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	 Pneumatic	 Devices Whitepaper Dear	Sir	or	Madam;
The	 Independent	Petroleum	Association	of	New	Mexico	 (‘IPANM’)	appreciates	 this opportunity	to	comm ent	to	the EPA	Office	of	Air	Quality	Planning	&	Standards	(hereinafter ‘EPA’)	whitepaper	on	Oil	and	Gas	Sector	Pneumatic	Devices	of	April	2014

. Preliminary	matters: Without	adequate	research	and a n expert understanding	of	 the	issues,	it	would	be
unethi cal	 for	 th e	 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
intr oduction	 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 compar e different	gases	on	a	CO2	equivalent	scale should	beIPANM	Comments:	Pneumatic	Devices	Whitepaper June	13,	2014 Page 2 of 16

------------------------------------------------------------------ the	a ccepted	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	sta tic	n ature	of	GWP to	compare	ga ses	with	differing	radiative	efficiencies	and	atmospheric	lifetimes	has	led	to ‘major	 shortcomings’	 in	 understanding	 energy	 technology	 valuations 3

. However,	 i n	 the
urgency to	complete	methane	reductions	regulations	by	 the	end	of	2 016,	 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	st udies	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	Procedure s	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	 PR RC	 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 warmi ng 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 a pproach’ 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 e missions timing” , Nature Clim. Change Letter, May 2014,IPANM	Comments:	Pneumatic	Devices	Whitepaper June	13,	2014 Page 3 of 16

------------------------------------------------------------------ chosen	 to	 lea d	 the	 SP	 program	 because	 of	 their track	 record	 of	 research	 and	 actions	 on behalf	of	small	oil	and	gas	prod ucers,	 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	Asso ciation	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	S tate	of	New	Mexico	to	support	31%	of	the	General	Fund 4

. 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	lands 5 ranking	New	Mexico	sixth	in	crude	oil	production	in
the	nation	i n	2013 6 .	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	 2012 7

. According	 to	 the	 Office	 of	 Natural	 Resources	 Revenue,	 in	 FY
2013	 th e	 Federal	 Government	 disbursed	 $478,732,193.90	 in	 revenues	 to	 New	 Mexico 8 , 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%20Statisti cs03272014.pdf 6 http://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=NM 7 Id. 8 http://statistics.onrr.gov/ReportTool.aspxIPANM	Comments:	Pneumatic	Devices	Whitepaper June	13,	2014 Page 4 of 16

------------------------------------------------------------------ The	 process	 by	which	 these	whitepapers	were	 developed	was	 flawed	 and	 requi res	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	 expan ded methane	 reduction	 strategies,	 is	 not	 tenable 9

. Note	 that	 IPANM	 does	 not	 contest	 the	 authority	 of	 the	 EPA	 to	 regulate	 Greenhouse	 Gas
emissions 10 ,	of	which	methane	is	a part	of	those	emissions 11 .		T he	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
Administrat ion’s	“2014	Climate	Action	Plan:	Strategy	 to	reduce	methane	emissions 13 ”, the
P resident	 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 r egulate 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 ca rbon 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. I n 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. Co nnecticut , 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:	Pneumatic	Devices	Whitepaper June	13,	2014 Page 5 of 16

------------------------------------------------------------------ pr omulgate	rules	to	reduce	methane	emissions.		The	White	House specifically	directs 14 the BLM	to	propose	updated	standards	to	reduce	venting	and	flaring 15
, and mandated	the	EPA to	draft	white	papers	focusing	on	technical	issues relating	to	methane	emissions	fr om “oil
and	 co

- producing	wells,	liquids	 unloading,	leaks,	 pneumatic	 devices	and	 compressors” to “solicit	 input	 from	 independent	 experts 16 ” (hereinafter	 referred	 to	 as	 the	 EPA	 methane papers) .	 	 The	 EPA	 wa s	 further	 order e d 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	days 17 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	 o n	 any	 panel

. It	 is	 interesting	 to	 note	 that	 the
Environ mental	 Defense	 Fund,	 however,	 was	included	 on	 every	 panel th ereby	 giving	 that group	a	significant	voice	in	this	process

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

w ere	 clearly	 limited,	 probably	 due	 to	 time	 constrai nts,	 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 Metha ne 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 wou ld 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 indu stry 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:	Pneumatic	Devices	Whitepaper June	13,	2014 Page 6 of 16

