BLM's methane rule

Feb. 13, 2017
For one overarching reason, but not the only reason, the US government should ditch the Bureau of Land Management's rule for methane emissions from oil and gas wells on federal land.

For one overarching reason, but not the only reason, the US government should ditch the Bureau of Land Management's rule for methane emissions from oil and gas wells on federal land. Published in final form last November, the rule typifies errors embedded in the Obama administration's overwhelmingly erroneous approach to oil and gas.

Among lesser reasons supporting repeal, the rule overlaps regulation by the Environmental Protection Agency, addresses an overstated problem, aims costly responses at a shrinking target, and ignores essential contexts.

Urge to regulate

The urge to regulate methane relates to the warming potential of the gas, about 25 times that of carbon dioxide. Taken by itself amid modern hysteria over CO2, that datum seems alarming. Here's another one that hasn't yet found itself into alarmist propaganda: The methane concentration in the atmosphere has more than doubled since preindustrial times. Doubled! Not even CO2 has doubled yet!

But wait. Neither methane nor CO2 amounts to much in air, even at lately elevated levels. The CO2 concentration has risen to about 400 ppm from 280 ppm since industrialization began, largely because of human activity, especially the burning of fossil fuels. By itself, that's not dire. CO2 levels have been many times higher in the distant past. But amplification of otherwise negligible warming through atmospheric interactions might create problems. Science should work on that-if politics will let it.

Compared with CO2, methane is runny gruel. The atmospheric concentration to which it has doubled from preindustrial levels is a scant 1.8 ppm. Unlike CO2, methane doesn't linger in the atmosphere, instead decomposing into CO2 and water. And while about 60% of methane in the atmosphere is attributable to human activity, only a third of that relates to production of oil and gas. Targeting methane from oil and gas work for the remediation of climate change, therefore, can't accomplish much. And in the US, methane emissions already are falling, even with recent gains in oil and gas production.

Rising use of natural gas in place of coal for power generation helps explain how annual emissions of CO2 have steadied below their 2007 peak in the US despite an overall increase in consumption of fossil energy. And growth in use of solar energy and wind for power generation requires more use of gas for back-up. Natural gas, despite its high warming potential, thus strengthens defenses against global warming. People and agencies committed to that goal should encourage its production and use.

Ignoring those contexts, the BLM adopted a rule sure to discourage gas production on federal land. Apparently, that outcome is intentional. In addition to raising costs and hampering well-site operations, the rule enables BLM to raise the federal royalty on new leases.

With its methane rule, the BLM thus conforms with an unstated strategy evident throughout the Obama administration, especially in its later years: to resist work related to development of oil and gas resources. BLM, EPA, and other agencies aligned their already unhealthy urges to regulate with advocacy groups opposed to any activity promising to boost supplies of fossil energy.

Environmental activists make their rationale clear: new supplies of oil, gas, and coal imply future additions of CO2 to the atmosphere from the combustion of hydrocarbons and therefore must be resisted. They also make clear they care nothing about the costs of their obstructionism. Alliance of federal agencies with such extremism skews regulation dangerously.

Breaking the link

The overarching reason to repeal BLM's methane rule is to break that link and rebalance priorities of the Executive Branch. Opponents of the move will complain about the supposed reversal of environmental progress. They'll thus ignore how natural gas helps to moderate emissions of CO2 and betray a bias harmful to policy-making.

With a 230-190 vote on Feb. 2, the House approved a Congressional Review Act resolution to rescind the BLM rule. The Senate vote likewise and help bring federal regulation back under control.