Given a paragraph, generate a claim that is supported by the given paragraph. 1) The claim must contain information from within the paragraph. 2) A sentence within the paragraph can be used as a claim. 3) The claim should not have contradictions within the paragraph. 4) The claim should be at most one sentence long.

Input: Consider Input: Rather than outline specific recommendations, the 300-page document is meant to be a resource for state regulators as they begin the process in 2020 of drafting formal rules aimed at reducing methane emissions. Despite industry claims that companies have been able to reduce emissions while still setting production records, environmentalists have been pushing hard for more regulations at the state level to target methane leaks and the practice of venting and flaring. The report is the result of numerous meetings over the last four months by the Methane Advisory Panel, a group of more than two dozen experts knowledgeable about various parts of the oil and gas business. The panel included industry representatives, environmental lawyers and experts from Los Alamos National Laboratory, Colorado State University and the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology. The discussions centered on topics like compressor engines, storage tanks and pneumatic valves. New Mexico Environment Secretary James Kenney said the effort put into the report is unparalleled in its thoroughness. “This is exactly the baseline information we need to effectively tackle methane emissions in our state,” he said. The state will be accepting public comment on the report through Feb. 20. XTO Energy President Staale Gjervik said the company’s experience shows methane emissions can be mitigated in a cost-effective way but that full industry participation is important. XTO was among those represented on the panel. The report highlights various strategies to reduce emissions, such as switching to low- or no-bleed pneumatic controllers and increasing leak detection and monitoring equipment. The need for more infrastructure also was identified as a possible way to reduce venting and flaring — although the report stated flaring, or the burning off of excess natural gas during extraction, was a necessary part of the process. The state will host public meetings in the coming months to discuss the findings with community members across the state. Stronger regulations for methane emissions will be critical as the oil boom in New Mexico continues, said Hillary Hull of the Environmental Defense Fund, another member of the advisory panel. She said the state’s process in developing the analysis was been inclusive, representing countless hours of research and input from a diverse cross-section of stakeholders. “Next year will be the critical time for moving forward on enforceable, nationally-leading methane rules that protect our air, address the climate crisis and improve education funding for New Mexico families and future generations,” she said. Earlier this month, trade groups representing the oil and gas industries in New Mexico and Texas release an analysis that showed a decline in methane emissions in both states as production tripled. The research also showed that the amount of methane burned off or emitted per barrel of oil equivalent was reduced by 64 percent in the Permian Basin during the past seven years. Meanwhile, the report cited a 210% increase in oil production in the Permian since 2011. Ryan Flynn, executive director at the New Mexico Oil and Gas Association said Permian producers are leading the industry when it comes to environmental practices and emissions reductions. “As energy markets across the globe look to America for their energy needs, we are creating the solutions of the future to deliver cleaner, more reliable energy to people and communities in every corner of the planet,” he said in a statement.

Output: New Mexico releases methane emissions report.