------------------------------------------------------------------ whitepaper referenced a	 study	 commissio ned	 by	 the	 Env ironmental	 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,	 t he	 average	 $4mcf	 value	 is	 high, particularly	for	smaller	operators	who received	much	less	on	average	during	most	of	2012
and	 2013 18 .	 	 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 equipmen t	 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	r ate	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	 foun dation	 for	 a	 Whitehouse	 methane	 reduction	 strategy. Clearly, the
manner	 in	 which	 the	 EPA researched	 the	 is sues	 raised	 in	 the	 whitepapers	 wa s	 nothing more	 than	 a	 ‘data	 dump’	 that	 c ould not	 be	 considered an	 adequate	 learning	 process	 to establish	 expertise	 o n	 these	 very	 complex	 matters

. IPANM	 contends	 that	 based	 on	 the inadequate	 information	 reviewed , that	 the	 EPA	 does	 not	 have	 any	 sort	 of	 a	 ‘robust understanding 19 ’ 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:	Pneumatic	Devices	Whitepaper June	13,	2014 Page 7 of 16

------------------------------------------------------------------ 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	amendments 20 .		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	 fo r	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	nat ural	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 require ments	 of	 NSPS	 SubPart	 OOOO substantially	 reduce s metha ne	 emissions 22

. C oncurrent	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	 gas 23

. These	standards	cover	hazardous	air	pollutants	emitted	from	g lycol	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:	Pneumatic	Devices	Whitepaper June	13,	2014 Page 8 of 16

------------------------------------------------------------------ building	an	understanding	of	the	issue	of	methane	emissions,	whi ch	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	 und erstanding	 of	 the	 actual impacts 24 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	Pneum atic	Devices” Pg.	3 Definitions	for	low	bleed	controller	(</=	to	6	scf h) versus high	bleed	(>	6	scfh)

are arbitrary which	vary	based	on volume,	pressure,	throughput	rate,	operating characteristics,	ambient	conditions,	etc. Pg.	7

- 28 Discussion	of	Data	So urces	(Studies): General	Comments:	Most	of	the	studies in	this	whitepaper rely	on	20+	year	old data	and	conclusions	from a study	conducted	by	the	Gas	Research	Institute	and EPA	 as	 to	 controller	 emission	 factors	 and	 emission	 volumes (GRI/EPA	 study)

. This 1 996 study	is	almost	statistically	meaningless when	considering	policy	in 2014 ,	meaning	that	all	the	future	studies	that	rely	on	it	are	also	useless.	None	of the	 studies	 consider	 the	 probable	 reductions	 that	 have	 occurred	 since the implementation	of	NSPS su bpart	OOOO.	Most	of	 the	studies	use	small	regional sample	sizes	and	then	attempt	to	extrapolate	the	small	amount	of	regional	data to	national	levels.	There	is	no	indication	that	any	of	these	studies	have	been	peer reviewed.

24 Edwards, M. & Trancik, J., “ Climate Change of energy technologies depend on emissions timing” , Nature Clim. Change Letter, May 2014. T he 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 coal

fired 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:	Pneumatic	Devices	Whitepaper June	13,	2014 Page 9 of 16

------------------------------------------------------------------ Pg.	8 The	 main	 study	 upon	 which most	 of	 the	 other	 studies	 referenced	 in	 this whitepapers	was	based	upon was	conducted	by	the	Gas	Research	Institute	and EPA	 in	 1996.	 The	 conclusions	 of	 this	 study	 relative	 to	 emission	 factors	 and emission	 volumes	 are	 used	 as	 the	 basis	 for	 most	 of	 the	 late r	 studies referenced,	therefore,	the	later	studies	are	only	as	good	as	this	GRI/EPA	1996 study

- and	it	has	significant	problems	(see	below). Pg.	8 This	data	and	the	conclusions	of	the	study	are	18	years	old Pg.	8 In	order	to	determine	an	"emission	facto r",	this	GRI/EPA	1996	study	relied	on the	data	from	another	study	conducted	by	the	Canadian	Petroleum	Association in	1992

- over	20	years	ago.	This	CPA	1992	study	apparently	only	analyzed	37 controllers	in	Alberta

. Pg.	8 GRI/EPA	1996	uses	the	data	on	37	c ontrollers	in	CPA	1992	study	in	order	to extrapolate	an	 overall	 "emission	 factor"	 to	apply	nationally.	This	sample	size from	the	CPA	1992	study	is	statistically	insignificant. Pg.	8	&	15 Table	2

