Karin Foster, Esq.

Executive Director 

IPANM 

5805 Mariola Place, NE 

Albuquerque, NM 87111 

Fosterassociates2005@Yahoo.com

June	13,	2014

US	EPA	Office	of	Air	Quality	

Planning	and	Standards	(OAQPS)

Raleigh,	NC

By	email:	oilandgas.whitepapers@epa.gov

Re:	 IPANM	 comments	 to	 OAQPS	 Oil	 and	 Natural	 Gas	 Sector	 Completions:	

Hydraulically	Fractured	oil	wells Whitepaper

Dear	Sir	or	Madam;	

The	 Independent	Petroleum	Association	of	New	Mexico	 (‘IPANM’)	appreciates	 this	

opportunity	to	comment	to	the	EPA	Office	of	Air	Quality	Planning	&	Standards	(hereinafter	

‘EPA’)	whitepaper	on	Oil	and	Gas	Sector	Completions:	Hydraulically	Fractured	oil	wells	of	

April	2014.	

Preliminary	matters:	

Without	adequate	research	and	an expert	understanding	of	the	issues,	it	would	be	

unethical	 for	 the	 EPA to	 move	 forward	 with	 promulgating	 methane	 reductions	 policy	 or	

rules	 at this	 time.	 The	whitepapers	 and	 studies	 cited	 therein	 do	 not	 appreciate	 that	 the	

issues	 around	 methane	 reductions	 are complex	 and	 very	 dynamic.	 In	 fact,	 since	 the	

introduction	 of	 the	 First	 Assessment	 Report	 (FAR)	 of	 the	 Intergovernmental	 Panel	 of	

Climate	 Change	 (IPCC	 1990),	 there	 has	 been	 vigorous	 discussion	 about	 whether	 global	

warming	potential	(GWP)	to compare different	gases	on	a	CO2	equivalent	scale should	be	
IPANM	Comments:	Completions	Oil	Wells Whitepaper

June	13,	2014

Page 2 of 12

------------------------------------------------------------------

the	accepted	methodology	to	understand	the	true	impacts	of	methane.

1 2 As	recently	as	last	

month,	MIT	 researchers	 published a	letter,	 titled,	 “Climate	impacts	of	energy	 technologies	

depend	on	emissions	timing”	in	Nature	Climate	Change stating	that	the	static	nature	of	GWP	

to	compare	gases	with	differing	radiative	efficiencies	and	atmospheric	lifetimes	has	led	to	

‘major	 shortcomings’	 in	 understanding	 energy	 technology	 valuations3. However,	 in	 the	

urgency to	complete	methane	reductions	regulations	by	 the	end	of	2016,	 the	Whitehouse	

has	directed	the	EPA	draft	whitepapers	and convene	peer	review	panels	to	give	the	agency	

a	‘robust	understanding’	of	the	issues.		IPANM	would	contend	that	these	whitepapers	were

obviously	rushed,	had	a	limited	and	biased	selection	of	studies	and	we	question	the	efficacy	

of	the	peer	review	process.		We	hope	that	the	agency	would	proceed	with	this	process	in	a	

manner	 that allows	 for	 true	 stakeholder	 involvement	 and	 opportunity	 for	 comment as	

required	in	the	federal Administrative	Procedures	Act. Finally,	we	would	urge	the	agency	to	

use	the	resources	and	expertise	available	at	the	New	Mexico	Petroleum	Recovery	Research	

Center	 to	learn	about	 the	unique	characteristics	of	oil	and	gas	operations	in	 the	San	 Juan	

and	 Permian	 basins.	 Within	 the	 PRRC	 is	 the Research	 Partnership	 to	 Secure	 Energy	 for	

America	 (RPSEA),	 Small	 Producer	 Program which	is	 a	public/private	 partnership	 funded	

by	 the	U.S.	DOE	 through	 the	National	Energy	Technology	Laboratory.	The	Small	Producer	

