U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

96–024 PDF 2015

S. HRG. 113–734 

FUGITIVE METHANE EMISSIONS 

FROM OIL AND GAS OPERATIONS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

NOVEMBER 5, 2013 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

BARBARA BOXER, California, Chairman 

MAX BAUCUS, Montana 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon 

KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York 

CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

MIKE CRAPO, Idaho 

ROGER WICKER, Mississippi 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

DEB FISCHER, Nebraska 

BETTINA POIRIER, Majority Staff Director 

ZAK BAIG, Republican Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island, Chairman 

MAX BAUCUS, Montana 

CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey 

BARBARA BOXER, California (ex officio) 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana (ex officio) 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

NOVEMBER 5, 2013 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Whitehouse, Hon. Sheldon, U.S. Senator from the State of Rhode Island ......... 1 

Inhofe, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma .................... 2 

Vitter, Hon. David, U.S. Senator from the State of Louisiana ............................ 4 

WITNESSES 

Dunham, Sarah, Director of the Office of Atmospheric Programs, Office of 

Air and Radiation, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ............................. 5 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 7 

Responses to additional questions from Senator Vitter ................................ 10 

Allen, David, Ph.D., Gertz Regents Professor in Chemical Engineering and 

Director of the Center for Energy and Environmental Resources, the University of Texas at Austin ................................................................................... 21 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 24 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Boxer ............................................................................................ 26 

Senator Vitter ............................................................................................ 30 

Boling, Mark K., President, V∂ Development Solutions, General Counsel, 

Southwestern Energy Company .......................................................................... 31 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 34 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Boxer ............................................................................................ 37 

Senator Vitter ............................................................................................ 38 

Gowrishankar, Vignesh, Ph.D., Staff Scientist, Sustainable Energy, Natural 

Resources Defense Council .................................................................................. 43 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 45 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Boxer ............................................................................................ 146 

Senator Vitter ............................................................................................ 150 

Smith, Darren, Environmental Manager, Devon Energy Corporation ................ 152 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 155 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Boxer ............................................................................................ 158 

Senator Vitter ............................................................................................ 162 

Senator Inhofe ........................................................................................... 164 

Hill, A. Daniel, Ph.D., P.E., Department Head, Petroleum Engineering, Texas 

A&M University ................................................................................................... 165 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 168 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Boxer ............................................................................................ 178 

Senator Vitter ............................................................................................ 179 

(1) 

FUGITIVE METHANE EMISSIONS FROM OIL 

AND GAS OPERATIONS 

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 5, 2013 

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT, 

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:29 p.m. in room 

406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Sheldon Whitehouse 

(chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding. 

Present: Senators Whitehouse, Vitter, and Inhofe. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Good afternoon, everyone, and thank you 

for being here. I am delighted to be hosting this hearing of our 

Subcommittee, and I particularly want to welcome our distinguished ranking member back. It is good to see him here and in 

such good health. 

Our topic today is fugitive methane. As we know, methane is the 

most abundant component of natural gas, and burning natural gas 

for energy produces the beneficial effect of less carbon dioxide than 

burning either oil or coal. So that is a positive. And both President 

Obama and the gas industry have both clearly made the point that 

natural gas is a step toward a lower carbon energy future. 

The American Gas Association’s Web site says in most applications, using natural gas produces less carbon dioxide, which is the 

primary greenhouse gas, and, it adds, using natural gas to replace 

less environmentally benign fuels can help address greenhouse gas 

emissions. 

And, of course, all of that is true, but methane itself, when left 

unburned, is a potent greenhouse gas. The IPCC estimates methane is 28 times more potent than carbon dioxide over 100 years 

and 84 times more potent over 20 years. It is clear that methane 

causes much more warming than carbon dioxide, particularly in 

the near term. The methane emissions that are not burned can actually offset, and more, the carbon benefits we get replacing oil and 

coal with natural gas. 

According to EPA—and I want to welcome our EPA witness, 

Sarah Dunham, here—methane is the second most abundant 

greenhouse gas emitted by human activities after carbon dioxide, 

and almost a third of methane emissions in the U.S. come from petroleum and natural gas systems. 
2 

Methane, as a byproduct of oil drilling, is often vented directly 

into the atmosphere, unburned. There is a lot of it that goes out. 

Flaring of this unwanted natural gas in the bake and shale formation in the Northern Great Plains has been estimated to be costing 

landowners, who receive royalties based on the value of the resources collected from their land, about $100 million per month in 

lost royalties. 

Even in the natural gas sector, where methane is the product 

and not a byproduct, significant amounts are emitted unintentionally through leaks or through inefficient drilling practices. In fact, 

3 years ago the Government Accountability Office estimated that 

around 40 percent of the natural gas vented and flared on offshore 

Federal leases could be economically captured with currently available control technologies. 

Domestic natural gas production is expected to grow by about 44 

percent from 2011 through 2040, so fugitive methane will pose an 

ever greater risk to the environment and to the bottom line of natural gas companies and mineral rights owners. 

But there are real opportunities here for producers and the environment. Two of our witnesses, Dr. David Allen of the University 

of Texas and Dr. A. Daniel Hill of Texas A&M, worked with a team 

of other scientists on a study demonstrating the promise of cost-effective technologies that significantly lower fugitive methane. 

Research also shows that broad application of more efficient 

practices, such as those used by natural gas companies like Southwestern, have immediate and significant economic and environmental benefits. To be sure, implementing fugitive methane capture technologies faces economic, logistical, and legal obstacles. 

Nonetheless, there is evident potential for economically attractive 

ways to reduce fugitive methane within the oil and gas sector. 

I want to thank all of our witnesses for their testimony, and I 

want to particularly thank our ranking member, Senator Inhofe, 

and also Senator Vitter of Louisiana for being here today. Today’s 

discussion, I hope, will help Congress and the Administration better understand fugitive methane and develop win-win policies that 

help industry and the environment. 

Now I will turn for opening remarks to our ranking member, 

Senator Inhofe. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA 

Senator INHOFE. I appreciate it, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. 

Thank you very much. This is one of the areas where we are going 

to find a lot of agreement with each other. And when you talk 

about a win-win situation, I think we are looking at one that might 

be. 

Again, I want to welcome Sarah Dunham. She and I got to know 

each other in my office back during the confirmation time of Gina. 

This issue is something I have been involved with for quite a 

number of years. Data started being collected about the time 

around the Natural Gas STAR Program, when it started. At that 

time, I chaired this Committee. The Natural Gas STAR is a voluntary program designed to allow industry to collaborate and share 
3 

best practices to reduce emissions from production activities. So 

you had a lot of cooperation there between industry and the EPA. 

We all know that oil and gas firms already have an incentive to 

reduce methane emissions. Methane is natural gas. If I were on the 

board of directors, as all other directors would feel, they don’t want 

to waste this stuff; it has a value to it. So we are all together on 

that. 

The Natural Gas STAR was all about EPA working collaborative 

with industry to help them collect the data and share best practices. It was a common goal, so everyone cooperated. Unfortunately, 

the EPA used the category of data it collected through the Natural 

Gas STAR program to justify some of its new oil and gas regulations. To make matters worse, EPA increased their emission estimate by assuming that methane is vented during the hydraulic 

fracturing process whenever there is not a State law mandated 

that it be flared, and that simply is not true. 

I wrote a letter pointing this out as a problem back in April, 

about a year and a half ago. The Agency has gone ahead and finalized that rule anyway. Since then, the EPA has started to make 

some modifications to its inventory of methane emissions from oil 

and gas operations, but it has come only as a result of some of our 

personal attention to this matter. 

I discussed this at great length with Gina McCarthy during her 

confirmation process, and once at a time when Ms. Dunham was 

there in her office, in present. I am very appreciative that she 

made some adjustments, which she did. I remember we had some 

stakeholders in the room at that time and she made some adjustments, but even then we still have major questions about the inventory data EPA had on emissions during the hydraulic fracturing 

process. 

Industry had regularly communicated to me that the estimates 

from EPA were too high, which was contributing to the alarm surrounding the hydraulic fracturing process. A few weeks ago I think 

we were vindicated when we had the study the chairman referred 

to. The University of Texas, in conjunction with the Environmental 

Defense Fund, releasing a study that showed methane emissions 

during the hydraulic fracturing process had been overestimated by 

the EPA by 50 times. Not double, not triple, not 10 times; 50 times. 

This study relied on real measurements, as opposed to EPA’s 

general computer modeling estimates, so the new data we have 

now is significantly more trustworthy than we had before. And during the question and answer, of course, I am going to try to see 

where we are right now in considering this new data as opposed 

to some of the computer modeling that we had before. 

Fortunately, industry has made significant headway toward reducing even those emissions further. The industry is known for its 

world class research and development practices and partnerships 

with leading universities around the world and, as a result, newer 

technology and process are constantly being developed. 

If a firm finds a better way to recover a resource, without losing 

it to the atmosphere, they are going to do it. As I said, it is to their 

benefit to do it. Still, some critics have raised the concerns about 

the amount of flaring that is going on in North Dakota and other 

regions that are being targeted for their rich deposits of oil, but 
4 

often yield natural gas too. In many of these cases the companies 

simply cannot immediately justify the gathering network of pipelines needed to capture the gas and transport it to the market. 

