guest column

Houston expert: Moving the needle on methane emissions

Methane emissions are rising—about 25 percent in the past 20 years, and still going up— but they are difficult to measure and track. What can be done? Photo via Canva

Here’s the bad news. In 2019, methane (CH4) accounted for about 10 percent of all U.S. greenhouse gas emissions from human activities, such as those related to natural gas extraction and livestock farming. Methane doesn’t last as long in the atmosphere as carbon dioxide, but is more efficient at trapping radiation; over a 100-year period, the comparative impact of CH4 is 25 times greater than CO2. To put it another way, one metric ton of methane equals 84 metric tons of carbon dioxide (see chart). Finally, while methane emissions are rising—about 25 percent in the past 20 years, and still going up—they are difficult to measure and track.

No alt text provided for this image

Source: McKinsey.com

And here’s the good news. Five industries—agriculture, oil and gas, coal mining, solid waste management, and wastewater—account for almost all of human-made methane emissions. There are practical things these industries can do, right now, at reasonable cost and using existing technologies, that could cut emissions by almost half (46 percent) in 2050. That said, it will be easier for some industries than for others. Take agriculture. Most of its emissions come from cows and sheep, which produce methane during digestion; in fact, animals account for more carbon dioxide equivalent (CO₂e) emissions than every country except China, according to a recent McKinsey report. Dealing with billions of animals, dispersed on farms small and large all over the world is, to put it mildly, complicated. Certain kinds of feed additives, for example, can reduce the formation of methane, cow by cow—but is expensive ($50 per tCO₂e and up). This add costs to farmers, without any economic benefits to them, and makes food more expensive. That’s a tough sell.

On the other hand, the energy industry accounts for 20 to 25 percent of methane emissions; its operations are fairly consolidated, and there are significant resources and expertise at hand. Plus, in many cases, there are genuine economic opportunities. For example, plugging methane leaks means less gas gets lost. Large volumes of methane emissions that are now treated as a waste could be recovered and sold as natural gas—something that is not always economic to do, but could be as gas prices rise or conditions change. According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), the industry flares approximately 90 Mt of methane per year, losing $12 billion to $19 billion in value. Over time, too, normal maintenance and upgrading strategies can also reduce emissions, for example, by replacing pumps with instrument air systems. There are many different ways to prevent losses in upstream production, including leak detection and repair, equipment electrification, and vapor recovery units.

No alt text provided for this image

Source: McKinsey.com

In the short term, meaning over the next decade, the IEA says that these and other changes could reduce emissions 40 percent (at 2019 gas prices), while more than paying for themselves. In effect, there is low-hanging fruit out there. The full potential, according to McKinsey, is 75 percent fewer emissions by 2050, but to get there, things get more expensive, somewhere in the range of $20 per tCO₂e.

Naturally, oil and gas players are not eager to embrace added costs, and these will eventually be passed on to consumers. But the industry is looking at a future that is carbon-constrained in one way or another, either through a price on carbon, or regulation, or both. It might well be that addressing methane emissions provides a way to decarbonize its operations at reasonable cost. And while there is little brand equity to natural gas at the moment—no one shops for it by name—it is possible that in decades to come, companies that can show they are producing low- or zero-carbon gas might be able to command a price premium.

Much of the oil and gas industry doesn’t disagree with this analysis. The International Group of Liquefied Natural Gas Importers, a trade group, has made the case that “abating greenhouse gas emissions (from wellhead to terminal outlet), in particular fugitive methane emissions,” is important. On the oil side, the American Petroleum Institute, as part of its climate action plan, has called for the development of methane detection technologies, and reducing flaring to zero: “We support cost-effective policies and direct regulation that achieve methane emission reductions from new and existing sources across the supply chain.” And the Oil and Gas Climate Initiative, whose companies account for almost 30 percent of global production, are also on board, calling the reduction of methane emissions to near zero “a top priority.” Back in 2017, the Houston Chronicle, the home paper of the Texas oil and gas industry, argued for better practices: “If Texas wants the world to buy our LNG exports, a sign of environmental good faith would go a long way.” And in fact there has been progress: the OGCI estimates that methane emissions are have declined 33 percent from 2017-20.