- 4	purports	to estimate the	pneumatic	controller	population	n ationally at	892,403	 (not	892,400

- but	892,403!)	based	on	arbitrary	 "activity	 factors" from	 the	 GRI/EPA	 1996	 study.	 The	 data	 set	 from	 the	 CPA	 1992	 study	 (37 controllers)	 was	 used	 to	 extrapolate	 a	 "generic	 emission	 factor"	 to	 apply nationally	 for	 892,403	 c ontrollers.	 Therefore,	 the	 sample	 size	 is	 about 4/10,000	of	1	percent	(37/892,403=0.000042461). Pg.	8 In	addition,	GRI/EPA	1996	also	used	some	"measured	emission	rates"	 from	a 20	year	old	study	from	Tenneco	Transportation	with	no	consideration	for	age, de sign,	 size,	 maintenance,	 operating	 conditions,	 sampling	 time,	 etc.	 for	 the controllers

. Pg.	9 For	 intermediate	 bleed	 devices,	 only	 7	 measurements	 were	 performed	 to determine	an	emission	factor	that	was	applied	nationally

. Pg.	9 For	 "activity	 factors" and	 projected	 controller	 population,	 only	 22	 sites	were visited	and	this	became	the	basis	for	a	national	estimate. Pg.	10 All	 of	 the	 above	 was	 thrown	 into	 a	 bucket	 and	 out	 comes	 a	 very	 scientificIPANM	Comments:	Pneumatic	Devices	Whitepaper June	13,	2014 Page 10 of 16

------------------------------------------------------------------ sounding	"'generic'	pneumatic	controller	emission	factor". Pg.	4 Other	problems	with	such	a	flimsy	extrapolation,	bleed	rates	are	dependent	on the	design	and	operating	characteristics	of	the	specific	device,	and	devices	that do	vent	continuously,	do	so	at	varying	rates	over	 time.	Neither	of	 these	 facts were	 appar ently	 considered	 in	 the	 EPA's	 extrapolation	 for	 a	 nationally applicable	emission	factor	and	volume. Pg.	16 Even	 the	 EPA's	 GHG	 Inventory	 Report	 recognizes	 that	 the	 emission	 factors from	the	GRI/EPA	1996	Study	would	lead	to	overestimating	actual	emissions, but	they	also	claim	that	they	have	no	better	data	to	use. Pg.	8 To	 determine	 the	 amount	 of	methane	 that	is	 supposedly	 being	 emitted,	 EPA relied	 on	 these	 erroneous	 emission	 factors	 along	 with	 "literature	 data	 for methane	composition". This	demonstrates	a lack	of	understanding	by	the	EPA

as	e ach	gas	stream	is	unique	in	its	composition thus	a	one

- size	fits	all	methane composition	 number is	 impossible.	 	 Only direct,	 specific	 analysis	 can determine	methane	composition. Pg.	20 Table	 2

- 7	 references	 a	 "global	 wa rming	 potential	 (GWP)	 of	 methane".	 It quantifies	 this	 as	 "21".	 However,	 there	 is	 no	 discussion	 as	 to	 where	 this number	comes	from,	how	it	is	derived,	calculated,	etc. Recent	MIT	researchers have	stated	 that	even	using	a	 factor	of	30	 to	compare	impacts	of methane	 to carbon	dioxide	is	‘simplistic’. ( See	Fn.	1

– 3,	24 referencing	a	2014	MIT	study on	static	versus	dynamic	modeling	to	determine	impact	of	methane	emissions from	energy	technologies)

. Pg.	20 The	Allen	2013	study	actually	conducted	regional	measur ements	of	pneumatic devices ,	 h owever,	 this	 study only	 measured	 sources	 from	 shale	 plays,	 not traditional non - shale plays	 like	 the	 Permian	 or	 the	 San	 Juan	 basin	 with shallower	wells	and	coal

- bed	methane	wells

. Pg.	 21	 & 15 The	 numbers	 of	 controllers	 measure d	 (305)	 were	 very	 limited	 compared	 to the	supposed	population	of	controllers	nation

- wide	(892,403)

- sample	size	of about	 3/1000	 of	 1%

- statistically	 insignificant	 PARTICULARLY	 considering the	margin	of	error	reported	in	the	results	(see	next	remark)IPANM	Comments:	Pneumatic	Devices	Whitepaper June	13,	2014 Page 11 of 16

------------------------------------------------------------------ Pg. 21 Results	show	significant	margin	of	error,	e.g.,	Rocky	Mountain	Region	results reports	a	margin	of	error	of	+/