Program	aims	 to	develop	and	apply	 technology	 that	enhances	small	producer	production,	

and	 thereby	 contributes	 to	 the	 nation’s	 energy	 supply.	 The	 PRRC/New	Mexico	 Tech	 was	

																																																							 1 Shine,K. “The global warming potential – the need for an interdisciplinary retrial” Climactic Change Journal, Oct. 

2009, vol. 96, issue 4, p. 467-472. 2 Even as one of the lead authors of one of the chapters of the first IPCC report, Dr. Shine questions whether using 

the ‘simple approach’ of global warming potential metrics improperly influenced a ‘major piece of 

environmental legislation’ (Kyoto Protocol) that could impact ‘big investment and policy. ’ 3 Edwards, M. & Trancik, J., “Climate Change of energy technologies depend on emissions timing”, Nature Clim. 

Change Letter, May 2014, 
IPANM	Comments:	Completions	Oil	Wells Whitepaper

June	13,	2014

Page 3 of 12

------------------------------------------------------------------

chosen	 to	 lead	 the	 SP	 program	 because	 of	 their	track	 record	 of	 research	 and	 actions	 on	

behalf	of	small	oil	and	gas	producers,	 for	whose	benefit	our	organization	was	established.		

IPANM	would	also	be	happy	to	provide	additional	input	to	the	EPA	in	the	development	of	

policy,	rules	and	regulation	on	methane	reduction	strategies.		

Who	is	IPANM:

The	Independent	Petroleum	Association	of	New	Mexico,	IPANM,	represents	several	

hundred	independent	oil	and	gas	producers	who	live,	work	and	employ	New	Mexicans.		We	

are	small,	with,	on	average,	25	employees	who	often	wear	multiple	proverbial	hats,	but	we	

provide	enough	revenue	to	the	State	of	New	Mexico	to	support	31%	of	the	General	Fund4.		

We strive	to	be	stewards	of	the	land	in	a	state	where	nearly	41.8%	of	the	land	is	federally	

owned.		The	Bureau	of	Land	Management	New	Mexico office	manages	one	of	the	largest	oil	

and	 gas	 programs	 in	 the	 agency	 controlling	 13.4	 million	 acres	 of	 public	 lands	 and	 26	

million	 subsurface	 acres	 of	 federal	 oil,	 natural	 gas,	 and	 minerals.	 	 There	 are	 currently	

30,561	active	wells	on	 federal	lands5 ranking	New	Mexico	sixth	in	crude	oil	production	in	

the	nation	in	20136.	New	Mexico’s	marketed	production	of	natural	gas	accounted	for	4.8%	

of	U.S.	marketed	 natural	 gas	 production	in	 2012,	 despite	 a	 decline	in	 production	 of	 20%	

between	 2007	 and	 20127. According	 to	 the	 Office	 of	 Natural	 Resources	 Revenue,	 in	 FY	

2013	 the	 Federal	 Government	 disbursed	 $478,732,193.90	 in	 revenues	 to	 New	 Mexico8,	

which	is	only	48%	of	the	total	royalty	revenues	collected	for	oil	and	gas	operations	on	NM	

federal	lands.	

																																																							 4 “Fiscal Impacts of Oil and Natural Gas Production in New Mexico: Preliminary report”, New Mexico Tax 

Research Institute, Jan 2014. 5 http://www.emnrd.state.nm.us/OCD/documents/OCD%20Well%20Statistics03272014.pdf

6 http://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=NM

7 Id. 

8 http://statistics.onrr.gov/ReportTool.aspx
IPANM	Comments:	Completions	Oil	Wells Whitepaper

June	13,	2014

Page 4 of 12

------------------------------------------------------------------

The	 process	 by	which	 these	whitepapers	were	 developed	was	 flawed	 and	 requires	more	

study	and	expert	understanding	of	the	issues.	

