New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

Oil and Gas Facilities Leak More Methane Than Previously Thought

Plugging those leaks would be a cost-effective way to slow the rate of warming, experts say

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

A new study by the Environmental Defense Fund and a team of university scientists estimates that the U.S. oil and gas industry emits 13 million metric tons of methane into the atmosphere each year, losing $2 billion annually from over 400 leak-prone drilling and processing facilities.

The losses, according to the study published yesterday in the journal Science, are 60 percent more than those estimated by EPA.

The studies “have transformed our understanding of methane emissions from natural gas systems in the United States,” said David Allen, a drilling expert at the University of Texas, who was one of 19 co-authors of the paper.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Methane, the main component of natural gas, is a major greenhouse gas with more than 80 times the climate warming power of carbon dioxide measured over a 20-year time span. According to EDF, the researchers found that 2.3 percent of the gas produced is leaked into the air. That’s more than estimates by EPA, which found a 1.4 percent leak rate.

The additional lost gas would be enough to heat 10 million U.S. homes, according to EDF.

Steven Hamburg, EDF’s chief scientist who has led its five-year methane leak investigation, said it amounts to a “huge problem, but also an enormous opportunity.” In a press statement, he said that reducing the industry’s methane leaks would be “the fastest, most cost-effective way we have to slow the rate of warming today.”

EDF noted that the International Energy Agency estimates that worldwide the industry could reduce its emissions by 75 percent and that two-thirds of the leaks could be plugged “at zero net cost.”

Jeff Peischl, a scientist from the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences, a partnership between Colorado University and NOAA, said the climate impact of the oil and gas industry’s leaks was “roughly the climate impact of carbon dioxide emissions from all U.S. coal-fired power plants” operating in the United States in 2015.

He called the new study “the best estimate to date on the climate impact of oil and gas activity in the U.S.” Colm Sweeney, an atmospheric scientist in NOAA’s Global Monitoring Division, said, “Identifying the biggest leakers could substantially reduce emissions we have measured.”

In December, the American Petroleum Institute announced what it called “a landmark partnership” among its members, a voluntary program that would focus initially on reducing methane leaks and emissions of volatile organic compounds.

EDF noted in its statement yesterday that Exxon Mobil Corp. has committed to cut methane emissions along with Royal Dutch Shell PLC, Qatar Petroleum and other producers. EDF recently announced plans to launch a space satellite—“MethaneSAT”—to measure and map human-caused methane emissions almost anywhere on Earth.

Reprinted from Climatewire with permission from E&E News. E&E provides daily coverage of essential energy and environmental news at www.eenews.net.

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe