AUSTIN CENTURY CITY CHARLOTTE CHICAGO HOUSTON IRVING LOS ANGELES 

NEW YORK ORANGE COUNTY SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA SHANGHAI WASHINGTON, DC

LONDON: KATTEN MUCHIN ROSENMAN UK LLP

A limited liability partnership including professional corporations

San Francisco Bay Area Office

1999 Harrison Street

Suite 700

Oakland, CA 94612-0850

Washington DC Office

2900 K Street NW, North Tower

Suite 200

Washington, DC 20007-5118

SHANNON S. BROOME

shannon.broome@kattenlaw.com

(415) 293-5818 direct

(415) 704-3151 fax

(202) 625-3715 direct

(202) 295-1125 fax

June 16, 2014

Via email to: oilandgas.whitepapers@epa.gov, frantz.chris@epa.gov

Re: TXOGA Comments on EPA’s Oil and Gas White Papers

Dear Sir or Madame:

On behalf of the Texas Oil & Gas Association (TXOGA), we are providing this response 

to EPA’s April 15, 2014 release for external peer review of five “White Papers” on methane and 

volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from the oil and gas sector. 

http://www.epa.gov/airquality/oilandgas/whitepapers.html. The White Papers address the 

following five potential sources of emissions:

1. Compressors

2. Hydraulically Fractured Oil Well Completions and Ongoing Production

3. Leaks

4. Liquids Unloading

5. Pneumatic Devices

It is our understanding that EPA will be making decisions regarding whether to pursue regulation 

of these sources sometime in the Fall of 2014, and for any sources for which EPA decides to 

propose regulations, the Agency would endeavor to begin that process sometime in 2015. 

Founded in 1919, TXOGA is the largest and oldest petroleum organization in Texas, 

representing more than 5,000 members. The membership of TXOGA produces in excess of 90 

percent of Texas’ crude oil and natural gas, operates 100 percent of the state’s refining capacity, 

and is responsible for the vast majority of the state’s pipelines. TXOGA member companies 

produce a quarter of the nation’s oil, a third of its natural gas and account for one-fourth of the 

U.S. refining capacity. 

As EPA is aware, TXOGA has been involved with EPA’s regulatory process for this 

sector under Sections 111 and 112 of the Clean Air Act through the submittal of extensive 

comments, litigation, and an administrative petition for reconsideration (which has been granted 

in part). Since the original rule was finalized in 2012, Oil and Natural Gas Sector: New Source 

Performance Standards and National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants Reviews, 

77 Fed. Reg. 49,490 (Aug. 16, 2012) (Final Rule), partly in response to petitions for 

reconsideration and petitions for review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, EPA 

has already issued one set of revisions to the regulations and is slated to release a second 
Page 2

proposed rule at the end of June 2014, which may be followed by yet another round of 

reconsideration rulemaking in 2015. In the meantime, the regulation of sources and the need to 

comply has begun and is expanding. 

As EPA is also aware, the rules that were issued in 2012 (and that have been and are 

being amended for clarity) represent a significant expansion of the regulatory requirements for 

this source category, including expansion in scope to operations that are much smaller than have 

been historically regulated. As a result, companies – many of which are smaller than those 

typically regulated by EPA air regulations – have needed to institute new systems for compliance 

and training programs for operators. 

TXOGA is appreciative of the efforts that EPA has made to clarify the regulations but it 

is important to recognize that these efforts were necessary, in part, because of the need for EPA 

technical experts to gain a greater understanding of the actual operating requirements, business 

needs, and technical capabilities of this complex and diverse industry. With this regulatory 

history, we want to encourage EPA to consider the need for a period of stability in the regulatory 

requirements once the regulations already issued are sufficiently clarified. A period of stability 

before even greater expansion or other changes will be beneficial for all stakeholders because it 

will allow companies to institute and refine their compliance systems such that the rules can be 

interpreted and applied to operations across a given company and that employees can be trained 

in accordance with those determinations.

I. Technical Issues Raised by White Papers

TXOGA has previously noted that industry groups were not invited to participate in the 

development of the White Papers until very late in the process (1 month prior to publishing). In 

fact, very few of the references cited in the White Papers were prepared by industry or industry 

trade groups with the most knowledge of oil and gas operations. As a result, these papers 

contain many technical inaccuracies that greatly affect the characterization of emissions and 

potential mitigation techniques. 

TXOGA members want to highlight the following points as examples that are indicative 

of the inaccuracies that appear throughout the White Papers:

Oil and Natural Gas Sector Hydraulically Fractured Oil Well Completions and Associated Gas 

During Ongoing Production

• The White Paper incorrectly states that emissions from flowback of hydraulically 

fractured oil wells are “uncontrolled.” Report for Oil and Gas Sector Oil Well 

Completions and Associated Gas During Ongoing Production, Table 3-1 (April 2014). 

This is inaccurate. In most situations, standard industry practice is to control flowback 

emissions through flaring or reduced emissions completions (REC) for safety reasons. 

This White Paper, however, does not attempt to characterize the current frequency of 

flowback control, which will lead to an overstatement of potential emission reduction 

benefits from additional regulation in this area and could cause members of the public to 

believe emissions currently are much higher than they actually are.
Page 3

• The White Paper inaccurately uses the term “associated gas” when describing what is 

more commonly known as “stranded gas.” Associated gas is all gas produced 

concurrently with crude oil while stranded gas is only the subset of associated gas that is 

flared or vented and cannot be sold to market because of the lack of infrastructure or low 

volume. As a result of the use of the term “associated gas” instead of the more accurate 

“stranded gas,” a reader may be inappropriately led to believe that all of the “associated 

gas” reported in the Appendix A data tables is flared or vented, when these tables actually 

represent nothing more than total volumes of gas produced at the well. Much of this 

produced gas was actually gathered and sold, not vented or flared.