Regulation	in	the	air	quality	arena	is	not	new,	however,	IPANM	would	contend	that	

the	 process	 by	 which	 the	 Whitehouse,	 through	 the	 EPA	 and	 the	 BLM, is	 seeking	 to	

implement	 new	 or	 substantially	 expanded	 methane	 reduction	 strategies,	 is	 not	 tenable9.

Note	 that	 IPANM	 does	 not	 contest	 the	 authority	 of	 the	 EPA	 to	 regulate	 Greenhouse	 Gas	

emissions10,	of	which	methane	is	a	part	of	those	emissions11.		The	authority	under	the	Clean	

Air	 Act	 and	 a	 growing	 body	 of	 case	 law,	 grants	 the	 complex	 balancing	 of	 “national	 and	

international	 policy	 against	 environmental	 benefit,	 our	 nation’s	 energy	 needs	 and	 the	

possibility	 of	 economic	 disruption”	 solely	 on	 the	 Environmental	 Protection	 Agency.	 See,	

American	Electric	Power	v.	Connecticut,	131	S.Ct.	2527,	564	U.S.	 ____	,slip	op.	10-174	at	13	

(2011).		Indeed,	through	out	the	American	Electric decision,	the	US	Supreme	Court	justices	

refer	 to	 the	 EPA	 as	 the	 “experts”12 in	 greenhouse	 gas	 and	 air	 quality	 matters.	 In	 the	

Administration’s	“2014	Climate	Action	Plan:	Strategy	 to	reduce	methane	emissions13”,	the	

President	 orders	 the	BLM,	 the	EPA,	USDA,	DOE	and	even	international	agencies	 to	 target	

key	 sources	 including	 landfills,	 coalmines,	 agriculture	 and	 the	 oil	 and	 gas	 sector	 and	 to	

																																																							 9 IPANM does contend that the statutory jurisdiction to regulate methane reductions lies exclusively with the EPA 

and not the BLM which is attempting to regulate methane emissions under the guise of a prevention of waste 

legal theory. 10 In Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U. S. 497 (2007), the US Supreme Court held that the Clean Air Act, 42 U. S. C. 

§7401 et seq., authorizes federal regulation of emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, 

including methane.

11 IPANM does, however, contest the science behind the policy for reducing human caused methane sources. 

Several of our members pointed out in response to this exercise that the science of global warming and impacts 

of human activities have not been settled yet. In 2012, CH4 accounted for about 9% of all U.S. greenhouse gas 

emissions from human activities. But water vapor in the atmosphere is responsible for 95 percent ofthe 

greenhouse effect and CO2 is responsible for 3.6 percent. A study from MIT reported on 5/30/07 said that 97% 

of all greenhouse gases are naturally occurring, and the remaining 3% are caused by man. So methane is only 

3% of the 9%. Insignificant. 12 American Electric Power v. Connecticut, 563 US _____, slip op. at p. 3, 16,17,18 13 March 2014 Climate Change Strategy: Reduction of Methane Emissions, found at 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/strategy_to_reduce_methane_emissions_2014-03-28_final.pdf,
IPANM	Comments:	Completions	Oil	Wells Whitepaper

June	13,	2014

Page 5 of 12

------------------------------------------------------------------

promulgate	rules	to	reduce	methane	emissions.		The	White	House	specifically	directs14 the	

BLM	to	propose	updated	standards	to	reduce	venting	and	flaring15, and mandated	the	EPA	

to	draft	white	papers	focusing	on	technical	issues relating	to	methane	emissions	from “oil	

and	 co-producing	wells,	liquids	 unloading,	leaks,	 pneumatic	 devices	and	 compressors”	to	

“solicit	 input	 from	 independent	 experts16” (hereinafter	 referred	 to	 as	 the	 EPA	 methane	

papers).	 	 The	 EPA	 was	 further	 ordered	 to	 use	 these	 documents	 to	 “solidify	 its	

understanding	of	these	potentially	significant	sources	of	methane.”	

