DENVER - Capturing methane waste at oil and gas operations on national and tribal lands is an opportunity to turn environmental costs into revenues for the oil and gas industry, according to a new report by the Conservation Economics Institute.

Pete Morton, senior economist for the institute, said research shows the Bureau of Land Management's proposed methane-capture rules would be a win-win for operators' bottom lines and taxpayers.

"We hope that policymakers realize that sound environmental policies go hand-in-hand with sound economic policies," he said. "A lot of the conventional wisdom that 'environmental regulations kill jobs' is a false argument."

The Government Accountability Office has estimated that taxpayers lose as much as $23 million a year in royalty revenues from methane waste on public lands.

Industry groups have argued that operators already are cutting emissions and have said new regulations would increase costs by slowing production. The study found that low commodity prices from overproduction, not environmental regulations, are responsible for the industry's current downturn.

Even without government action, Morton said, the industry would benefit by voluntarily reducing waste. He said adopting a third-party certification process, such as the Forest Stewardship Council's guidelines for sustainable wood products, would put positive market forces into play "where companies voluntarily comply with environmental standards that exceed regulations.

"So, there's a whole new market mechanism that would sort of allow companies to voluntarily comply and then be rewarded in the marketplace," he said.

In August, NASA confirmed that a 2,500-square-mile cloud of methane over the Four Corners region largely was attributable to oil and gas production. Morton said the data from the region suggests that stopping waste is not only an economic opportunity waiting to happen for industry, but the public also would benefit from cleaner air and increased tax revenues.

The report is online at media.wix.com.


get more stories like this via email

New research from the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis found making hydrogen from natural gas, so-called "blue hydrogen," is not much better than burning fossil fuels, and will waste billions in federal government spending.

David Schlissel, director of resource planning analysis at the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis and the study's co-author, said people should be paying attention to the issue because the federal government is banking on blue hydrogen technology he argued could worsen climate change instead of mitigating its effects.

"The government is planning to spend maybe upwards of $70 billion on subsidies related to hydrogen," Schlissel pointed out. "There are a lot of uncertainties with the technology, and with factors like how much natural gas, which is used in the production of blue hydrogen, how much is going to leak into the atmosphere."

In addition, the report found government agencies may be significantly understating the environmental impact of methane, the primary component of natural gas. Fossil fuel companies have said blue hydrogen produced from methane or coal can be manufactured cleanly and can be part of the solution to the climate crisis.

Schlissel contended U.S. Department of Energy models are also based on an extremely optimistic set of assumptions about future carbon-capture technology. Models currently estimate 95% or more of the carbon dioxide produced at blue hydrogen facilities will be captured.

"There is no facility in the world that captures anywhere near that much carbon dioxide," Schlissel countered. "And the testing that's gone on to date is relatively small scale."

According to the report, carbon dioxide emissions involved in fully compressing, storing and transporting the hydrogen to the site where it will be used is more than three times as much as the Department of Energy's clean hydrogen standard.

A proposal to allow utility-scale solar operations for Washington Township in Delaware County is meeting with some setbacks and one nonpartisan group thinks it is time for more discussion.

Almost 200,000 Indiana homes are powered by solar energy, but the Delaware County Commission issued a moratorium on solar development last year. It created a study committee for further review and then, the unexpected death of a commissioner delayed creation of a new ordinance.

Linda Hanson, spokesperson for the League of Women Voters of Muncie-Delaware County, said the community needs to use the city's resources economically and responsibly.

"We believe that natural resources should be managed as interrelated parts of life-supporting ecosystems," Hanson explained. "We need to conserve and protect those resources for future availability."

The League backs ending the moratorium and passing an ordinance to approve solar installations in the Muncie area, based on a responsible review of each proposal on its individual merits. Another hearing is scheduled for Oct. 2.

Landowners in towns from Gaston to Matthews are voicing concerns about their property values potentially dropping if more solar farms are built. Some are also upset they were notified about a 2021 ordinance for another solar project, Meadow Forge, after it had been approved.

Hanson thinks the commissioners are leaning toward lifting the moratorium and allowing more solar development, with sufficient review.

"You try and look at how this can work responsibly, and that seems to be where we're getting pushback," Hanson observed. "When we track it, it seems to be coming from people who have investments in coal and petroleum."

Indiana is already home to the Mammoth Solar farm in Starke and Pulaski counties. The 13,000 acre facility is the country's largest. Built in 2021, the farm is expected to bring $1.5 billion in investment into the state over the next five years.


get more stories like this via email

New polling suggests most Americans support nationwide efforts to boost renewable energy capacity under the threat of climate change, and a local government leader from Wisconsin said municipalities are doing what they can, even with some challenges in their way.

The survey from the Pew Research Center found two-thirds of U.S. adults said America should prioritize developing sources such as wind and solar over fossil fuels.

Madison Mayor Satya Rhodes-Conway said at the local level, elected officials are becoming increasingly aware climate threats are no longer just a "future scenario" to deal with.

"We have to prepare for the impacts that we know are here and are coming and we have to reduce our emissions so that they don't get worse in the future," Rhodes-Conway urged. "And we have to do both of those things at the same time."

The mayor offered those comments in a panel discussion led by the Center for American Progress. She acknowledged federal policies, such as the bipartisan infrastructure law and the Inflation Reduction Act, are helping cities fund climate-friendly projects. But she added most local governments, especially in smaller towns, still lack key staffing to help carry out the work.

Still, Rhodes-Conway pointed out federal policies are sending a lot of direct funding support to cities, which helps if there are potential legislative constraints in various states. She noted the infrastructure law is giving Madison more flexibility to gain steam on certain projects.

"[It's helping] both our John Nolen Drive bridges to be safer, more pedestrian- and bike-friendly with better stormwater management," Rhodes-Conway explained. "We also just built a new pedestrian and bike bridge over a critical intersection."

As for other hurdles to clear, the mayor argued there is still room for improvement in getting the word out to local residents and businesses about tax incentives to make their own clean energy investments. Lingering supply-chain issues are another factor municipalities face in trying to get more of these projects off the ground.


get more stories like this via email