Since gas isn’t liquid, it is a lot harder to move around, to transport. 

One of the best ways that we could help the situation is to allow 

a widespread LNG exports, which are currently restricted by the 

Department of Energy, and if we were to do that, then demand for 

natural gas, which is currently very low relative to the supply that 

is out there today, would become more solid and more of these 

gathering networks could be justified, which would reduce flaring 

and increase domestic gas supply. So, again, that would be a truly 

win-win situation. 

So regardless, it is crucial that EPA have the most up to date 

and accurate information in its methane emissions inventory. It is 

my hope that they will be able to immediately make some adjustments in light of the recent University of Texas EDF study. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you, Chairman. 

I invite Senator Vitter to make any opening remarks he may care 

to make. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DAVID VITTER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF LOUISIANA 

Senator VITTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would just like 

unanimous consent to submit my opening statement for the record. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Without objection. 

Senator VITTER. And then I will summarize it very briefly. 

I certainly want to associate myself with Senator Inhofe’s remarks. This is important because this activity, this oil and gas activity, and particularly fracking, is at the center of the biggest positive development in our economy in the last decade, and it is creating good paying jobs, lower energy prices, increased energy security, revitalized manufacturing. So that is important for our economy and it is important, therefore, to get this right based on the 

real science. 

I also want to underscore how important it is that we talk about 

the University of Texas Environmental Defense Fund collaborative 

study, which is the first study, as Senator Inhofe said, to base 

measurements on actual production sites, actual measurements of 

190 production sites, not hypothetical extrapolations or computer 

models. Again, as Senator Inhofe said, that study underscores how 

off the EPA has been on this issue. 

So I look forward to focusing on that so that we can get this right 

based on the science, do the responsible thing, and do it in a way 

that allows us to continue with this real positive game changer, 

building American jobs. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement was not received at time of print.] 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you, Senator. 

I am now pleased to introduce our first witness, Ms. Sarah 

Dunham, who is EPA’s Director of their Office of Atmospheric Programs within the Office of Air and Radiation. She is here to provide an overview of the Administration’s work on fugitive methane 
5 

emissions. I am encouraged that the President’s Climate Action 

Plan includes the development of an interagency methane strategy 

and that EPA will be leading that team, and I look forward to 

learning more about the process and the other work being done by 

EPA to address fugitive methane. 

Ms. Dunham, welcome and please proceed. 

STATEMENT OF SARAH DUNHAM, DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE 

OF ATMOSPHERIC PROGRAMS, OFFICE OF AIR AND RADIATION, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

Ms. DUNHAM. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chairman Whitehouse 

and Ranking Members Vitter and Inhofe and members of the Subcommittee. I appreciate the opportunity to testify today regarding 

methane, a potent greenhouse gas. 

My name is Sarah Dunham and I am the Director of the Office 

of Atmospheric Programs in the Office of Air and Radiation at the 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The Office of Atmospheric 

Programs works to protect the ozone layer, improve regional air 

quality, and address climate change. My testimony today will focus 

on the importance of continued methane emission reductions to address climate change. 

There is overwhelming scientific evidence that climate change is 

happening, that human activity is largely responsible, and that, if 

left unchecked, the impacts will be severe. Efforts to reduce carbon 

pollution, including short-lived gases such as methane, are critically important to public health and the environment. 

Although the majority of greenhouse gas emissions consist of carbon dioxide, other powerful greenhouse gases significantly contribute to climate change, including methane, which is also an 

ozone precursor. The latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change assessment report estimates the 100-year warming influence from one ton of methane is 28 times greater than from one 

ton of carbon dioxide. In 2010, methane emissions accounted for 14 

percent of global greenhouse gas emissions and approximately 9 

percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. However, total U.S. anthropogenic methane emissions are projected to increase by 3 to 9 

percent by 2030, compared to 2010 emissions levels. 

Methane is primarily released from six sectors: natural gas systems, petroleum systems, agriculture, landfills, coal mining, and 

municipal wastewater. The EPA provides annual national methane 

emissions estimates for each sector in the Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks. Along with a number of other organizations, we continue to work to improve measurement methodologies and emissions estimates. There have been several recent 

studies and analyses that help to improve emissions estimates in 

the natural gas sector. The EPA has reviewed and used these 

sources, along with data from the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program, to update the most recent Inventory estimates for this sector. 

The EPA will continue to review new data and analyses to ensure 

that the Inventory reflects industry practices. 

Since the 1990s, the EPA, in partnership with industry, has been 

working with great success to reduce methane emissions domestically through programs such as Natural Gas STAR, Ag STAR, the 

Coalbed Methane Outreach Program, and the Landfill Methane 
6 

Outreach Program. These programs focus on removing market barriers and increasing the use of cost-effective emission reduction 

technologies. 

We also expect significant domestic methane emissions reductions as a co-benefit from Clean Air Act regulations, including the 

Oil and Gas New Source Performance Standards for Volatile Organic Compounds. The EPA estimates that the Oil and Gas New 

Source Performance Standards, finalized in 2012, will result in up 

to 1 million to 1.7 million tons of methane reduced annually. 

Additionally, the President’s Climate Action Plan, issued in June 

of this year, calls for broad Federal activities to address climate 

change, including the development of a comprehensive, interagency 

strategy to address methane emissions. The EPA is currently working with other agencies to assess emissions data, address data 

gaps, and identify opportunities to further reduce methane emissions through incentive-based programs and existing authorities. 

To conclude, reducing methane emissions is critical to mitigating 

the impacts of global climate change. We have made progress, but 

there is more to be done and the interagency strategy that the 

President’s Plan calls for will put us on a solid path forward to realize even further carbon pollution reductions. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to testify, and I look forward to answering your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Dunham follows:] 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you, Ms. Dunham. I appreciate 

your testimony here. You concluded by saying that the EPA estimates that the Oil and Gas New Source Performance Standards finalized in 2012 will result in between 1 million and 1.7 million 

tons of methane reduced annually. What are the technologies that 

are required to achieve that? Are we dealing with very experimental or cutting-edge technologies or is this pretty established 

stuff? 

Ms. DUNHAM. Thank you for that question. The New Source Performance Standard that I referred to really builds upon and requires a set of technologies and best practices that have been the 

industry has already proven are cost-effective and very effective at 

reducing methane emissions. A number of technologies that the industry leaders have been deploying for a number of years and that 

we have been working with industry through our Gas STAR program to show that they really do cost-effectively reduce and capture emissions. It is those types of technologies that form, really, 

the heart of the requirements under the New Source Performance 

Standard. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. So they are both established technologies 

and cost-effective for the implementing companies, not counting the 

social effects or the social benefits. From a pure company point of 

view they are cost-effective? 

Ms. DUNHAM. That is true. The cost-effectiveness largely comes 

from capturing the natural gas emitted during the process and 

using that, as you know, as a valuable energy resource. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Do you estimate how much these reductions will save industry participants each year? 

Ms. DUNHAM. Yes, sir. We have estimated for when the rules 

have been fully implemented, in 2015 and beyond, that the rules 

show a savings of between $11 million and $19 million a year, 

again, to the previous point, largely from reducing the waste of the 

valuable resource of natural gas. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. And do you think that the New Source 

Performance Standards have driven down actual fugitive methane 

emissions from oil and natural gas systems at this point? 

Ms. DUNHAM. We are certainly working with industry collaboratively as industry is working to implement these regulations. A 

number of the dates haven’t yet been fully realized in terms of 

when the compliance requirements are, so we don’t have in our 

data collection, for example, our greenhouse gas reporting program, 

where some of the data would show up, we don’t have that yet to 

show it, but we certainly are hopeful and we expect that the benefits that we projected under the rule will be achieved. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. You all at EPA are the lead on the President’s Climate Action Plan. What can you tell us about what you 

expect EPA’s role to be in terms of how you expect the process to 

work and any timeline or deliverables that you have in mind at 

this point? 

Ms. DUNHAM. One point to point out is we do, through our partnership programs, largely, have a long history of working with industry, again, on a very collaborative and partnership basis across 

a number of different sectors to help reduce methane emissions, so 

we are bringing that into the interagency discussions. But the de-
17 

velopment of the methane strategy called for in the President’s Climate Action Plan is being led through the White House through 

the collaboration of multiple Federal agencies, because I think, as 

you pointed out, there are multiple agencies who have a role here 

in looking at reducing methane emissions from multiple sectors. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. And what do you think your timeline is 

likely to be? 

Ms. DUNHAM. I don’t have a timeline right now, but I think what 

I can do is take back that question and that interest back, particularly to the interagency group and the White House, and we can 

follow up. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Good. Anything on like timeline, process, 

and deliverable points where it will help us kind of mark your 

progress as you go forward I think would be very helpful. 

Ms. DUNHAM. OK. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Senator Inhofe. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, I welcome 

our witness here. You have been career and you have been through 

this. You were in the new STAR program and were very familiar 

with the benefits, and with the cooperation that we have historically had, at least I believe at that time, we don’t have quite that 

same cooperation now, from my estimation. 

Now, on this program that was put together by the University 

of Texas and the EDF, have you looked at this? Have you formed 

any personal evaluations as to the accuracy of the results that they 

came up with? Have you looked at this? I guess I will rephrase it 

a different way. Do you object to their results in any way? 

Ms. DUNHAM. Well, sir, I think one of the things I noted in my 

testimony is that there have been, and continue to be, a number 

of studies in this area of measuring the emissions from the natural 

gas sector, and I think we see the study that you will hear about 

from the next panel as one of the very significant ones that is producing a lot more data in this area, so we hope to evaluate it and 

draw from that moving forward. 

Senator INHOFE. But don’t you think, though—you are talking 

about the University of Texas here, you are talking about the EDF. 

These are groups that normally would not be entrenched in one 

side or the other, and here they are together in agreement with 

each other. And the reason I bring this up, if this were like a two 

to one variance from what our data that was used for models, then 

I would feel a little bit differently about it, but right now are you 

currently making changes as a result of this in terms of what you 

are expecting from industry, in terms of your relationship with 

other entities and also international groups such as the United Nations? Are you sending out anything saying we are correcting errors that we made in the past, which is understandable, because 

this is the first time there has really been a study like this that 

has taken place? 

Ms. DUNHAM. I think the subject of the study that was done by 

the University of Texas and this group is definitely an area that 

we have already very publicly called attention to as an area where 

we are seeking additional data and it would be very helpful to have 

additional data. So it is very timely and relevant to those sorts of 

efforts that we have been saying over the last year or so and par-
18 

ticularly called out in our most recent greenhouse gas emissions inventory as an area where we were seeking additional data and 

looking for enough data to possibly look at different methodologies 

for estimating emissions from this sector. So some of the specific 

things that we asked for in that inventory this study is very relevant to. 

Senator INHOFE. I know you know this because I have said it so 

many times and one time or another you have heard it. The first 

hydraulic fracturing that took place was in my State of Oklahoma 

in 1948, and I can remember the predecessor, back when Lisa 

Jackson was the director of the EPA, in response to the question 

has there ever been a documented case of contamination as a result 

of hydraulic fracturing, and she said no. So I am very interested 

in this because, as you look around, you see this huge boon that 

is taking place right now. It is horizontal drilling and hydraulic 

fracturing. Without that we probably wouldn’t be having this meeting today. 

So my concern is, and I was very pleased to see the results of 

this study that took place, that we immediately adopt this and discard anything that is in conflict with this and not continue with 

any kind of regulations that are underway right now until that is 

fully considered. Are there regulations right now that are underway or being studied by the EPA? 

Ms. DUNHAM. We have a number of petitions for reconsideration 

and judicial review on the New Source Performance Standard that 

we finalized last year that I referred to, and we are continuing to 

evaluate those petitions and the issues that were raised in them. 

Senator INHOFE. With any regulations that are currently in the 

planning stage, would you do an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking and allow comment to be taken on the notice to see if the 

regulations are even necessary or should be changed? 

Ms. DUNHAM. Again, I think to the extent that we are considering additional issues, it is largely under the umbrella of the evaluation of the ongoing petitions with respect to the process with 

which we would move forward with. I should note that it is not my 

office that owns the regulatory framework; what we do, largely, is 

support some of the analysis and the data on those. 

Senator INHOFE. Yes, but you are representing the EPA at this 

time. 

Ms. DUNHAM. That is true. 

Senator INHOFE. The last thing I wanted to mention, and maybe 

this would be something you might want to take for the record, because one of the things that could improve the demand certainty 

of natural gas is to justify more gathering lines. This gets into the 

somewhat controversial area of exporting LNG. Of course, there are 

a lot of people who are opposed to it, saying that is going to cause 

the price to increase here in the United States, when in fact something is going to have to be done because right now the supply and 

demand situation is such that we have something we could really 

offer in terms of the balance of trade and other things that we 

could be great beneficiaries of that. So do you have any comments 

right now in expanding the LNG exports? 

Ms. DUNHAM. I do not have any comments on that. 

Senator INHOFE. OK. Well, something to think about it. 
19 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. You are very welcome, Senator. 

I will turn to Senator Vitter. 

Senator VITTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thanks, Ms. Dunham, for your work, for being here. 

The regulatory impact analysis for the final NSPS rule discusses 

the 2010 social cost of carbon estimates developed by the Administration’s interagency working group, and this year that working 

group released revised social cost of carbon estimates and those are 

being used in a lot of EPA proposals, so they are very significant. 

During all your work at EPA, have you participated, or do you now, 

in that interagency working group work on the social cost of carbon? 

Ms. DUNHAM. We have folks in my office who are part of the 

technical group that goes into the modeling context. 

Senator VITTER. So your office certainly participates in that. 

Ms. DUNHAM. It participates in the development of the analysis 

and the modeling. 

Senator VITTER. OK. And personally have you attended meetings, 

provided materials, analysis during the development of those social 

costs of carbon estimates? 

Ms. DUNHAM. I have certainly attended some meetings. There 

are a lot of different meetings on these, but I certainly attended 

some meetings that have discussed the updated social cost of carbon estimates, and particularly with respect to the technical work 

and the modeling and some of the differences. 

Senator VITTER. Where I am going is to anyone outside the Administration, including me, this is like a black box, and we have 

been asking a number of legitimate questions through at least two 

letters about that process and about the participants, and I have 

just gotten no information yet. So are you aware of others who 

have been involved in that process? 

Ms. DUNHAM. I am certainly aware of your interest in the subject 

and knowing more about it, so what I can do is make sure that I 

take that interest back in learning more about what the process 

was. 

Senator VITTER. OK. Specifically, can you ensure that our inquiries are substantively addressed, including with a list of agency officials who have participated in that social cost of carbon process? 

Ms. DUNHAM. I can certainly take your interest in getting that 

back to the agency. 

Senator VITTER. OK. I am not so much concerned about that; I 

am concerned about the other direction. 

Ms. DUNHAM. I understand. 

Senator VITTER. Will we get anything back from EPA or the Administration? 

Ms. DUNHAM. Yes. It is not my role at the Agency to speak for 

that, but I can take it back, your interest in it. 

Senator VITTER. Well, I would specifically ask you to get those 

legitimate questions answered, including a list of Agency officials 

who have participated. 

Ms. DUNHAM. Yes, sir. 
20 

Senator VITTER. Since you have been somewhat involved in the 

process, what officials do you know of who have participated directly? 

Ms. DUNHAM. Well, I will tell you the discussions that I have 

been mostly involved with were really the technical and the modelers, and things like that. I know you are asking for a broader set 

of questions and frankly would like to defer to the Agency officials. 

Senator VITTER. OK. Well, since you are the witness, I would just 

like to ask for you to supplement this record with a list of all officials that you know of who have participated in that. 

Ms. DUNHAM. OK. 

Senator VITTER. Great. Ms. Dunham, a number of us are a little 

concerned about the very sort of backdoor way EPA has gone at 

regulating methane through these lawsuits that were filed, including basically regulating it as a co-benefit. But the methane reductions, at the end of the day, are on the order of 90 times greater 

than the reductions of hazardous air pollutants that the rule directly seeks to regulate. Do you have any concern about that, sort 

of the tail wagging the dog? 

Ms. DUNHAM. Well, I think for a number of sectors methane is 

co-emitted with volatile organic compounds and, frankly, I think 

we—and a number of the technologies that have been used and are 

used in this regulation that capture both volatile organic compounds also capture methane. So I think using this sort of model 

of capturing the methane as a co-benefit is a helpful one in terms 

of using this very valuable natural resource that is being vented to 

the atmosphere without these technologies. 

Senator VITTER. OK. 

If I can have an additional 30 seconds. 

It appears EPA is also on the verge of getting sued again, probably in an attempt to force the Agency into additional regulations 

that more directly regulate methane. As we speak, what are EPA’s 

plans in regard to additional rulemakings on methane? 

Ms. DUNHAM. Again, particularly with respect to the oil and gas 

sector, that is one of the issues that we have been petitioned on for 

reconsideration, so we are continuing to evaluate all those issues. 

Senator VITTER. Final question. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. For the record, could I just ask the witness to define the word petitioned, what she means by that so that 

it is clear to people following this? 

Ms. DUNHAM. Yes. And maybe we can get back to you with a 

more formal legal definition of it, but we have petitions for reconsideration of issues under the rule, as well as petitions for judicial 

review of the rule. But if you want a more sort of fuller explanation 

of both the petitions, as well as the use of that word, we would be 

happy to—— 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. No, that is close enough. 

Ms. DUNHAM. OK. 

Senator VITTER. Final question. In any of that future work, will 

the EPA commit to using actual measurement data from actual 

sites like the University of Texas study—I am not suggesting that 

should be the entire universe—would seem to be qualitatively different and better, if it is done right, than modeling, et cetera? 
21 

Ms. DUNHAM. We absolutely agree that the more actual measurement data there is that is available, we want to use that to improve our estimates. And I would just point out that there are a 

number of studies, in addition to the University of Texas one, including the now 2 years’ worth of greenhouse gas reporting program data that actually requires all facilities to report emissions 

to the Agency. That is another extremely valuable source of data 

for use in updating our estimates and making sure that they are 

based on the best available science. 

Senator VITTER. OK, thank you. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you very much, Ms. Dunham. We 

appreciate you being here and we appreciate very much your work. 

Ms. DUNHAM. Thank you. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Enjoy the rest of the afternoon. 

Ms. DUNHAM. Thank you. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. If I may take just a moment’s recess while 

we call up the next panel of witnesses and ask the witnesses to 

come forward. 

[Recess.] 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Good afternoon, gentlemen. Thank you all 

for being here. I appreciate it very much. I think what I will just 

do is go right across the table, starting with Dr. Allen. Dr. Allen 

is the Gertz Regents Professor in Chemical Engineering and the 

Director of the Center for Energy and Environmental Research at 

the University of Texas at Austin. He has authored six books and 

over 200 papers in areas ranging from coal liquefaction and heavy 

oil chemistry to the chemistry of urban atmospheres. Dr. Allen’s 

work has focused primarily on urban air quality and the development of materials for environmental education in the past decade. 

He has also developed environmental educational materials for 

engineering curricula and for the University’s core curriculum. He 

was the lead investigator for the first and second Texas Air Quality 

Studies, which involved hundreds of researchers drawn from 

around the world and which have had a substantial effect on the 

direction of air quality policies in Texas. 

He received his bachelor of science degree in chemical engineering with distinction from Cornell University. His master and Ph.D. 

degrees in chemical engineering were awarded by Cal-Tech in 1981 

and 1983. He has held visiting faculty appointments at Cal-Tech, 

the University of California Santa Barbara, and at the Department 

of Energy, and we are pleased to welcome him here. 

Dr. Allen. 

STATEMENT OF DAVID ALLEN, Ph.D., GERTZ REGENTS PROFESSOR IN CHEMICAL ENGINEERING AND DIRECTOR OF 

THE CENTER FOR ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES, THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN 

Mr. ALLEN. Thank you very much for inviting me to appear in 

this hearing of the Environmental and Public Works Oversight 

Committee on methane leakage. My name is David Allen and I am 

a professor in the Cockrell School of Engineering and the Director 

of the Center for Energy and Environmental Resources at the University of Texas at Austin. 
22 

Since January 2012, I have been leading a research team funded 

by Environmental Defense Fund and nine natural gas producers. 

The nine large and mid-sized companies that have participated in 

this study account for 16 percent of natural gas production and 

roughly half of new gas well completions in the United States. The 

research team making the measurements consisted of personnel 

from UT-Austin’s Cockrell School of Engineering and environmental testing firms URS and Aerodyne Research. 

The team has been making measurements of methane emissions 

from natural gas production sites throughout the United States, in 

locations ranging from Pennsylvania to the Gulf Coast and Rocky 

Mountains. In September this year, our first results were published 

by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. In these 

brief prepared remarks I will summarize the main findings of our 

work to date. 

The overall goal of the study was to measure methane emissions 

during natural gas production at a large number of recently developed sites and to assess the national implications for methane 

emissions of these measurements. The team performed the firstever direct measurements of methane emissions from some of these 

sources. 

Briefly, our study is based on measurements made at 190 production sites throughout the United States, with access provided by 

the nine participating energy companies. 

The collaboration of the energy companies and unprecedented access to their natural gas production facilities and equipment allowed our research team to acquire direct measurements of methane emissions from natural gas production operations where hydraulic fracturing is used. 

During the year-long study, the UT-led team selected times and 

general locations for sampling activities, and companies provided 

us with access to their sites. The sampling was designed to be representative of company operations in the Gulf Coast, Mid-Continent, Rocky Mountain, and Appalachian regions. 

We measured methane emissions from hydraulically fractured 

well completions, a process that clears sand and liquids from a 

fractured well. For two-thirds of the completions sampled during 

the study, reduced emission completion equipment was used to reduce methane emissions. This equipment reduced emissions by 99 

percent. 

For these wells, only 1 percent of the methane leaving the well 

during the completion flowback was emitted to the atmosphere. Because of this equipment, our estimates of national methane emissions from well completions are significantly lower than the calendar year 2011 national emission estimates that were released by 

the EPA in April 2013. 

We also found that emissions from certain types of pneumatic devices, which control devices such as valves on well sites, are 30 percent to several times higher than calendar year 2011 EPA estimates for this equipment. We estimate the combined emissions 

from pneumatics and equipment leaks account for about 40 percent 

of national emissions of methane from natural gas production. 
23 

We found that the total methane emissions from natural gas production from all sources measured in the study were comparable to 

the most recent calendar year 2011 EPA estimates. 

Having summarized the findings, I will briefly comment on the 

manner in which the work was reviewed. The nine natural gas producers and Environmental Defense Fund provided technical reviews throughout the study. In addition, a scientific advisory panel 

made up of independent academic experts reviewed the study. The 

panel reviewed project plans before data collection, preliminary 

findings, and the final manuscript that was published. Prior to 

publication, the study also went through the peer review process of 

the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, which involved responding to the comments of anonymous reviewers selected by the editors. 

In addition, I note that our study, which focused on natural gas 

production, is part of a larger effort spearheaded by the Environmental Defense Fund to measure methane emissions throughout 

the natural gas supply chain. Results for the studies addressing 

other parts of the supply chain, which are being done by other investigators, will be reported during the next 12 to 18 months. 

Finally, I note that the University of Texas at Austin is committed to transparency and disclosure of all potential conflicts of 

interest of its researchers, and for details on our disclosures I call 

your attention to those disclosures that appear with our published 

manuscript. 

Thank you for the opportunity to describe our work. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Allen follows:] 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
29 
30 
31 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you very much, Dr. Allen. I appreciate it. 

I am very pleased to welcome Mark Boling here. He has served 

as president of V∂ Development Solutions, which is a division of 

Southwestern Energy Company since that division’s creation in 

April 2012. Previously, he has been senior vice president, general 

counsel, and secretary of the board of directors to Southwestern 

and an executive vice president of Southwestern. 

The mission of V∂ Development is to identify and develop solutions for achieving balance among the economic, environmental, 

and social effects of Southwestern’s activities, focusing in particular 

on the role of advancing the development of domestic natural gas 

supplies in achieving a low carbon energy future. He initiated and 

continues to lead Southwestern’s efforts to collaborate with the Environmental Defense Fund and other environmental NGOs to develop a model regulatory framework for hydraulic fracturing operations. 

Thank you, Mr. Boling, for being here. Please proceed. 

STATEMENT OF MARK K. BOLING, PRESIDENT, V∂ DEVELOPMENT SOLUTIONS, AND GENERAL COUNSEL, SOUTHWESTERN ENERGY COMPANY 

Mr. BOLING. Good afternoon, Chairman Whitehouse, Ranking 

Member Inhofe, and Senator Vitter. My name is Mark Boling and 

I am General Counsel and President of V∂ Development Solutions, 

a division of Southwestern Energy Company. Southwestern Energy 

Company is an independent exploration and production company 

and is the fifth largest producer of natural gas in the United 

States. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today and 

provide testimony regarding methane emissions from the Production Sector of Natural Gas Systems. 

At Southwestern, we believe the development of America’s natural gas resources is an important part of achieving a secure, lowcarbon energy future for our country, but only if it is done right. 

The good news is that the solutions to doing it right are out there 

and if industry, environmental groups and regulators work together in a collaborative way, these solutions can be found and implemented. 

One of the primary roles of our Development Solutions division 

is to engage the communities impacted by our operations, as well 

as other stakeholders, to assist us in maximizing the benefits while 

minimizing the negative impacts of our activities. We believe that 

by engaging in these problem-solving dialogs, it is possible to develop ‘‘smart regulations’’ for our industry. When I refer to ‘‘smart 

regulations,’’ I am talking about rules that level the playing field 

for all companies and effectively manage risk by achieving the 

proper balance among the economic, environmental and social impacts of the regulated activities. 

Southwestern believes that a good example of how collaboration 

between industry and regulators can lead to smart regulations is 

EPA’s Natural Gas STAR Program. The Natural Gas STAR Program is a voluntary partnership that encourages oil and natural 

gas companies to adopt cost-effective technologies and practices 

that improve operational efficiency and reduce methane emissions. 
32 

Southwestern joined the Natural Gas STAR Program in 2005. 

Since our initial report in 2006, Southwestern has reported cumulative methane reductions of over 37 billion cubic feet of gas, primarily due to our use of Reduced Emission Completions, also 

known as Green Completions. Additionally, due to the hard work 

and innovation of our employees, Southwestern was able to drive 

down the incremental cost of conducting Reduced Emission Completions in our Fayetteville Shale project from approximately 

$20,000 per well to $0 per well, while at the same time capturing 

a significant amount of natural gas that would have otherwise been 

vented or flared. 