The	EPA	methane	papers	came	out	 for	peer	review	and	comment	one	month	after	

the	release	of	the	Whitehouse	report	with	only 60	days17 to	comment on	nearly	300	pages	

of	technical	data.		The	Whitehouse report also	directed	the	agency	to	convene peer	review	

panels, which	was	done, but	those	panels	only	consist	of 5	persons	per	panel,	and not	one	

single	 small	 independent	 was	 included	 on	 any	 panel.	 It	 is	 interesting	 to	 note	 that	 the

Environmental	 Defense	 Fund,	 however,	 was	included	 on	 every	 panel thereby	 giving	 that	

group	a	significant	voice	in	this	process.	

From a	 detailed	 review	 of	 the	EPA	methane	 papers,	it	is	 obvious	that	 the	 authors	

were	 clearly	 limited,	 probably	 due	 to	 time	 constraints,	 to	 a	 small	 subset of	 studies	 that	

were	 often	 out	 of	 date,	 had	 poor	 sampling	 criteria,	 had	 wildly	 inaccurate	 extrapolation	

factors or	 cite	 to	 each	 other	 as	 ‘science’.	 Of	 the	 few	 studies	 the	 EPA	 relied	 upon,	 every	

																																																							 14 President’s Methane Reduction Strategy, page 2, 9. 15 The BLM Venting and Flaring public outreach sessions were conducted in North Dakota, New Mexico and 

Washington DC. IPANM has submitted substantive comments to the BLM on their May 2014 Venting & 

Flaring proposal and would urge both the BLM and this agency to include IPANM, PRRC or RPSEA (see 

discussion above) in future stakeholder discussions. 16 Id. at 8 par. 2. 17 60 days to read and digest nearly 300 pages of technical information was very difficult. To require industry to 

commission, prepare and present data to augment the very weak studies relied upon by the EPA was 

impossible. In addition, the timeframe set did not avail IPANM the ability to structure studies with the New 

Mexico Petroleum Research Recovery Center or RPSEA who are the entities often commissioned for such 

work. 
IPANM	Comments:	Completions	Oil	Wells Whitepaper

June	13,	2014

Page 6 of 12

------------------------------------------------------------------

whitepaper referenced a	 study	 commissioned	 by	 the	 Environmental	 Defense	 Fund that	

reviewed	only	22	sources	of	emissions.			IPANM	strongly	contests	the	use	of	this	paper	as	

the	 assumptions	 used	 are	 wildly	 inaccurate.	 	 First,	 the	 average	 $4mcf	 value	 is	 high,	

particularly	for	smaller	operators	who	received	much	less	on	average	during	most	of	2012	

and	 201318.	 	 Second,	 the	 base	 assumption	 that	 the	 cost	 of	 flaring	 is	 only	 $3523	 per	 well

ignores	the	true	costs	which,	by	IPANM	member	review,	were	well	in	excess	of	$10,000	per	

well	 because	 of	 the equipment	 rental,	 mileage,	 time and	 personnel	 time	 to	 operate	 the	

equipment.			As	noted	earlier	in	this	comment,	the	small	producer	has	significantly	different	

economics	 than	 major	 companies	 who	 employ	 personnel	 versus	 hiring	 consultants	 or	

contractors	at	market	rate	to	conduct	a	test	or an	emergency	procedure	such	as	a	flare	or	

venting	 during	 liquids	 offloading.	 	 The	 misuse	 of	 the	 cost	 figures	 which	 ICF	 then

extrapolated	 to	 estimate	 savings	 on	 a	 nationwide	 basis	 renders	 the	 EDF	 study	 close	 to	

meaningless	 as	 a	 foundation	 for	 a	 Whitehouse	 methane	 reduction	 strategy.	 	 Clearly,	the	

manner	 in	 which	 the	 EPA researched	 the	 issues	 raised	 in	 the	 whitepapers	 was	 nothing	

more than	 a	 ‘data	 dump’	 that	 could	 not	 be	 considered	 an	 adequate	 learning	 process	 to	

establish	 expertise	 on	 these	 very	 complex	 matters.	 IPANM	 contends	 that	 based	 on	 the	

inadequate	 information	 reviewed, that	 the	 EPA	 does	 not	 have	 any	 sort	 of	 a	 ‘robust	

understanding19’ of	 these	 sources	 of	 methane	 thus,	 moving	 forward	 with	 policy	 or	 rule	

promulgation	is	premature at	this	time.	

