News Section
Stories from Climate Central's Science Journalists and Content Partners

U.S. Methane Emissions Vastly Underestimated: Study

The federal government has vastly underestimated climate change-fueling methane being emitted in the United States, primarily from the oil and gas and cattle industries, according to a new Harvard University study.

The oil and gas industry, largely in the south-central U.S., may be emitting nearly five times the methane that scientists previously estimated, while methane emissions of livestock operations are twice previous estimates and overall nationwide methane emissions are up to 1.7 times what had been thought until now.

A Cessna plane, making continuous observations of emissions, flies over an Atmospheric Radiation Measurement tower used by the Department of Energy near the town of Lamont, Okla. Pat Dowell, a research technician at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, is collecting flask samples from the tower.
Credit: Roy Kaltschmidt, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

The study, conducted by a team of researchers from Harvard and seven other institutions, was published Monday in the Proceedings of the National Academies of Sciences. 

Methane is a greenhouse gas that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports is 34 times more powerful than carbon dioxide (CO2), although it has a much shorter atmospheric lifetime. While the boom in shale oil and gas drilling and fracking has helped to reduce carbon emissions by shifting some electricity generation to natural gas-fired power plants from coal-fired ones, methane emissions have become a major climate concern.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently reduced its estimates for the amount of methane emitted by the oil and gas industry between 1990 and 2011 by up to 30 percent, but the Harvard team found that emissions data gathered from across the country show national methane emissions estimates need to be adjusted upward, not down. 

The big difference in methane emissions estimates may be in how they're calculated, though the researchers say further research needs to be done to determine why the EPA and the Harvard team have come up with wildly different emissions estimates.

The Harvard team used actual methane emissions data gathered from towers, airplanes and other ground-level monitoring stations to calculate total methane emisions nationwide. The EPA calculates methane emissions by counting the number of cows, oil and gas wells and oil refineries in a region, then estimates total emissions based on how much methane each of those sources is expected to emit. That data is reported in the Emissions Database for Global Atmospheric Research, or EDGAR.

“We used a very different approach, often referred to as a ‘top down’ method,” said study lead author Scot M. Miller, a doctoral student in earth and planetary sciences at Harvard University. “Our colleagues at NOAA and the DOE (U.S. Department of Energy) measure concentrations of methane gas in the atmosphere. All methane emissions end up in the atmosphere, so these atmospheric measurements help us estimate the total amount of methane emitted downwind. This approach gives us a strong understanding of total methane emissions over a large region of the entire United States.”

Miller's study found that measurements of methane in the air above oil and gas-producing areas show that emissions are rising as a 20-year increase in the number of oil and gas wells, many of which involve fracking and horizontal drilling techniques, continues. 

Why EDGAR underestimated total U.S. methane emissions by up to 1.7 times is the “million dollar question,” Miller said.

“Our result is consistent with increased emissions from (cattle) ruminants and from oil and gas extraction and refining,” he said. “I think an important next step following our study is to understand why our estimates differ."

The study showed that the EPA’s data most significantly underestimate methane emissions in the south-central U.S., particularly Texas and Oklahoma, where methane emissions tied to oil and gas production were up to 4.9 times higher than EPA estimates. However, the researchers' data does not show that other oil and gas production in other areas of the country are causing a similar increase in methane emissions. 

Methane emissions tied to oil and gas production in Texas and Oklahoma were up to 4.9 times higher than EPA estimates.
Credit: Wikipedia

Miller said oil and gas operations in Texas and Oklahoma can be tied to high methane emissions because of the presence of propane in the atmosphere. 

“Propane is a gas produced by the oil and gas industries but not by cows or wetlands,” Miller said. “In these two states, we see a close relationship between methane and propane gas in the atmosphere. This relationship implies that the oil and gas industries are major players in methane emissions from that region."

The study does not necessarily conflict with an energy industry and Environmental Defense Fund-sponsored University of Texas-Austin study published in September suggesting that fracking may emit less methane than previous EPA estimates, Miller said.

“The two studies look at very different pieces of the puzzle, and I think it’s difficult to make a direct comparison,” he said, adding that the UT study made detailed measurements of a specific source — natural gas production.

“Our study, on the other hand, uses atmospheric methane measurements to understand total methane emissions from all source sectors collectively,” Miller said.

UT chemical engineering professor David T. Allen, lead author of the UT fracking study, said that Miller’s study is important because it used a large number of air quality measurements aross the country to gain a better understanding of overall methane emissions nationwide. 

But Allen's study measured methane emissions at specific points during natural gas production and from specific equipment at natural gas well sites. Some of that equipment emitted more methane than expected, while other equipment emitted less because of emission controls energy companies had installed. 

Broad studies of methane emissions, such as Miller's, and very localized studies, such as UT's, are both necessary to figure out how to reduce total U.S. methane emissions, Allen said. 

The Miller study also gives scientists an opportunity to find the flaws in current ways of measuring methane emissions and finding ways to improve those inventories.

“The broad implication of the study is that we had shown very strongly that total emissions from the U.S. and total emissions from certain regions of the U.S. are potentially higher than what leading inventories would suggest,” said study co-author Anna Michalak, a researcher at the Carnegie Institution for Science in Stanford, Calif. “Something is missing from those inventories. We’re currently working with a faulty picture of what methane emissions in the U.S. look like.”

The study, "Anthropogenic Emissions of Methane in the United States," was funded in part by the American Meteorological Society, the U.S. Department of Energy and the Environmental Defense Fund. 