The years of collaboration and innovation supported by the Natural Gas STAR Program provided key technological and operational practice information to support the recently enacted New 

Source Performance Standards, Quad O regulations. Southwestern 

believes the Quad O regulations are smart regulations as they effectively manage volatile organic compound, VOC, emissions from 

the production sector, and indirectly methane emissions, by requiring proven, cost-effective emission reduction technologies and practices. In fact, much of the equipment, controls and practices required by Quad O have already been implemented by Southwestern 

and many other companies that participate in the Natural Gas 

STAR Program. 

Finally, I would like to say a few words about another important 

collaborative effort, the recently released upstream methane emissions study conducted by a team of researchers from the University 

of Texas and testing firms URS and Aerodyne Research. Since Dr. 

Allen has already provided details of the measurement data gathered from the study, I will limit my comments to the following key 

findings: 

First, total estimated methane emissions from natural gas production were found to be comparable to the most recent EPA estimates. 

Second, measured methane emissions from hydraulically fractured well completions were found to be significantly lower than 

the estimates used by EPA in the national emissions inventory. 

And third, measured methane emissions from equipment leaks 

and certain types of pneumatic controllers were found to be higher 

than current EPA estimates. 

This study shows that methane emissions from the natural gas 

production sector can be effectively minimized by applying reasonable emission capture and control practices. It also shows, however, 

that additional opportunities exist to reduce methane emissions 

from this sector. 

Southwestern intends to actively pursue these opportunities by 

taking the following steps: implement an internal initiative to reduce methane emissions associated with our operations, including 

a leak detection and repair program; participate in additional studies to gather data on pneumatic controllers and liquids unloading 

events to increase the data set and improve knowledge; participate 

in a research and development project to identify or develop costeffective methane emission monitoring devices; and work with 

other energy industry partners to develop a methane leadership 
33 

initiative, with a primary goal of reducing methane emissions from 

the entire natural gas value chain. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. I would be happy to 

answer any questions you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Boling follows:] 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42 
43 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you, Mr. Boling, I appreciate it. 

Our next witness is Dr. Vignesh Gowrishankar, who is a staff 

scientist in sustainable energy at the Natural Resources Defense 

Council. His work focuses on Federal and State policies, programs, 

and mechanisms to clean up natural gas production, help deploy 

cleaner resources across the electric grid, and promote greater industrial energy efficiency. 

Prior to joining NRDC, Dr. Gowrishankar served as a senior policy advisor on climate change adaptation and mitigation issues to 

the premier of the Australian state of Victoria and served as a 

management consultant with McKinsey & Company in a variety of 

industries. He earned his Ph.D. from Stanford University and his 

undergraduate degree at the Indian Institute of Technology Madras 

in Tamil Nadu, India. We are delighted to have him here. 

Please proceed, Dr. Gowrishankar. 

STATEMENT OF VIGNESH GOWRISHANKAR, Ph.D., STAFF SCIENTIST, SUSTAINABLE ENERGY, NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL 

Mr. GOWRISHANKAR. Thank you, Chairman Whitehouse, Ranking 

Member Inhofe, and Senator Vitter. Thank you for the opportunity 

to testify here today. My message today is simple: The Federal 

Government needs to do more to limit the release of methane and 

other pollutants from the production and distribution of natural 

gas. Absent such steps, the increased use of natural gas will aggravate smog, expose the public to more carcinogenic chemicals, and 

worsen climate change. 

The good news is that the technologies to reduce the release of 

these pollutants exist today and the oil and gas industry can actually make more money using them. Failure to employ these health 

and environment protecting technologies is a classic market failure. 

The leakage and sometimes intentional venting of gas occurs 

across the supply chain, from the production to transport. This releases harmful and toxic pollutants and methane, a highly potent 

greenhouse gas that accelerates and magnifies climate change. This 

is the right time to be discussing the topic of methane leakage, 1 

year after Hurricane Sandy and close on the heels of the President’s Climate Action Plan. 

According to the latest EPA data, methane leakage equals about 

1.5 percent of all natural gas produced each year, and recent peer 

review literature has reported leakage as high as 7 percent, or even 

more, in certain locations. To put that in perspective, at just 3 percent leakage, natural gas is no better than coal in terms of its contribution to near-term climate change. Continuing research on the 

precise level of leakage should not obscure the fundamental and incontrovertible point that natural gas is leaking into the atmosphere, wasting fuel, polluting the air, and damaging our climate; 

when, instead, that fuel could economically be put to use. 

The technologies to control emissions are not hard to understand 

at a basic level. They include such common sense steps as capturing the big release of gas that occurs when a well is fracked, 

using better seals for compressors and making sure they are properly maintained and functioning, ensuring that wells that control 

gas don’t actually leak the gas, putting a sealed lid on storage 
44 

tanks so that gas does not escape, and using detectors to identify 

when and where equipment is leaking. And there are many others. 

This equipment has been tried and tested, and is being manufactured and sold. A number of leading companies are using them in 

some of their operations and Dr. Allen’s study further proves that 

they can be very effective. 

These technologies enable industry to capture and therefore sell 

the gas that is now leaking into the atmosphere. As a result, these 

technologies pay for themselves in short time, typically in just a 

few months to about 2 to 3 years. NRDC has identified 10 such 

technologies that are especially cost-effective. Employing these 10 

technologies could potentially reduce 60 to 80 percent of methane 

leakage, and possibly even more. Yet, using these proven, cost-effective technologies is not yet industry standard practice. This is a 

classic market failure. Industry is leaving money on the table and 

the public is paying the price for suffering the health and environmental harms of leakage. 

The EPA recently established standards that begin to cut this 

wasteful leakage, but these standards are too weak and will cut 

less than one-sixth of total emissions in the near term. EPA has 

the authority and obligation under current law to do more. EPA 

should be setting stronger standards that target methane directly 

and require emission controls for new and existing equipment already in the field; all types of wells, including oil wells that coproduce gas, such as those in North Dakota; all significant emission sources across the entire oil and gas supply chain. Such additional standards could actually benefit the entire economy and help 

royalty owners, U.S. equipment manufacturers and service providers, and well trained technicians, operators, and pipe fitters. 

Ultimately, the solution to climate change is moving away from 

fossil fuels entirely and relying on energy efficiency, renewables, 

and zero emission energy sources. Deploying these should be the 

primary goal of U.S. energy policy. But until then we need to ensure that the fossil fuels we do use have the lowest environmental 

footprint possible, and reducing leakage and venting of methane is 

one of the easiest things we can take in this regard. There is absolutely no excuse to delay action. 

Thank you again. I would be happy to take any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Gowrishankar follows:] 
45 
46 
47 
48 
49 
50 
51 
52 
53 
54 
55 
56 
57 
58 
59 
60 
61 
62 
63 
64 
65 
66 
67 
68 
69 
70 
71 
72 
73 
74 
75 
76 
77 
78 
79 
80 
81 
82 
83 
84 
85 
86 
87 
88 
89 
90 
91 
92 
93 
94 
95 
96 
97 
98 
99 
100 
101 
102 
103 
104 
105 
106 
107 
108 
109 
110 
111 
112 
113 
114 
115 
116 
117 
118 
119 
120 
121 
122 
123 
124 
125 
126 
127 
128 
129 
130 
131 
132 
133 
134 
135 
136 
137 
138 
139 
140 
141 
142 
143 
144 
145 
146 
147 
148 
149 
150 
151 
152 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you very much, Dr. Gowrishankar. 

Our next witness is Mr. Darren Smith, who is the Environmental 

Manager for Devon Energy Corporation, a Fortune 500 company 

headquartered in Senator Inhofe’s home State in Oklahoma City. 

He served there since January 2009. Devon’s oil and natural gas 

exploration production operations are focused onshore in the 

United States and Canada, and the company owns natural gas 

pipelines and treatment facilities in many of its producing areas, 

making it one of North America’s largest processors of natural gas 

liquids. 

Mr. Smith earned his undergraduate degree in biology from the 

University of Western Ontario and he earned a Master of Science 

in environmental toxicology from the University of Wyoming-Laramie. We welcome him here today. 

Mr. Smith. 

STATEMENT OF DARREN SMITH, ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGER, 

DEVON ENERGY CORPORATION 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Chairman, for that introduction. Ranking 

Member Vitter and Ranking Member Inhofe, thank you for the opportunity to testify here today about this very important issue. My 

name is Darren Smith. I am Devon Energy’s environmental policy 

manager. 

Devon Energy Corporation is a leading independent oil and natural gas exploration and production company with operations focused onshore in the U.S. and Canada. We operate in several of the 

major shale basins in the United States. 

Devon has been actively engaged in the last several years in efforts to demonstrate to EPA that its method of estimating methane 

emissions from oil and gas operations is fundamentally flawed and 

is resulting in gross overestimates. I testified to that effect last 

June and extensively described how this faulty data had been contaminating critical public policy research and considerations. 