																																																							 18 http://gotech.nmt.edu/gotech/Marketplace/year_prices.aspx?year=2013 19 In the President’s Climate report ordering EPA to complete the whitepapers, the Whitehouse assumes that 

completion of the papers would result in ‘robust technical understanding’ of the issues. IPANM contends that 

in every instance that the studies used and the lack of data does not give EPA regulators the required 

understanding of the issues to establish policy. 
IPANM	Comments:	Completions	Oil	Wells Whitepaper

June	13,	2014

Page 7 of 12

------------------------------------------------------------------

In	addition,	 IPANM	would	 urge	 the	 EPA	 to	 review	and	 completely	 understand	the	

information	 included	 in	 the	 National	 emissions	 inventory	 and	 information	 submitted	

pursuant	 to	 the	recently	promulgated	NSPS	SubPart	OOOO	amendments20.		This	data will	

provide	a	large	amount	of	information	about emissions	at	oil	and	natural	gas	facilities but	

experts	 who	 understand	 industry	 must	 study	 and	 understand	 the	 information	 prior	 to	

establishing	policy.	21 NSPS	SubPart	OOOO requires	 federal	air	 standards	 for	new	natural	

gas	 wells	 that	 are	 hydraulically	 fractured,	 along	 with	 requirements	 for	 several	 other	

sources of	 volatile	 organic	 compound	 (VOC)	 emissions	 from	 new	 storage	 vessels,	 newly	

installed	compressors,	pneumatic	controllers	and	equipment	leaks	at	natural	gas	facilities.	

Although	 the	 New	 Source	 Performance	 Standards	 directly	 regulate	 VOC	 emissions,	 in	 a	

Government	Accounting	Office	report	issued	May	16,	2014,	the	EPA	reports	that	the	control	

requirements	 of	 NSPS	 SubPart	 OOOO	 substantially	 reduces methane	 emissions 22 .	

Concurrent	with	the	NSPS,	in	April	2012,	EPA published	final	National	Emission	Standards	

for	 Hazardous	 Air	 Pollutants,	 updating	 its	 air	 toxics	 standards	 for	 oil	 and	 natural	 gas23.	

These	standards	cover	hazardous	air	pollutants	emitted	from	glycol	dehydrators—used	to	

remove	 water	 from	 gas—and	 storage	 vessels,	 and	 equipment	 leaks	 at	 natural	 gas	

processing	 plants. Use	 of	actual	measurement	 from	locations	is	 obviously	 better	 towards	

																																																							 20 U.S. EPA, Oil and Natural Gas Sector: New Source Performance Standards and National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants Reviews Final Rule, 77 Fed.Reg. 49490 (Aug. 16, 2012) (codified at 40 C.F.R. Parts 

60 and 63). 21 IPANM would urge the reviewers to look at the UT study that clearly explains differences in modeling based 

numbers used in the National Emissions Inventory versus actual measurements on location. We would caution 

against exclusive use of this study, however, since the measurements used were from shale formations only. 

See, Proceeding of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (PNAS). 2013. 

Measurement of Methane Emissions at Natural Gas Production Sites in the United States. August 19, 2013. 

