Comment The Facts (Score 2, Interesting) 118
Having worked in the environmental software industry since before the GHG rules were put into effect I applaud the curtailment of the overreach by the EPA in this area. Although I make a living partly off of this stuff I have been disgusted by the unchecked advance of the EPA in their implementation of the GHG program. Parts of the calculation process are fraught with estimations, emission factors that are not precise and inclusion of insignificant calculations. In most cases it is the combustion of fuels that dominate the final results but industry has been burdened with calculating the estimated emissions from dozens of sources and source types that do not contribute in a meaningful way. In some places, industry does the right thing. Remember these people are your fellow citizens and do have concern for the environment, just like you. For instance, I witnessed E&P companies take meaningful steps to implement zero emission workovers and completions.. stuff that does make a difference.
The EPA estimates that the elimination of the methane reduction steps could result in 370,000 short tons of methane not being eliminated (8.4MM t CO2e). Since we are dealing with fugitive emissions this number in itself is highly suspicious. By definition, we do not know the scope of the issue, so the EPA cannot possibly know the net potential benefit. Gas producers, transporters and storage facilities already do LDAR surveys and have both a monetary and safety driven incentive to keep leaks to a minimum. Put this in perspective and realize that the power industry alone registered 1800MM+ t CO2e emissions in 2018.
So, for all the whiners, read the documents linked here and understand the scope of the issue here. This methane reduction proposal would not solve any problem in a significant way.