Since that time, Devon has continued to engage EPA in constructive dialog, providing method suggestions and data, some of its 

from EPA’s own greenhouse gas reporting program, to encourage 

EPA to revise the factor that it uses to estimate methane emissions 

from hydraulically fractured natural gas wells. 

This work is ongoing and Devon remains encouraged that EPA 

will act swiftly to revise its data. The UT-EDF Fugitive Methane 

Study that we are discussing today, one that EPA, environmental 

groups, and industry hold in high regard, confirms what Devon has 

been telling EPA for the last 2 years, that its estimate for representing methane emissions from hydraulically fractured natural 

gas wells is an order of magnitude too high. The study confirms 

that this EPA estimate is in fact 50 times too high. 

The time for EPA to finally revise this erroneous emission data 

is now. There is both consensus and confidence in the data that industry has provided, in the data that has been provided to EPA 

under its greenhouse gas reporting program, and now in this peerreviewed scientific study. 

Immediate action is vital because EPA estimates have been relied upon by researchers, financial analysts, and various policymakers as a basis for critical public policy considerations. In fact, 
153 

a recently finalized EPA regulation on the oil and gas industry was 

justified using this inaccurate data. Equally troubling is a group of 

Northeastern States that is threatening to sue EPA if it doesn’t 

propose additional emission requirements on the oil and gas sector. 

All this is driven by the Agency’s use of this flawed data. EPA 

must immediately revise its data to more accurately reflect emissions associated with the source category before further harm is 

done. 

Devon applauds the researchers and the companies that participated in the UT-EDF study for their efforts to shed a necessary scientific light on the topic of fugitive methane emissions from oil and 

gas operations. It is unfortunate that some of the headlines and 

discussions surrounding the release of the study suggest that the 

low emission performance by the oil and gas industry is due solely 

to recent EPA regulation that forces industry to use emission control equipment. The study fails to recognize that, in fact, the industry had been already voluntarily using many of these controls prior 

to the EPA mandate, and I should add that the mandate that we 

are describing had been justified in part using the flawed emission 

estimate that we are talking about today. 

Despite the study’s findings that emissions from hydraulically 

fractured wells are 50 times lower than what EPA previously estimated, the study concludes that, overall, when other methane 

emission sources are added, methane emissions from gas operations are about the same as EPA previously reported in their inventory. 

One source, pneumatic controllers, devices that use gas pressure 

from the well to maintain fluid levels at a well site when no electricity is available, were found by the study to emit more than 

EPA’s prior estimate, thus offsetting the significant decline in 

emissions from completions with hydraulic fracturing. The end result is that the overall estimate of methane emissions from the entire system are about 10 percent lower than EPA’s. 

Many in the industry question whether conclusions about methane emissions from these pneumatic devices are premature since it 

is known that they will be studied further in phase two of the 

study, and the researchers have admitted ‘‘There was significant 

geographic variability in the emissions rate from pneumatic controllers between production regions’’ and, further, that ‘‘emissions 

per controller from the Gulf Coast are highest and are statistically 

different than emissions from controllers in the Rocky Mountain 

and Appalachian regions’’ and, further, ‘‘the difference in average 

values is more than a factor of 10 between Rocky Mountain and 

Gulf Coast regions.’’ 

The bottom line here is that the researchers admittedly cannot 

explain this variability and have therefore correctly concluded that 

more study is needed in order to correctly establish what representative emissions are from these devices. We are confident that phase 

two of the study will ultimately show that a few high emission 

measurements in one part of the country are not indicative of the 

nationwide average. In fact, it is likely that phase two will lead to 

a downward revision of the emission estimates for these devices, 

from what was found in phase one, as we understand that three 
154 

out of the four regions already studied have demonstrated low 

emissions from these devices. 

This would mean that the overall methane emissions from gas 

production would fall even further below the study’s current estimate of .42 percent of gross production and remain less than onethird to one-sixth of what critics believe is necessary for natural 

gas to benefit the climate. 

One cannot lose sight of the fact that gas producers are in the 

business of selling methane and industry will continue to make important innovations to improve efficiency and further reduce emissions. Not only is this a reflection of a strong commitment to environmental stewardship, but it is in the companies’ best interest to 

do so because methane leaks represent lost revenue. I am confident 

that future studies like the one we are discussing today will continue to reinforce this business fundamental. 

With that, this concludes my testimony. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Smith follows:] 
155 
156 
157 
158 
159 
160 
161 
162 
163 
164 
165 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you, Mr. Smith. I appreciate it. 

Our final witness is A. Daniel Hill, who is the department head 

and holder of the Noble Chair in petroleum engineering at Texas 

A&M University. Professor Hill also holds the Robert Whiting Endowed Chair. Prior to joining the faculty of Texas A&M, Dr. Hill 

taught for 22 years at the University of Texas at Austin, and before 

that, before entering academia, he spent 5 years as an advanced 

research engineer with Marathon Oil Company. He serves on the 

Society of Petroleum Engineers Editorial Review Committee and 

chairs the Society of Petroleum Engineers Hydraulic Fracturing 

Technology Conference. 

He holds three degrees in chemical engineering, a bachelor of 

science from Texas A&M, a masters and doctorate from the University of Texas at Austin, and we are delighted to have him here 

today. 

Professor Hill. 

STATEMENT OF A. DANIEL HILL, Ph.D., P.E., DEPARTMENT 

HEAD, PETROLEUM ENGINEERING, TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY 

Mr. HILL. Thank you, Chairman Whitehouse and Ranking Member Inhofe and Senator Vitter. Good afternoon. I am Dan Hill. I am 

the head of the Harold Vance Petroleum Engineering Department 

at Texas A&M University. I have been a faculty member for over 

30 years, after working in industry for about 5 years. 

In recent years, one focus of my research has been various aspects of hydraulic fracturing of shale gas and oil reservoirs. Hydraulic fracturing, of course, is the key well completion technique 

that has enabled the production of huge quantities of natural gas 

and oil from shale reservoirs to the enormous benefit to the U.S. 

economy and to U.S. consumers. 

In February 2012, I was invited by Professor David Allen of the 

University of Texas to serve on the scientific advisory panel for the 

planned comprehensive study of methane emissions at natural gas 

production sites in the United States. As a member of the advisory 

panel for this methane emission study, I reviewed the planned 

measurement program, reviewed results partway through the 

study, reviewed the final results, and reviewed the publications describing the outcomes. Throughout the study, I was impressed with 

the careful and thorough approach of the study team. I would say 

that this was the unanimous opinion of the scientific advisory 

panel. 

Unconventional oil and gas production has changed the U.S. energy game. Production of natural gas and oil from unconventional 

reservoirs, primarily shale formations, is soaring, daily lessening 

this country’s dependence on imported oil and natural gas. A slide 

that you Senators have is a history and forecast of U.S. natural gas 

supply. In less than 10 years gas production from shale formations 

has grown to over 30 percent of the U.S. supply and continues to 

grow. In fact, in a recent update to this 2011 forecast, the EIA is 

now predicting that the United States will be a net gas exporter 

before the year 2020. This is great news in every possible way: natural gas is the cleanest burning fossil fuel, it yields the least CO2, and it is low cost thanks to its newfound abundance in unconventional reservoirs. 
166 

Thus, it is critical that development of natural gas production 

from shales continues in an environmentally responsible fashion. 

In my opinion, this study has alleviated the fear that large volumes 

of natural gas are emitted during the flowback period following hydraulic fracturing. However, the study did reveal significant 

sources of natural gas emissions occurring during other shale gas 

well operations. 

The measurement protocols used were sound and were properly 

applied. The validity of this study is founded on the measurement 

methods used and their correct application. The methods chosen 

were all proven from years of prior practice and were properly calibrated and applied in this study. 

The study is comprehensive. In this study, methane emissions 

were measured at 190 well sites, with 489 hydraulically fractured 

gas wells at these sites. The well sites were located in the Gulf 

Coast, the Mid-Continent, Rocky Mountain, and the Appalachian 

regions of the U.S. Slide 4 shows the regions studied. The measures were made on sufficient numbers of well sites to make the results statistically valid and extrapolatable. 

Methane emissions during hydraulic fracturing flowback operations are 36 times less than that estimated in the EPA’s 2011 

greenhouse gas inventory. The most important finding of this study 

is that methane emissions during the flowback period immediately 

following hydraulic fracturing are dramatically less than that estimated by the EPA in its 2011 greenhouse gas inventory, more than 

36 times less. The EPA estimate was not based on actual measured 

methane emissions, as this study is, but simply assumed a certain 

percentage of all methane produced during flowback was emitted. 

Obviously, the assumed percentage emitted was too high, 36 times 

too high. 

Significant volumes of methane are being emitted from pneumatic controllers, from pumps, and from leaks. The study found 

that emissions from these devices exceed the 2011 EPA estimates 

and are by far the largest sources of methane emissions at shale 

gas well sites. Many of these emission sources are easily reducible. 

More study of methane emissions during gas well unloading is 

needed. In this study, only nine gas well unloading events were 

monitored for methane emission, and in only three of these, all located in the Gulf Coast region, significant methane emissions occurred. The range of emissions measured during these few tests 

were extremely variable and not easily generalizable. I recommend 

that a comprehensive study of methane emissions during unloading 

be conducted, following protocols like those used in this study, and 

apparently some are already underway. 

