, the reference in
question is on
p. 86 and it clearly states that the EPA’s estimates were based on
“several” factors, including data from the GasSTAR program itself. The document
goes on to describe one example, but states repeatedly that its estimates are
still considered to be conservative, and likely underestimated.
The EID response suggests that the EPA’s own conclusions are
based on thin research. But the fact is that there is a long, deep record of
peer-reviewed scientific research and government-sponsored reports that have
also said that gas field emissions are underestimated and should be sharply
revised upward. Here is a sampling of documents explaining how emissions
estimates have been underestimated: A Texas
study by the EPA’s current regional administrator when he was a professor at
Southern Methodist University; a
climate evaluation completed by the state of New Mexico, and a
paper published by researchers at the University of California, Irvine. One
especially good resource is this document containing an industry
estimate from the gas drilling company Williams.
Finally, EID attacks the methodology of a Cornell University
researcher, Robert Howarth, and alleges that ProPublica’s article was
incorrectly based on Howarth’s estimates. In fact Howarth’s research was not
the basis for any of the emissions figures or calculations reported by ProPublica,
and ProPublica’s article was completed before Howarth’s latest letter, cited by
EID, was released.
ProPublica repeatedly sought comment and input on its
reporting from the natural gas industry over the past several months, including
Energy in Depth. EID was shown the specific findings of our article, and was pointed
to the documentation that supported it, before ProPublica’s article was
published, yet repeatedly declined to comment.
Separately, the EPA has also sent a statement regarding
ProPublica’s reporting to Energy in Depth. In it, press officer Erin Birgfeld
references the
same technical paper discussed above and emphasizes that it “does not
estimate emissions from the gas industry and the emissions estimates in the
article were not developed by EPA.” When we contacted the EPA for an
explanation, we were told that the EPA did not find any factual discrepancies
with what ProPublica had reported and was not disputing any of the emissions
figures contained in the documents referenced here. The agency’s statement was only
meant to clarify that the lifecycle analysis was calculated by ProPublica and was
separate from the emissions figures the agency has reported.