- over	100%! Pg.	 21& 22 Results	also	indicate	significant	differences	between	regions

- up	to	a	factor	of 10.	 The	 study	 attempts	 to	 address	 th is	 very	 obvious	 difference	 between regions	by	stating,	in	essence,	they	have	no	explanation. Pg.	22 Even	with	all	the	obvious	problems	with	the	data	and	results	of	this	Allen	2013 study,	EPA	still	attempts	to	extrapolate	the	meaningless	data	to	national	l evels. Pg.	 23	 & 24 The	 Prasino	 2013	 Study	 looked	 at	 devices	 in	 British	 Columbia	 (doesn't	 say how	many)	and	attempted	 to	 develop	a	 relationship	 between	 bleed	 rate	and the	pressure	of	the	supply	gas. Pg.	24 They	 used improper regression	 analysis	 to	 try	 to determine	 a	 relationship between	 these	 factors	 and	 found	 what	 they	 called	 a	 "positive	 correlation" strong	enough	to	be	able	to	use	for	estimating	emission	factors	for	pneumatic controllers. Pg.	24 However,	 the	reported	R2	value	 for	 their	regression	analys is	was	only	0.41

- 0.35.	 Stated	 another	 way,	 this	 means	 that	 their	 regression	 analysis	 failed	 to explain	 60

- 65%	 of	 the	 data

- hardly	 what	 one	 could	 call	 a	 strong	 positive correlation! Pg.	26 The	 ICF	 International	 2014 study	 was	 commissioned	 by	 the Environ mental Defense	 Fund which	 is	 very	 concerning

– especially	 given	 their	 completely incorrect	base	assumptions.		They	only	studies	22	locations	but	then	use	EPA numbers	 from	 the	 Bakken,	 Eagleford	 and	 Wattenberg

– not	 New	 Mexico basins,	 and	 extrapolate	 to	 esti mate	 nationwide	 savings.	 	 	 $3500	 as	 the estimated	cost	of	doing	a	flare	is	extremely	low,	it	is	well	over	$10,000

. Pgs.	 36

- 55 Discussion	of	Alternative	Mitigation	Techniques

1. Install	Zero	Bleed	Pneumatic	Controllers

- Not	realistic	for	most	situations	du e	to	an inability	of	these	devices	to	handle	anything except very	low	volume/	low	pressure situations. Forcing	installation	of	zero	bleeds	will	result	in	safety	issues.IPANM	Comments:	Pneumatic	Devices	Whitepaper June	13,	2014 Page 12 of 16

------------------------------------------------------------------ 2. Install	Low	Bleed	Pneumatic	Controllers

• Could	replace	High	Bleed	devices	in	a	limit ed	number	of	situations

• Safety	issue	considerations	due	to	the	low	bleed	device	being	slower	and	less precise	than	higher	bleed	devices.

• Not	 safe	 to	 use	 in	 situations	 where	 gas	 flow	 rates	 fluctuate

- can't	 handle rapid	changes 3. Convert	to	Instrument	Air Systems

• These	alternatives	can't	be	considered	in	a	vacuum

- it	also	needs	to	be	considered in	 context	 of	 other	 regulatory	 restrictions	 regarding	 power	 availability,	 electrical construction	 restrictions,	 noise	 abatement	 regulations	 due	 to the E ndangered S pecies	Act 25 et	al.

• More	complicated	systems	mean	a	substantially	greater	possibility	for	failure	in	the operation,	 which	 can	 lead	 to	 safety	 hazards	 due	 to	 controllers	 failing	 to	 operate. Limiting	the	possibilities	for	failures	leading	to	hazards	affecting health,	safety,	and the	 environment	 should	 be	 a	 consideration. Small	 producer	 ability	 to	 maintain more	complex	systems	is	also	a	concern.

• The	cost	 for	this	alternative	would	be	prohibitive	 for	smaller	operators	with	a	 few wells	or	even	with	a	larger	nu mber	of	marginal	wells.	This	significant	incremental cost	 increase	 for	 operations	 would	 lead	 to	 premature	 abandonment	 in	 many situations.