Fugitive methane emissions are only .42 percent of the produced 

gas from shale wells. This study has shown that amount is produced from shale well sites and emitted to the atmosphere. It also 

showed that the large majority of emissions occurred during normal production and is not related to flowback after hydraulic fracturing. It is instructive to realize that .42 percent of current U.S. 

shale gas production is about 42 billion cubic feet per year, which 

even at current low prices has a value of about $150 million. This 

is a significant economic target for the industry to capture by applying improved practices and developing new technologies. 
167 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hill follows:] 
168 
169 
170 
171 
172 
173 
174 
175 
176 
177 
178 
179 
180 
181 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you very much, Professor Hill. 

Just to put this into perspective, why is it that we are concerned 

about fugitive methane? 

Mr. HILL. Why is it? I think the primary concern is its role as 

a greenhouse gas. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. And its role as a greenhouse gas is what? 

Mr. HILL. I am sorry, sir? 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Its role as a greenhouse gas is what? 

Mr. HILL. Well, it has a greater effect on a per mass basis, much 

greater effect, apparently, than CO2 as a greenhouse gas. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Unless it is burned. 

Mr. HILL. Yes. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Than it is CO2. 

Mr. HILL. Yes. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. OK. 

Mr. Boling, we have heard considerable testimony today about 

the value of the fugitive methane and there is a lawsuit in, I think, 

South or North Dakota over the loss to the mineral owners, alleging, again, very significant value. Given that the value is there and 

given that these companies tend to be in that business, why is it 

that the market itself hasn’t solved this problem? 

Mr. BOLING. I think that really depends on the situation. With 

respect to the Bakken, a lot of that gas is flared simply because 

there is not sufficient infrastructure in place to allow the gas to be 

economically gathered and sold. Obviously, at some point in time 

the volumes that get flared become very, very significant and something needs to be done, but I think that is really the answer to that 

question, is that the infrastructure is not there to support it. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. And how about the losses during normal 

production, the ones that were underestimated by EPA and shown 

to have been larger by the UT study that are further along in the 

process? That wasn’t all lack of infrastructure, correct? 

Mr. BOLING. That is correct. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. And why do you suspect it is happening 

in those cases, where the lack of infrastructure isn’t the explanation? 

Mr. BOLING. Well, I think that one of the issues, really, is I know 

that it does sound like a no-brainer, so to speak, that if it is going 

to make everyone money, why wouldn’t you do it, but that presupposes you are not in a capital-constrained environment in terms 

of the investments being made by industry. And, in certain cases, 

if they feel like those dollars can go into things that can probably 

make them more money, they may not necessarily do it. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Got it. 

Dr. Allen, on balance, I gather, your study has come moderately 

close to supporting the EPA’s overall numbers, but it shows dramatic differences in the place within the production sector where 

the leaks are taking place. Can you comment on the difference between potential and actual methane emissions from hydraulically 

fractured wells? 

I ask unanimous consent to have, for the record, an exhibit that 

has gone up to your right side that you can see that shows the EPA 

2011 numbers and the numbers from your report, and obviously it 
182 

is a dramatic reduction in the top line, completion flowbacks from 

hydraulic fracturing. 

Mr. ALLEN. Thank you for that question, Chairman Whitehouse. 

In our work, and also in the EPA national inventory, potential 

emissions are defined as methane that might get into the atmosphere. So in the context, for example, of completion flowbacks, it 

would be the methane that leaves the wellhead. If all of that is released to the atmosphere, then those potential emissions become 

the actual emissions. For completion flowbacks, what we found was 

that our measurements of what was leaving the wellhead were actually quite similar to EPA’s estimates of potential emissions. 

What we found was that when reduced emission completion 

equipment was in place, it was very effective in reducing those actual emissions to the atmosphere, hence, leading to this large reduction. So the potential emissions are mitigated by control technologies, and the difference between what gets into the atmosphere 

and the potential emissions depends on how widely those control 

practices are applied and how effective they are. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. We have heard testimony that these control technologies are both fairly common, not complicated, not complex, and also highly effective. Can you confirm that testimony 

from the point of view of your study? 

Mr. ALLEN. Our study definitely confirms that reduced emission 

completions are highly effective. We can comment on the data that 

we measured. We went to 27 completion flowbacks. For two-thirds 

of those we found this type of equipment in place. This was for the 

nine companies that agreed to participate in our study. So, in this 

case, what we observed was that two-thirds of the flowbacks had 

this reduced emission completion equipment in place. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you. 

We can do a second round, but I will abide by the timing and 

yield to our ranking member. 

[The referenced information was not received at time of print.] 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

One of the issues that you reveal is that the emissions from 

pneumatic pumps were higher than previously thought. Is this 

something the industry recognized? 

Mr. SMITH. No, I am not precisely sure that industry anticipated 

these results, Senator. 

Senator INHOFE. All right. How much do you think is a maintenance issue versus an equipment issue? 

Mr. SMITH. Well, I think, not being a participant in the study, 

I am not certain whether or not maintenance practices were evaluated by the team as a cause for the difference between kind of published emission rates and what was measured in the field, but I do 

know that this equipment, when it is installed in the field, it is 

subjected to pretty harsh conditions and maintenance needs to be 

an element to keep the equipment working as it is designed. 

Senator INHOFE. And I would assume, then, Devon and you 

might also, Mr. Boling, agree with this and the rest of industry. Do 

you really think you need regulations to motivate these changes 

that are being talked about today? 

Mr. SMITH. Is that a question to me? 
183 

Senator INHOFE. It is a question, yes, to you, Mr. Smith. In other 

words, doesn’t it inure to your benefit to do this without regulations? 

Mr. SMITH. As I mentioned in my testimony, a lot of the control 

technologies that have been discussed today are already being conducted by industry, and we have data from industry that suggests 

that, for instance, green completion equipment is being deployed 

very consistently across the industry. So the incentive, I think, to 

employ these control technologies is already there. I think an important thing to recognize is that, and I think this is maybe a little 

counterintuitive to some, but I think there is some belief that in 

this condition of low gas prices, that because gas is maybe not 

worth so much, that companies aren’t paying as much attention to 

leaks of it. 

But in reality, the inverse is really true, because if you consider 

a company needing to make profits from these wells, the only way 

that a company can offset our operating costs of these wells is to 

really, if you will, scrape the bottom of the barrel to really capture 

and sell every cubic foot of gas that we can. Otherwise, if we can’t 

offset the operations costs of these wells, because, of course, operations costs are independent of what gas prices are, to a large part. 

If we can’t offset our operations costs, then these wells are operating at a loss. 

So even in conditions of low gas prices there is a strong incentive 

for energy companies to capture every cubic foot of gas that they 

can. 

Senator INHOFE. Yes, that is right. Of course, you heard my comments in opening statement. I talked about the benefits of increasing our exports that would put us in a position. Right now you 

have huge supply, but the demand is down. This could change that 

around so that you would be in a position, and Mr. Boling, you 

would be in a position to have the benefits of the profits to make 

these changes that might not be economically feasible at today’s 

market. Is that inaccurate? I have been trying to make the case 

and I have made some talks on the floor about exporting LNG. 

Mr. SMITH. And this kind of demand certainty that would surround LNG export. Again, I think the incentive for operators to reduce leaks is maybe not so much driven by our forecast for demand 

certainty as much as it is about really trying to maximize profits 

and really, again, in these low conditions of gas prices, to certainly 

generate enough revenue to offset our operating costs in many 

areas. 

Senator INHOFE. I got the impression, Dr. Gowrishankar, that 

you had said there is technology out there that some of these companies are not using, and the question I am asking them is it because the volume they are dealing with doesn’t justify the cost of 

making these changes. 

Mr. GOWRISHANKAR. Our analysis suggests that potentially the 

primary reason for them not being used more widely goes back to 

the question of capital constraints and other strategic initiatives 

that may potentially make more sense for the companies. 

But in our view, these standards that require the control of these 

emissions make sense; they are profitable and that, I think, is pretty much undeniable. They are profitable and cost-effective and 
184 

they, therefore, must be used to control these emissions. And there 

is no evidence to suggest that it is being used widely. There are 

some companies that are doing it, but voluntary action has not 

been sufficient. 

Senator INHOFE. So you are contending that we need regulations 

to force that? 

Mr. GOWRISHANKAR. Yes. We think regulations must be in place 

to level the playing field, fix the market failure, and ensure that 

these standards are adopted across the country by all producers; 

not just the leading ones, but everybody. 

Senator INHOFE. If you don’t mind my going a little bit longer, 

because I won’t be able to stay for a second round. Just one other 

question. 

Dr. Hill, from what I understand, a portion of the Federal royalties from the oil and gas operations goes toward ongoing research 

on oil and gas resources. We have talked about this for a long period of time. Because of this, the Federal Government has actually 

played a big role in collaborating with industry to unlock the shale 

revolution. But the program that manages the selection of the 

projects to fund expires next year. Can you tell us how extending 

the program will help foster voluntary collaboration and innovation, the benefits that would come with that? 