Related Content 
Fracking May Emit Less Methane than Previous Estimates 
Methane Cuts Not Enough To Keep Global Warming in Check 
Methane Complicates U.S. Greenhouse Gas Outlook 
Limiting Methane Leaks Critical to Gas, Climate Benefits


By Lewis Cleverdon
on November 26th, 2013

“Methane is a greenhouse gas that is 25 times more powerful than carbon dioxide (CO2)”

Bobby - I’d respectfully point out that the above is misleading and has been stated in several recent articles here on CC.
I’m certain that you’re aware that a methane GWP of 25 was the value over 100 years, but how many readers are unaware that the GWP value over 20 years was 75, or that Dr Shindel’s research then raised the latter to 105 ?

Given the impacts of rising methane emissions in terms of early ocean warming and resulting interactive feedbacks’ acceleration, there is a clear scientific justification for using the 20 yr value as the norm, yet it is the 100yr value that is quoted as standard.

In addition, it is worth noting that AR5 has just updated the 100yr and 20yr values to 34 and 86 respectively. Whether Dr Shindel’s increment is included or has yet to be added to the latter is unclear, but one point is certain: the EPA’s recent statement that it was considering raising the methane GWP value used in its calculations from 21 to 25 is so far out of date as to be absurd, complacent and discreditable.  The fact that the agency is attacked by deniers and profiteers is in my view all the more reason for it to face strident critique when its conduct neglects its mandate of environmental protection.



Reply to this comment

By Dave (Basking Ridge, NJ 07920)
on November 26th, 2013

The public picture of low fugitive methane emissions from natural gas operations alone, created by what increasingly appears to be erroneously low official estimates from the EPA, clearly fosters or bolsters a false green image for the current fossil energy boom. The EPA reports of current national net GHG emissions reductions could conceivably even be reversed if fugitive emissions were discovered to be significantly higher. At the risk of stating the obvious, this could be politically embarrassing.

Why EDGAR underestimated total U.S. methane emissions by up to 1.7 times is the “million dollar question,” Miller said.

I imagine that the question is worth somewhat more than Miller estimates.

Reply to this comment

By go2zero (New Zealand)
on November 26th, 2013

You can’t keep puting smoke and mirror offset research infront of people , cross your fingers and hope they will buy into any projected value. Offsetting propaganda is miguiding. Natural gas and oil, there sponsorship of college curriculum, research and scholarships etc is spin doctored good science into statistical - comparitive - consensus by sponsored lobby, junk. If the big industries just spent the money on their own equipment to make it cleaner in the first place instead of creating some imaginary futures market full of hazy inaccurate economic projections on estimates calculated from sponsored education. Going further down that road will only make for more misinformation, a greater lack of integrity and trust for academics - get out of governance, and fix it from within the industry. Keep lobbies and the EPA out of it. It’s time governance focussed on staying clean, transparent and instead of using the media to misinform people toward electric and natural gas transitions - get those industries to suffer their profits a little and apply them to maintenance and the cleaning up of their own act. Don’t drag already stretched tax payers into this elaborate taxation scheme. The endangerment finding was instituted by frauds. Before it independently assessed toxicologically tested chemicals could be regulated fairly. They’ve turned the ability to regulate into miasmic mixes that could have this, and could have this. You cannot regulate a miasma. There needs to be accuracy. Fine particulate matter is pish and is used against anything that isn’t electric or natural gas, conveniently.

Reply to this comment

By Alastair Leith (Melbourne Austrlia)
on November 27th, 2013

A methane molecule is now rated by IPCC (as of AR 5) as being 84 times more radiative forcing than CO₂ over the twenty year timeframe. 20yrs is significant given tipping points like polar sea ice melt (containing more methane and CO₂) and Tundra thaw (same).

CH₄ estimates have been upwardly revised with every IPCC AR. There’s no reason to assume they won’t go up again.

Here via RenewEconomy

Reply to this comment

By Alastair Leith (Melbourne Australia)
on November 27th, 2013

Table of radiative forcings estimates for Methane:

Reply to this comment

By eugene (Bemidji, MN)
on November 27th, 2013

I have zero trust of anything the government says.  Nor am do I “politely” state it.  They’re lying about everything in an effort to keep Americans on the “happy consumer” journey.  Of course, they understated the methane emissions.  Climate change is a word government officials have to struggle to say. The media is the same as they are the, virtually, only source of information for an illiterate nation.  My cynical opinion says we all need to admit it, get over it and stop expecting anything to change.  If we did so, it would stop a whole lot of comments about the government “should” do.  Secondly, it would stop us from expecting if we elect someone else, all will be well.

Reply to this comment

By Gwenie Mugliston (Glen Campbell)
on January 12th, 2014

Yes, Eugene, I agree.  Total distrust at every level about virtually everything.  What kind of government do we have anyway that exploits us to the extent this one does?  And after reding about the number of millionaires in the Congress I understand better.

Reply to this comment

By John from London
on September 22nd, 2014

Quantities mentioned in the article: “Nearly five times”, “up to 1.7 times”, “34 times”, “up to 30 percent”, “20-year increase in the number”, “many of which “, “1.7 times”, the “million dollar question”, “up to 4.9 times”.

How much did the EPA estimate? How much did the study find? How many oil and gas wells were there? How many are there now and how many use fracking? No reader can answer these questions as, amazing, nowhere is any actual quantity given! Except for the dollar value of a certain question.

Why is this a problem? Because I clicked on this article in anticipation of coming away with the actual value of methane emissions, which value I could use in comparison with other values of methane emissions. A percentage rise between two unknowns gives me nothing.

Reply to this comment

Name (required):
Email (required):
Enter the word "climate" in the box below:

[+] View our comment guidelines.

Please note: Comment moderation is enabled. Your comment will not appear until reviewed by Climate Central staff. Thank you for your patience.