• Requires	 a	 larger,	 more	 intrusive,	 footprint	 for	 operations.	 Again,	 this	 could contradict	a	 number	 of	 other	 regulatio ns	and	 considerations particularly	with	 the BLM	as	well	as	Candidate	Conservation	Agreement	conditions	agreed	upon	between companies	and	the	USFWS	to protect	endangered	species. 4. Replace	Pneumatic	Controllers	with	Mechanical	and	Solar	Powered	Systems

• Would	require	electrical	service	to	have	safe	reliable	operation

- solar	power	is	not

25 In the Permian there has been ongoing discussion and multiple Conservation Agreements signed by companies seeking to work wit h the USFWS to avoid listing the Sand Dune Lizard or the Lesser Prairie Chicken as endangered. Noise abatement is one of the conditions often required by the Service which would be significantly impacted should the EPA require different pneumatic devices on location.IPANM	Comments:	Pneumatic	Devices	Whitepaper June	13,	2014 Page 13 of 16

------------------------------------------------------------------ dependable	 and	 could	 create	 a	 safety	 hazard	 wit h	 failing	 controllers.	 Electrical service	 is	 not	 always	 available	 in	 remote	 operating	 areas	 and	 other	 regulatory restrictions	may	not	allow	for	bringing	in	electrical	service.

• Solar	 powered	 systems	 would	 still	 require	 a	 pneumatic	 system	 backup	 for	 safety purposes,	making	this	alternative duplicative.

• The	cost	 for	this	alternative	would	be	prohibitive	 for	smaller	operators	with	a	 few wells	or	even	with	a	larger	number	of	marginal	wells.	This	significant	incremental cost	 increase	 for	 operations	 would	 lead to	 premature	 abandonment	 in	 many situations.

Response	to	Charge	Questions
1. Did	the	paper	appropriately	characterize	the	different	studies	and	data	sources	that quantify	emissions	from	pneumatic	controllers	and	pneumatic	pumps	in	the	oil	and	gas sector ? No.	 The	 Studies	 are	 characterized	 as	 authoritative	 and	 nationally	 representative, when	in	reality	they	are	predominantly	small,	localized	studies	that	are	statistically weak	at	best. 2. Please	discuss	explanations	for	wide	range	of	emission	rates	tha t	have	been	observed	in direct	measurement	studies	of	pneumatic	controller	emissions	(eg.	Allen	et	al,	2013	and Prasino	 2013).	 	 Are	 these	 differences	 driven	 purely	 by	 the	 design	 of	 the	 monitored controllers	or	are	there	operational	characteristics,	such	as supply	pressure,	that	play	a role	in	determining	emissions? Possible	 factors	 in	 addition	 to	 controller	 design	 would	 include	 (i)	 the	 operating volume	 and	 supply	 pressure	 characteristics,	 (ii)	 the	 age	 and	 condition	 of	 the controller,	 (iii)	 ambient	 operat ing	 conditions,	 (iv)	 operational	 needs,	 e.g., requirement	for	quick,	precise	actuation,	(v)	sample	times	and	methods. 3. Did	this	paper	capture	the	full	range	of	technologies	available	to	reduce	emissions	from pneumatic	controllers	and	pneumatic	pumps	oil and	gas	facilities? Unknown
4. Comments	on	the	pros	and	cons	of	different	emission	reduction	technologies. See	above	comments	on	Alternative	Mitigation	TechniquesIPANM	Comments:	Pneumatic	Devices	Whitepaper June	13,	2014 Page 14 of 1 6

------------------------------------------------------------------ 5. Comment	on	prevalence	of	 the	different	emission	control	 technologies	and	 the	dif ferent types	of	pneumatics	in	the	field.		What	activities	require	high	bleed	pneumatic	controllers and	how	prevalent	are	they	in	the	field? High	bleed	rate	controllers	may	be	necessary	when	dealing	with	high	volume/high pressure	 situations	 and	 when	 rapi d,	 precise	 actuation	 is	 required	 for	 safety	 and operation	reasons 6. What	 are	 the	 barriers	 to	installing	instrument	 air	 systems	for	 converting	 natural	 gas

driven	pneumatic	pumps	and	controllers	to	air

- driven	pumps	and	controllers? Considerations:	 power supply	availability	and/or	 restrictions,	 contradicts	 possible noise	abatement	restrictions,	increased	operational	 footprint,	marginal	cost	would have	 a	 disproportionate	 negative	 impact	 on	 smaller	 operators,	 complexity	 of systems	introduces	additional	 oppo rtunities	 for	 failure	 that	could	lead	 to	negative impacts	upon	health,	safety	and	the	environment. 7. Are	there	situations	where	it	may	be	infeasible	to	use	air	driven	pumps	and	controllers	in place	of	natural	gas