• In Appendix A of this White Paper, a gas-to-oil ratio (GOR) of 12,500 is used as the 

threshold to separate oil wells from gas wells. The White Paper states that the use of this 

threshold is justified because: “This methodology is consistent with the gas-oil ratio 

methodology used in the 2012 Oil and Natural Gas Sector NSPS development.” Id. at A3. Actually, this GOR threshold does not appear in Subpart OOOO, and TXOGA is 

unaware of any use of this threshold in the supporting documentation available in the 

docket for the rulemaking. 

Oil and Natural Gas Sector Leaks

• The White Paper improperly defines leaks as emissions not only from equipment 

components that are covered in traditional LDAR programs under NSPS and NESHAP 

regulations, but also from unintended incidents. For example, incidents such as storage 

thief hatches that are left open or separator dump valves that are stuck open are included 

within the scope of “leaks.” Report for Oil and Natural Gas Sector Leak, 4 (April 2014). 

Because the detection and response methods are different, these types of unintended 

incidents should be characterized and quantified separately from traditional fugitive 

“leaks.” While LDAR programs are effective for detecting and repairing fugitive 

“leaks,” preventive maintenance and AVO inspections are more appropriate for 

unintended incidents. 

Oil and Natural Gas Sector Liquids Unloading

• The White Paper states that artificial lifts (rod pumps) are typically used during periods in 

which the well pressure declines such that there is inadequate pressure to use a plunger 

lift. Oil and Natural Gas Sector Liquids Unloading Processes, 17 (April 2014). This 

statement is inaccurate. Rod pumps are infrequently used in gas well production, and it 

would rarely be practical or cost-effective for an operator to switch from a plunger lift to 

a rod pump. The White Paper fails to describe the primary use for a rod pump which is to

promote an increased flow rate of hydrocarbon liquids, usually crude oil. 

• The White Paper lists plunger lifts as a primary technique to mitigate emissions associated 

with liquid unloading. Id. at 3, 20-21. Plunger lifts are not inherently an emissions control 

technology, but rather a liquids unloading technology to promote deliquification of the 
Page 4

wellbore. While plunger lifts may reduce emissions, they do not do so across the full range 

of operating scenarios. In addition, the White Paper fails to adequately address common 

impediments to installing plunger lifts including wellbore configuration and the condition of 

production casing and tubing.

• The White Paper discusses several liquids unloading mitigation techniques, but it does not 

adequately address the operating conditions where well venting is the necessary or preferred 

technology to deliquify a well. 

While TXOGA raises the above issues, we note that we are not undertaking a detailed 

response to most of the questions at this time but rather will be responding appropriately to any 

decision that EPA might make regarding a proposal. Failure to raise the accuracy of any 

characterization at this time should not be interpreted as TXOGA’s concurrence with any aspect 

of any particular white paper.

II. Process Issues Related to White Paper Commenting and Subsequent Action

As TXOGA understands EPA’s process for the White Papers, the Agency is providing 

the opportunity for public input but is also seeking input from a very limited number of “peer 

reviewers” that will be compensated for answering the specific questions listed in the particular 

white paper(s) to which they are assigned.

While TXOGA agrees that a peer review process can be helpful, we note that the peer 

reviewers appear to be dominated by certain organizations and do not have the degree of breadth 

in representation from industry that would be expected given the nature of the information being 

sought. In general, of the five peer reviewers listed for each of the five papers, there are 1 or 2 

industry peer reviewers listed on each, although the information sought is highly technical in 

nature related to the equipment used in the industry and its emissions. Given the nature of the 

questions, it seems that greater representation of companies with the experience of operating the 

equipment and that have likely evaluated emissions through state permitting requirements and 

for other purposes would be appropriate. 

It is true that EPA is accepting comments from the public as well – which, given that the 

peer review panels need additional expertise, is critical – but we are concerned that the Agency 

will give preferential treatment to information obtained from the peer reviewers. It is essential 

that EPA give equal weight to information submitted from other parties that have technical 

expertise to ensure that any decision made on the basis of this information is appropriately 

supported. 

Finally, EPA should implement this process in a transparent and open manner. EPA 

should include on the website the names and qualifications of the peer reviewers. Moreover, 

EPA should make publicly available on its website or in a public/electronically-accessible docket 

all comments filed in response to the White Papers so that stakeholders may review the 

information on which the Agency may base decisions to proceed or not with additional 

regulation. 
Page 5

TXOGA strongly supports President Obama’s January 21, 2009 commitment to 

transparency, in which he stated his view that “[t]ransparency promotes accountability and 

provides information for citizens about what their Government is doing” and that “[i]nformation 

maintained by the Federal Government is a national asset.” Transparency and Open 

Government, 74 Fed. Reg. 4685 (Jan. 26, 2009). Given that the President committed his 

administration “to disclose information rapidly in forms that the public can readily find and use,” 

id., making the comments publicly available will help to fulfill the Administration’s transparency 

commitment as it applies to the process of potentially expanding the regulation of the oil and gas 

sector under Sections 111 and 112. We are particularly supportive of the President’s 

commitment to disclose information rapidly. In this context, where EPA seeks to make 

decisions regarding whether to proceed with a proposal in the relatively near term, prompt 

disclosure of claims made by the public and paid-for comments of peer reviewers is critical to 

ensure that any errors or other points of view that might not be anticipated in light of the papers 

themselves be exposed early—as doing so could prevent EPA from spending resources on an 

approach that could be technically flawed.

* * * *

TXOGA appreciates the opportunity to provide input to EPA on these issues and looks forward 

to a continuing dialogue. 

Sincerely, 

 

Shannon S. Broome

Counsel to TXOGA