Available at http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2013/09/10/1304880110.abstract.. 22 GAO-14-238; Oil and Gas, Updated Guidance, Increased Coordination, and Comprehensive Data Could Improve 

BLM's Management and Oversight, page 23 23 77 Fed. Reg. 49490 (Aug. 16, 2012) (codified at 40 C.F.R. Parts 60 and 63).
IPANM	Comments:	Completions	Oil	Wells Whitepaper

June	13,	2014

Page 8 of 12

------------------------------------------------------------------

building	an	understanding	of	the	issue	of	methane	emissions,	which	is	what	we	believe	the	

agency	is	attempting	with	 the	recent	implementation	of	 the	NSPS	regulations.		We	would	

urge	 the	 EPA	 not	 to	 rush	 to	 creating	 regulations	 for	 all	 new	 and	 existing	 oil	 and	 gas	

locations	 to	 reduce	 methane	 emissions	 without	 a	 solid	 understanding	 of	 the	 actual	

impacts24 of	methane	emissions	on	human	health	and	the	environment	or	the	actual	levels	

emitted	from	all	types	of	oil	and	gas	sources.		

Specific	Comments	BY	IPANM	Members	to	April	2014	Whitepaper,	“Oil	and	Natural	Gas	

Sector	Hydraulically	Fractured	Oil	Well	Completions	and	Associated	Gas	during	Ongoing	

Production”

Preliminary	comment:

If	the	States	share	responsibility	for	air	quality,	any	regulation	or	permitting	should	

be	at	the	State	level.		Since	flaring	is	a	short-term	event,	until	infrastructure	is	built,	

permitting	should	be	simple	and	dovetail	with	existing	rules.	

Question:		Why	is	the	EPA	declining	to	define	what	an	‘oil	well’	is	for	purposes	of	

methane	emissions?		

1. Page	4,	paragraph	3	“very	high	pressure”	A	large	portion	of	the	observed	surface	

pressure	is	lost	due	to	friction	in	the	“treating	conduit”,	so	the	BHTP	is	much	lower.

2. Page	4,	paragraph	3	“water	emulsion”	is	not	a	correct	term.	Most	frac	fluid	is	water	

with	a	viscosifier,	such	as	guar	gum,	added	to	increase	viscosity.

3. Page	12,	last	paragraph,	during	a	typical	load	recovery,	only	small	amounts	of	oil	

and	gas are	recovered	until	approximately	half	of	the	load	is	recovered.

																																																							 24 Edwards, M. & Trancik, J., “Climate Change of energy technologies depend on emissions timing”, Nature Clim. 

Change Letter, May 2014. The actual impact of methane from different energy sources is substantially 

different than previously believed using the very simplistic GWP modeling. The MIT researchers advocate the 

use of dynamic modeling that better accounts for the differing radiative efficiencies and atomospheric lifetimes 

of different gases. In essence, the comparison of gases must be dependent on the timing of the emissions. The 

researchers note that while it might be in vogue to tout the disasterous health effects of emissions from coalfired plants as a policy determination to support natural gas plants, three decades from now, the emissions 

advantages of natural gas as compared to coal would be half of the levels claimed in the GWP modeling. 
IPANM	Comments:	Completions	Oil	Wells Whitepaper

June	13,	2014

Page 9 of 12

------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Page	12,	paragraph	2,	a	recompletion	may	have	minimal	emissions	if	the	producing	

equipment	and	pipeline	are	in	place.

5. Page	27,	5.2	Completion	Combustion	Devices	– Combustion	devices	are	used	as	a	

safety	measure	to	prevent	gas	from	collecting	that	would	be	in	the	combustible	

range	imposing	a	safety	hazard.

6. Page	30,	5.3.1	NGL	Recovery	– short	term	small	scale	NGL	recovery,	storage	and	

transportation	facilities	are	uneconomical.

7. Page	35,	5.3.2	Natural	Gas	Reinjection	– Gas	reinjection	requires	one	or	more	

injection	wells	and	a	large	investment	in	compression.	Also,	“tite”	formations	such	

as	the	Bakken	do	not	have	sufficient	permeability	to	allow	large	volumes	of	gas	to	be	

injected	and	to	be	mobile	within	the	reservoir.

8. Page	38,	5.5.3	Electrical	Generation	– Relative	small	volumes	of	gas	are	needed	for	

onsite	electrical	needs,	20	MCFD	will	generate	approximately	100	H.P.	Also,	

electrical	infrastructure	in	remote	locations	cannot	accommodate	large	volumes	of	

excess	electrical	power.