Mr. HILL. Yes, Senator. I would be happy to. The program you 

are mentioning is called the Research Partnership to Secure Energy for America. It has been underway, it is in its seventh year 

now and this program has funded $50 million a year of research 

from royalty funds, Federal royalty money to support research on 

unconventional resource development, shale primarily, and the second major area is deepwater oil and gas development. This has 

been a very successful program; it supports research at many universities across the country, educated a lot of engineers for this 

burgeoning industry and helped a great deal in developing the 

technology that has led to these efficiencies. 

There is a lot more to be done. A lot of the work that the RPSEA, 

as it is referred to, program is conducting right now is aimed more 

to the environmental side, a lot of studies on water usage, for example, minimizing fresh water usage and fracturing operations. So 

it is a program that has done a lot for this country, a lot for this 

development of shale gas and oil in particular. 

Senator INHOFE. Do you think this should be reauthorized? We 

have a lot of good programs, Mr. Chairman, of cooperation. Partnership and Wildlife is one that has been very, very successful. 

This is another example. 

Mr. HILL. Yes. I think it would be wonderful if this could be reauthorized. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Senator Vitter. 

Senator VITTER. Thank you. 

Thank you all very much. Very impressive panel, particularly 

given that a UT and an A&M presence sat at the same table, albeit 

separated. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator VITTER. I want to go back to the sort of summary of the 

study. I know none of you have said this, but make sure there is 

no misconception of it. In a sense, the overall summary could be 
185 

EPA was way off in terms of estimates about the fracking process. 

They underestimated leakage from pneumatic devices, et cetera, 

and overall they were in the ballpark, maybe 10 percent off. But 

I want to make sure everybody agrees. The subcategories do matter 

in terms of policy and responsible policy and moving forward. It is 

certainly important that we understand where the problem is or 

the opportunity for improvement is and where it doesn’t. Does everybody agree with that? 

Dr. Allen. Everybody can respond. 

Mr. ALLEN. Thank you, Senator Vitter. We feel the major contribution of our study is identifying where the major emissions are 

so whatever action is appropriate can be taken based on measurements of where the emissions are, and what we found was emissions from hydraulic fracturing completion flowbacks are very low 

when reduced emission completion equipment is in place and pneumatics were higher than we expected. 

Senator VITTER. So does everybody agree that those subcategories absolutely matter and we have a lot to learn from those 

specific subcategory conclusions, even if it is some sort of general 

wash within 10 percent overall? 

Mr. BOLING. I agree that the subcategories are very important. 

I would caution, however, that when we are talking about the 

emissions and conclusions to be drawn from the study, while it is 

clear that EPA’s estimates of the actual, net emissions were much 

higher than the study, when you talk about potential emissions, as 

was mentioned previously, the potential emissions are pretty comparable. So it really is a question of production characteristics of 

the well and the period of time that the well is allowed to flowback. 

And if you get into a situation where the well either is not flowed 

back for a long period of time or you have REC completions, then 

you will have much less net emissions, even though the potential 

emissions could still very well be the same. 

Senator VITTER. Right. 

Mr. Smith, I think as early as 2010 Devon had initiated a project 

aimed at reducing emissions from pneumatic controllers, one of 

those specific areas we have been talking about. Can you go into 

a little detail about what you and other industry leaders have been 

doing there voluntarily? 

Mr. SMITH. Yes. At Devon, we are proud to have written, as far 

as I know, the only carbon methodology for creating fungible emission credits from emission reductions in the oil and gas sector, and 

we did that with a methodology for the retrofit of pneumatic controllers. So it is taking high-bleed pneumatic controllers out of 

service and replacing them with low-bleed pneumatic controllers. 

And that methodology is available to the public, so any industry 

could use that and establish carbon credits for it. 

The topic about what else we are doing to reduce methane emissions, unfortunately, we don’t have near enough time to take you 

through that, but I will say that in addition to focusing on reducing 

emissions from pneumatic controllers, Devon was one of the pioneers in green completion reductions, one of the earliest companies 

that were doing green completions, so we are very familiar with 

that; we do it everywhere in our operation. 
186 

The other thing we do is that we have surveyed our operation. 

We don’t have a wet seal on any one of our compressors. And without going into a bunch of technical detail about what a wet seal is, 

it is a much higher emitting device than a dry seal. So we don’t 

have any wet seals in our operation. 

Also we are really centralizing a lot of our production equipment 

so that some of the control equipment that is outside of its operating range at individual well sites is now feasible when you kind 

of aggregate more equipment together. So we are doing a lot of 

things, and not just us, but industry is doing a lot of things to be 

proactive in reducing methane emissions voluntarily. 

Senator VITTER. Great. Thank you all very much. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you, Senator. 

I would like to call up a chart that a smaller version I will make 

a part of the record, without objection. This is based on EDF information. I think Dr. Allen is familiar with it; perhaps Dr. 

Gowrishankar is as well. And what it shows is the ratio between 

the amount of fugitive methane that is released and how natural 

gas competes with other fuels in terms of being a better or worse 

carbon alternative, environmental alternative. 

And you will see that although we are talking about very, very 

low numbers, 0.42 percent, we are dealing with very low numbers 

here. If you have 1 percent emitted of natural gas, not burned, but 

just emitted, then you don’t break even with heavy duty diesel, I 

can’t even read it, the lines are so close, it looks like for about 40 

years. And if you are emitting 2 percent, you don’t break even with 

gasoline for 40 years. And if you go to 4 percent, then you don’t 

break even even with coal for 40 years. 

So the question of how much methane gets away is vital to protecting, frankly, the marketing position of natural as against competing fuels in the minds of a public that is increasingly sensitive 

to these concerns. So I hope that this helps explain why we are so 

concerned about this and why I think this is a great opportunity 

for the industry and for the environmental community and Congress to all work together to solve this problem, because if worse 

gets out that if it is leaking in substantial amounts and that is 

causing natural gas to have to reverse a lot of the things that folks 

like the ANJ are saying all the time about the environmental value 

of natural gas compared to other fuels, then that is going to have, 

I think, an unfortunate effect on the market and on the credibility 

of the gas industry and so forth. 

So I think it is really important that we get this right. I think 

the fact that the technology is as well established as it is, particularly through the leading companies, and I want to particularly recognize Devon and Southwestern for being here, is a very good sign. 

And the fact that even though it might not be the highest return 

in use of capital, the fact that it is a net positive use of capital for 

companies shows that this is the type of regulation that really, in 

fact, can be a win-win. 

So I thank everybody for being here. 

Just to make sure that the record is completely clear, I have 

asked Professor Hill this question, but, Mr. Smith, on behalf of 

Devon Energy, why is it that we want to limit the fugitive emission 

of methane? 
187 

Mr. SMITH. Well, from a company standpoint, and, of course, I 

recognize the global warming potential of methane and all that, but 

from a business perspective it is a responsibility to our shareholders to produce as much from our wells as they are funding us 

to do that. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. And describe the other reason that doesn’t 

affect your shareholders so directly, but affects the rest of all of us. 

Mr. SMITH. It is recognized as a greenhouse gas, that is absolutely right. We certainly would not deny that. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. And it, if released, will do what? 

Mr. SMITH. Well, maybe you are pushing me into an area that, 

first of all, I am not an expert. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Generally. You are the environmental 

manager for a very big energy corporation. 

Mr. SMITH. Right. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. I am not asking you complicated questions. 

Mr. SMITH. It is not a complicated question. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Methane in the atmosphere does what? 

Mr. SMITH. It is believed to cause global warming. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Because it traps solar heat. 

Mr. SMITH. Traps heat. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. All right. 

One last question. When Senator Inhofe was asking, I guess, Mr. 

Smith about the maintenance versus equipment question, Dr. 

Allen, you were making notes as if you wanted to add something. 

I am not sure if you were just making notes. Did you have anything to add to that discussion or are we all set here? 

Mr. ALLEN. No, I just make notes. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. OK, terrific. Then I won’t press anything 

further. 

Let me just thank all of you very much. This has been a very 

helpful panel and, Dr. Allen, the work that you have done obviously has made a very significant impact and I hope will help inform this policy debate. A lot of hard work went into it. I appreciate it very much. 

Mr. Boling, thank you for the forward stance that Southwestern 

has shown and the very powerful way that you have brought industry and environmental leadership together in a way that I think 

does have this win-win potential. I am grateful to both of you. 

Dr. Gowrishankar, thank you for your research with NRDC. 

To our witnesses from Devon and from Texas A&M, again, thank 

you both for the expertise you brought to this hearing. 

The hearing record will remain open for Senators to submit any 

written questions for 2 weeks. You think you are free of us, but you 

are not quite free; we might come after you with written questions 

for another 2 weeks. If you would be kind enough to reply to those 

questions, we obviously would be very grateful. 

With that, the hearing is adjourned. Thank you all so much. 

[Whereupon, at 4 p.m. the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

Æ