Input: Consider Input: "Crediting conservation in Austin, the Save Our Springs Alliance said in an Aug. 16, 2011, entry in its online newsletter: ""Ten years ago the Austin Water Utility used a total of 240.3 million gallons. Every summer since then our peak day of water use has been lower."" After noting that this year’s peak water use in a day was 217 million gallons, the entry continues: ""So raise a tall glass of ice water in honor of our success: water conservation gains have outpaced population growth for a decade. Add a ‘Salud!’ to another 10 years of flat or declining water use — easily achieved with cost-effective conservation measures and an emerging ‘culture of conservation,’ one that recognizes that we can thrive and be happy without oversized, overwatered New England-style turf grass lawns."" We can’t check on the next decade, but we can check if peak water usage has been less every year than what it was in 2001. Indeed, the Austin Water Utility sent us figures indicating that on the peak days of water consumption from 2002 through August 2011, customers used less water than the 240.3 million gallons used on Aug. 13, 2001, though that was barely so in one year. The greatest peak use day since 2001 was Aug. 26, 2006, when usage was 240.17 million gallons — about 5/100ths of a percent shy of the amount gulped, flushed and otherwise used in 2001. The lowest peak-use amount in the 10 years after 2001 was 176.98 million gallons on Aug. 13, 2007. Put another way, the average peak water use in a day in the period was about 214 million gallons, 11 percent off the 2001 peak. The utility’s director, Greg Meszaros, told us in an interview that conservation helps explain the lower peak-use amounts, though he said consumption generally bounces around year to year partly due to variations in the weather — rainy summers reduce demand — and the economy. Per-capita water consumption has been relatively flat, Meszaros said, since the utility instituted a conservation program in 2007 that, among features, encourages customers to use low-water appliances and limit lawn watering. According to the utility, customers have used less water per person lately than individuals did in past years. Per-capita daily use has averaged 190 gallons or more four times since 1990, the last time being 2006. Average per-person consumption slid to 151 gallons in 2007, reached 170 gallons in 2008 and then dipped two straight years, reaching less than 140 gallons in 2010. Daryl Slusher, an assistant director for the utility, said the average will approach 160 gallons for the year that ends Sept. 30. Save Our Springs maintains the area’s conservation successes demonstrate that a water treatment plant slated for Northwest Austin won’t be needed for many years. Meszaros told us Austin needs the new plant because two current plants can’t be relied on indefinitely. Also, he said, the new project will include a vital water transmission main easing the delivery of water to the fast-growing northern third of the utility’s service area. ""We’re not doing (the new plant) just to meet a peak water demand,"" Meszaros said. In an interview, Bill Bunch, SOS’s executive director, expressed skepticism about strains in the existing water delivery system. He also said there’s not sufficient water demand to justify the new one and forwarded an April 2002 recommendation from city staff about preliminary engineering for the new plant. The document states the plant would be needed by 2009 to meet increasing water demands, predicting too that the utility’s peak one-day demand in summer 2009 would be 281 million gallons; the peak amount that year turned out to be 228 million gallons. Utility spokesman Kevin Buchman later told us by email that in 2002, the ""main reason for moving forward with the construction of a new plant was to meet the projected demands."" He said, though, the utility’s mid-decade focus on conservation allowed the city to postpone the plant’s completion by more than five years. ""Also,"" Buchman said, ""since 2002 we have had one of our (originally three) plants decommissioned and our other two water plants have been expanded as much as possible."" We won’t try to settle the water plant debate here. But the alliance’s statement about peak water use rates ."

Output: Ten years ago the Austin Water Utility used a total of 240.3 million gallons. Every summer since then our peak day of water use has been lower.


Input: Consider Input: The news release does not bring up costs, but we’ll rate this Not Applicable since the release is clear that this is early-stage work that is not yet ready for use in humans. Some mention of costs would have been valuable nonetheless. Gene therapy is known to be extremely costly, and when a disease is rare, as this is, that raises questions about what company would find it profitable to pursue the potential treatment. The University of Utah provides some excellent background on the “commercial viability” of gene therapy. The release squeaks by on this. There are no numbers used to quantify, but this excerpt at least touches on the method of measurement and the three-year follow up. “The treated dogs had expressed levels of clotting factor VII that would be therapeutic in humans, with long-term stability. In one dog, the effects persisted nearly three years.”  The release could have explained what a “therapeutic” expression level of clotting factor actually means. A closer look at the paper reveals that a clinically therapeutic level is greater than or equal to 15% of normal. The release addresses harms in a couple of places, as in this excerpt: “The FVII-deficient dogs tolerated the initial gene therapy infusions very well and have had no adverse side effects over several years of follow up.” and in a quote by the lead researcher: “Based on kidney function, liver function, and blood measurements in the dogs, the treatment was safe, and did not elicit unwanted immune responses.” But as this study was done in canines, we would have liked a bit more detail on how harms might  manifest in human clinical trials. The limited information given in the news release describes the quality of the evidence, particularly the fact that this was an animal study that is not directly applicable to humans. The release notes that the study “sets the stage for clinical trials in humans.” The release could have noted that a study with only four (canine) participants is very small. There is no disease mongering. There were no conflicts identified. All the funding sources were listed. The release tells us that this rare clotting disorder is currently treated by infusions of clotting factors. The release could have done a better job of explaining how difficult that therapy is for patients. Is the disorder regulated well by that method? We aren’t given any information or what those costs are vs. what a one-time gene therapy might cost. The release makes clear that this treatment will not be available until human clinical trials are conducted. This gene therapy is novel for this particular condition. The news release should also be commended for pointing out that a similar gene therapy approach has been tested by the same researchers for hemophilia. It’s admirable that they are not overselling the novelty of this approach by referencing their own previous work in related areas. We were pleased to see proof-of-concept in the headline, because this is a very useful way to immediately alert readers that an idea has been validated, but not a therapy for human patients.


Output: Gene therapy for rare bleeding disorder achieves proof-of-concept