7.0	Charge	Questions	for	Reviewers

1. Please comment on the national estimates and per well estimates of methane and VOC emissions 

from hydraulically fractured oil well completions presented in this paper. Are there factors that 

influence emissions from hydraulically fractured oil well completions that were not discussed in this 

paper? 

The	 reservoir	 G.O.R.	 varies	 widely	 for	 different	 reservoirs.	 The	 reservoirs	 used	 in	

this	study	are	typically	high	G.O.R.	hydrocarbon	systems.

2. Most available information on national and per well estimates of emissions is on uncontrolled 

emissions. What information is available for emissions, or what methods can be used to estimate net 

emissions from uncontrolled emissions data, at a national and/or at a per well level? 

To	be	accurate,	data	needs	to	be	on	a	per	well	level.

3. Are further sources of information available on VOC or methane emissions from hydraulically 

fractured oil well completions beyond those described in this paper? 

Yes,	but it’s	hard	to	acquire	and	is	not	complete.
IPANM	Comments:	Completions	Oil	Wells Whitepaper

June	13,	2014

Page 10 of 12

------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Please comment on the various approaches to estimating completion emissions from hydraulically 

fractured oil wells in this paper. 

§ Is it appropriate to estimate average uncontrolled oil well completion emissions by using the 

annual average daily gas production during the first year and multiplying that value by the duration 

of the average flowback period? 

§ Is it appropriate to estimate average uncontrolled oil well completion emissions using “Initial 

Gas Production,” as reported in DI Desktop, and multiplying by the flowback period? 

§ Is it appropriate to estimate average uncontrolled oil well completion emissions by increasing 

emissions linearly over the first nine days until the peak rate is reached (normally estimated using 

the production during the first month converted to a daily rate of production)? 

§ Is the use of a 3-day or 7-day flowback period for hydraulically fractured oil wells appropriate? 

Load	recovery	and	testing	may	take	a	few	days,	a	few weeks	or	a	few	months,	every	

well	is	different.

5. Please discuss other methodologies or data sources that you believe would be appropriate for 

estimating hydraulically fractured oil well completion emissions. 

Individual	well	tests

6. Please comment on the methodologies and data sources that you believe would be appropriate to 

estimate the rate of recompletions of hydraulically fractured oil wells. Can data on recompletions be 

used that does not differentiate between conventional oil wells and hydraulically fractured oil wells 

be reasonably used to estimate this rate? For example, in the GHG Inventory, a workover rate of 

6.5% is applied to all oil wells to estimate the number of workovers in a given year, and in the 

ERG/ECR analysis above a rate of 0.5% is developed based on both wells with and without hydraulic 

fracturing. Would these rates apply to hydraulically fractured oil wells? For hydraulically fractured 

gas wells, the GHG Inventory uses a refracture rate of 1%. Would this rate be appropriate for 

hydraulically fractured oil wells? 

More	mature	areas	should	have	a	higher	recompletion	rates.

7. Please comment on the feasibility of the use of RECs or completion combustion devices during 

hydraulically fractured oil well completion operations. Please be specific to the types of wells where 

these technologies or processes are feasible. Some characteristics that should be considered in your 

comments are well pressure, gas content of flowback, gas to oil ratio (GOR) of the well, and access 

to infrastructure. If there are additional factors, please discuss those. For example, the Colorado Oil 

and Gas Conservation Commission requires RECs only on “oil and gas wells where reservoir 

pressure, formation productivity and wellbore conditions are likely to enable the well to be capable 

of naturally flowing hydrocarbon gas in flammable or greater concentrations at a stabilized rate in 

excess of five hundred (500) MCFD to the surface against an induced surface backpressure of five 

hundred (500) psig or sales line pressure, whichever is greater.”
IPANM	Comments:	Completions	Oil	Wells Whitepaper

June	13,	2014

Page 11 of 12

------------------------------------------------------------------

Gas	volumes	need	to	be	sufficient	to	justify	REC’s.	Combustion	devices	can	be	used	

on	most	 wells	 and	most	 areas	 have	 suppliers	 that	 can	 rent	 or	lease	 equipment	 for	 short	

periods	of	time.	

