By Dr. Cyrus Reed
If you attended the recent packed interim committee hearing in Odessa of the House Committee on Environmental Regulation led by Odessa’s own Chairman Brooks Landgraf, you might have come away with the opinion that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is about to try and shut down oil and gas in the Permian Basin with a couple of proposed (but not final) regulations. Yet, scientific research has found that targeted limits on methane and volatile organic compound emissions improve health outcomes, and do not negatively impact local economies. Ultimately, smart regulations that lower emissions can be a boon to the local economy as health outcomes are improved, pollution control equipment creates more jobs, and there is more confidence that the oil and gas industry operates in a responsible manner.
Some participants – including myself as an invited representative of the Sierra Club – did our best to counteract the message of the Chair, Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts Glenn Hegar (who is up for election), other local officials, and multiple representatives of the oil and gas industry with real data, it’s important that the local community know what is at stake with two proposed regulations being considered by EPA that would increase regulation of methane and declare certain counties as violating health-based standards for ground-level ozone.
But let’s take a closer look at the two proposals from the U.S. EPA. First, the EPA has proposed new limits on emissions of methane – that is natural gas – from oil and gas wells, and associated equipment. In your stove or furnace, gas is obviously a useful product, but when it is emitted in the atmosphere, whether through flaring, venting or fugitive leaks, it is not only wasted, but is a climate cooker on steroids: 80 times more powerful than carbon dioxide as a cause of climate change. It can also be associated with health impacts, mainly due to associated volatile organic compounds like benzene and butadiene. Methane pollution from the oil and gas sector is accelerating the pace of climate change and harming the health of our families and communities — and it is a problem that is only getting worse.
While the final version of EPA’s so-called methane rule has yet to be released, an initial version would apply the regulations industry-wide to both new and existing oil and gas wells, storage tanks and even aspects of the pipes. Some of the requirements include periodic testing for leaks with an infrared camera, stricter regulations around flaring and venting, low pneumatic devices to avoid any fugitive emissions, and vapor recovery on storage tanks. It is estimated that the oil and gas industry releases over 16 million metric tons per year, and no state releases more methane to the air than Texas, with the Permian Basin by far the leader. Special investigations conducted by the Railroad Commission of Texas have shown that oil and gas operators routinely fail to meet their flaring requirements, often flaring or venting illegally, and a recent study based on on the ground data by the University of Michigan found that because of unlit flares and fugitive emissions, methane emissions might be much greater – five times more – than EPA estimates. Rather than reject common-sense regulation, many leading producers have actually embraced the need to reduce and eliminate flaring and support EPA proposed regulation. While again the final version has yet to be released, the Midland Odessa area would actually benefit from such regulations, particularly as there is likely to be flexibility in the rule to come into compliance.
We don’t yet have details of the second proposal, but earlier this year, the EPA found that several counties in Eastern New Mexico were violating heath-based standards for ozone, or ground-level smog. Ground-level smog occurs generally in the hot summer when nitrogen oxide mainly from transportation combines in sunlight with volatile organic compounds to form ozone, which can sear and impact lung function and health, particularly of the elderly, children and those with asthma. Due to the severity of the problem, the EPA is now reconsidering a previous 2015 decision that allows counties in the Permian Basin to operate outside of attainment goals set for ozone due to the fact that high ozone levels in Texas could be impacting New Mexico. But we simply don’t know enough to make an assessment about the impact on oil and gas operations, like Hegar did at the meeting. The more likely scenario would be that the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality will be required to come up with a plan and install some basic controls to limit nitrogen oxide and volatile organic compound emissions.
The fact of the matter is: the Permian Basin lacks basic air quality monitoring. The state’s air quality monitoring network includes dozens of air monitors in Dallas, Houston, Corpus Christi, San Antonio, Laredo, Austin and Tyler-Longview, and El Paso, but none in West Texas. Absolutely no ozone monitors in Midland, Odessa, Pecos or anywhere else, and one single sulfur dioxide monitor in Big Springs, far away from Midland Odessa. No monitoring of particulate matter, and limited monitoring of hydrogen sulfide. Whatever you think of EPA regulations, the lack of air quality monitoring is unfair to local residents and makes it impossible to know what health impacts might be caused by oil and gas emissions. Maybe the oil and gas industry is right and the air is cleaner than expected, but we must know for sure. Not wasting gas by allowing it to escape in the atmosphere and getting adequate monitoring in the Permian Basin should be an idea that everyone can get behind.
Cyrus Reed is the statewide conservation director of the Lone Star Chapter of the Sierra Club, the Texas chapter of the Sierra Club, a national conservation and environmental organization.