- driven	pumps	and	controllers	even	where	i t	is	feasible	to	install	an instrument	air	system? See	#6	above
8. Did	 this	paper	characterize	 the	limitations	of	electric	driven	pneumatic	controllers	and pumps?		Are	these	electric	devices	applicable	to	a	broader	range	of	the	oil	and	gas	sector than this	paper	suggests? Unknown
9. Are	 there	 ongoing	 or	 planned	 studies	 that	 will	 substantially	 improve	 the	 current understanding	 of	 VOC	 and	 methane	 emissions	 from	 pneumatic	 controllers	 and pneumatic	 pumps	 and	 available	 technologies	 for	 increased	 product recovery	 and emissions	reductions? Unknown.	 However,	 the	 full	 impacts	 of	 the	 implementation	 of NSPS Subpart	 OOOO should	 be	 known	 and	 better	 quantified	 prior	 to	 discussing	 implementation	 of additional	 regulations. Discussions	 with	 the	 New	 Mexico Petroleum	 Research Recovery	Center	or	 the Research	Partnership	 to	Secure	Energy	 for	America	(RPSEA), Small	Producer	Program would	assist	this	agency	to	better	understand	not	only	the	oil and	gas	industry	in	New	Mexico	but	also	 the	limitations	and	cost pres sures	on	small operators. Without	 this	information,	how	can	one	prete nd	 to	quantify	 the	degree	orIPANM	Comments:	Pneumatic	Devices	Whitepaper June	13,	2014 Page 15 of 16

------------------------------------------------------------------ existence	of	any	potential	current	need	for	additional	regulations?

SUMMARY	COMMENTS The	 studies	 the	 EPA	 has	 relied	 upon	 to	 develop	 "the	 Agency's	 understanding" relative	 to	 emissions	 from	 pneumatic	 controllers	 and	 pumps	 are	 e xtremely	 flawed.	 The majority	of	the	studies	rely	on	outdated	data	(20+	years	old)	and	give	no	consideration	to recent	emission	reductions	due	to	the	implementation	of	NSPS	subpart	OOOO.	The	studies attempt	to	make	national	extrapolations	 from	localized	an d	statistically	meaningless	data. The	studies	apparently	ignore	differences	in	pneumatic	controllers	relative	to	age,	design, size,	 ambient	 conditions,	 operating	 conditions,	 maintenance,	 and	 sampling	 methods	 and times.	None	of	the	studies	have	apparently	b een	peer	reviewed. Mitigation	alternatives	can	not be	considered	in	a	vacuum,	they	must	be	considered in	context	with	other	regulato ry	restrictions,	electrical	restrictions	and	power	availability, noise	 abatement	 regulations,	 limitations	 on	 operational	 footprint,	 operational	 necessity, limiting	 fai lure	 possibilities,	 and	 safety	 and environmental	 considerations.	 Further,	 the
incremental	 c ost	 associated	 with	 incorporating	 complex	 systems	 (e.g.,	 compressed	 air systems,	electronically	actuated	manual	controllers,	etc.)	will	be	substantial	in	ma n y	cases as	 well	 as	 being	 disproportionatel y	 higher	 on	 smaller	 operators compared	 to	 larger operat ors.	 These	 more	 complex	 systems	 will	 also	 require	 duplicative	 gas	 powered pneumatic	devices	as	a	backup	for	safety	considerations.	Additional	regulations	to	address maintenance	 are	 unnecessary	 as	 a	 prudent	 operator	 is	 already	 making	 the	 economic
decision	t o	maintain	and	repair	equipment	in	order	to	limit	lost	gas	and	revenue.IPANM	Comments:	Pneumatic	Devices	Whitepaper June	13,	2014 Page 16 of 16

------------------------------------------------------------------ IPANM	 thanks	 the	 EPA	 for	 the	 opportunity	 to	 comment	 on	 the	Oil	 and	 gas	 Sector Pneumatic	 devices	 whitepaper. We	 would	 also	 be	 interested	 in	 participating	 in	 any stakeholder/taskforce/peer	 review	groups	 convened	 for	 the	 purpose	 of	addressing	 t hese 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	 h ave	 any	 questions	 regarding	 the	 issues
discussed	herein.

Respectfully	submitted,
INDEPENDENT	PETROLEUM	ASSOCITION	OF	NEW	MEXICO

______________________________________________ By:	Karin	V.	Foster,	esq. Executive	Director