8. Please comment on the costs for the use of RECs or completion combustion devices to control 

emissions from hydraulically fractured oil well completions. 

Depending	 on	 the	 distance	 to	 a	 pipeline	 and	 processing/separation	 requirements,	

REC’s	are	multiply	times	more	expensive	than	combustors.

9.	 	 Please comment on the emission reductions that RECs and completion combustion devices 

achieve when used to control emissions from hydraulically fractured oil well completions. 

Rec’s and	combustion	devices	can	reduce	emissions	by	+95%.

10.			Please comment on the prevalence of the use of RECs or completion combustion devices during 

hydraulically fractured oil well completion and recompletion operations. Are you aware of any data 

sources that would enable estimating the prevalence of these technologies nationally? 

My	experience	is,	on	any	completion	that	produces	gas	a	REC,	combustion	device	or	

flare	is	used	 to	prevent	a	 safety	hazard	and	 safely	dispose	 of	produced	gas.	 I	 know	 of	no	

data	sources	to	estimate	these	technologies	nationally.

11. Did the EPA correctly identify all the available technologies for reducing gas emissions from 

hydraulically fractured oil well completions or are there others? 

EPA	identified	the	available	technologies.

12. Please comment on estimates of associated gas emissions in this paper, and on other available 

information that would enable estimation of associated gas emissions from hydraulically fractured 

oil wells at the national- and the well-level

Applying	a	small	data	set	nationally	has	inherent	errors.

13. Please comment on availability of pipeline infrastructure in hydraulically fractured oil 

formations. Do all tight oil plays (e.g., the Permian Basin and the Denver-Julesberg Basin) have a 

similar lack of infrastructure that results in the flaring or venting of associated gas? 

Some	areas	have	pipelines	close	to	new	areas	and	some	don’t.

14. Did the EPA correctly identify all the available technologies for reducing associated gas 

emissions from hydraulically fractured oil wells or are there others? Please comment on the 

costs of these technologies when used for controlling associated gas emissions from hydraulically 

fractured oil wells. Please comment on the emissions reductions achieved when these technologies 

are used for controlling associated gas emissions from hydraulically fractured oil wells. 

See	#11,	#7,	#8	and	#9.
IPANM	Comments:	Completions	Oil	Wells Whitepaper

June	13,	2014

Page 12 of 12

------------------------------------------------------------------

15. Are there ongoing or planned studies that will substantially improve the current understanding of 

VOC and methane emissions from hydraulically fractured oil well completions and associated gas 

and available options for increased product recovery and emission reductions? 

Unknown.

IPANM	 thanks	 the	 EPA	 for	 the	 opportunity	 to	 comment	 on	 the	Oil	 and	 gas	 Sector	

Hydraulically	 Fractured	 Oil	 Well	 Completions	 and	 Associated	 Gas	 during	 Ongoing	

Operations	 whitepaper.	 We	 would	 be	 interested	 in	 participating	 in	 any	

stakeholder/taskforce/peer	 review	groups	 convened	 for	 the	 purpose	 of	addressing	 these	

policy	proposals.		We	look	forward	to	providing	additional	comments	as	the	agency	drafts	

of	 these	 proposed	 regulations	 materialize.	 	 Please	 feel	 free	 to	 contact	 me	 at	

Karin@ipanm.org or	at	(505)	238-8385	if	you	have	any	questions	regarding	the	issues.	

Respectfully	submitted,

INDEPENDENT	PETROLEUM	ASSOCITION	OF	NEW	MEXICO

______________________________________________

By:	Karin	V.	Foster,	esq.	

Executive	Director