On the whole, then, this looks like one area of climate policy where there is broad consensus. Methane matters. According to one science paper, dealing with it “could slow the global-mean rate of near-term decadal warming by around 30 percent.” Just the oil-and-gas industry’s share, then, could make a measurable difference. I am not saying getting methane emissions way down will be easy, but the industry knows what to do and how to do it. It is in its interest, and that of the planet, to do so.

------------

Scott Nyquist is a senior advisor at McKinsey & Company and vice chairman, Houston Energy Transition Initiative of the Greater Houston Partnership. The views expressed herein are Nyquist's own and not those of McKinsey & Company or of the Greater Houston Partnership. This article originally ran on LinkedIn on October 21, 2021.

Trending News

A View From HETI

Fort Bliss. Photo via army.mil

The U.S. Army is proposing developing a gargantuan, 3-gigawatt data center complex on Fort Bliss property that within a few years would consume more electricity than all of El Paso Electric’s 460,000 customers combined – even as questions about its development, water usage and air pollution remain unanswered.

If built, it would be the third major data center project in the El Paso region, along with Meta Platform’s $10 billion facility in Northeast and the $165 billion Project Jupiter campus that Oracle and OpenAI are building in Santa Teresa, New Mexico. The combined scale and size of the three facilities could quickly transform the Borderland into one of the nation’s core hubs of power generation and AI infrastructure.

The publicly-traded investment firm Carlyle Group would pay to build and operate the Fort Bliss data center – one of several planned in a national rollout under President Donald Trump’s administration to rapidly increase artificial intelligence technology for the Department of Defense.

At Fort Bliss, the Army is “targeting an initial operating capacity of about 100 megawatts on the compute side” by next year, David Fitzgerald, deputy undersecretary of the Army, said during a meeting with reporters April 22. An official estimated cost for the project has yet to be released.

By 2029, the complex on military land in far East El Paso would require 3 gigawatts of electricity, Fitzgerald said. By comparison, El Paso Electric currently maintains about 2.9 gigawatts of generation capacity across its entire system that spans from Hatch, New Mexico, to Van Horn, Texas. The highest customer demand the power company has ever seen was just over 2.3 gigawatts during the summer of 2023.

And whether most El Pasoans are on board with the rapid buildout of another data center here is not a question that Army leadership is asking at this point.

“What we’re trying to do is find where are the common interests, common ground that we can solve for?” Fitzgerald said, referring to coordinating with El Paso city leaders on the data center project.

“The state of modern warfare and future warfare is largely going to depend on the ability to capture, process and utilize massive amounts of data,” he said. “So, the reality is, this is a strategic priority, not just for the Army, but for the entire Department of War. So, we need these capabilities, and we need to put them somewhere.”

Combined-cycle natural gas turbines are the “most likely” source of electricity generation for the facility, said Jeff Waksman, an assistant secretary of the Army and former member of Trump’s first administration.

Waksman said the facility would undergo environmental review before construction starts.

Still, there are far more outstanding questions than answers about the proposed Fort Bliss data center.

It’s unclear if the facility would connect to El Paso Water’s water system. The city-owned water utility pointed out that Fort Bliss Water provides water service for the installation. However, El Paso Water can provide “backup” service to the base, according to the project solicitation documents.

“EPWater was just recently brought into the discussion, and we only have preliminary information,” El Paso Water said in a statement. “The construction and water use would be entirely on federal property.”

El Paso Electric said it’s also uncertain whether the data center will connect to the utility’s power grid and will figure that out in the future. To date, the Army hasn’t made a formal request for service from El Paso Electric.

Officials from the U.S. Army “confirmed that questions regarding the power source and whether it will be connected to the regional grid remain under review and have plans to establish a data center with a projected demand of 3 gigawatts,” El Paso Electric said in a statement. “Ultimately, decisions about these matters will be made by Fort Bliss leadership, and we defer to them for further comment.”

A representative with Carlyle Group at a recent community meeting didn’t answer questions or provide details about the proposed data center facility and the related power generation source.

Carlyle Group did not respond to a request for comment.

Army officials said they don’t yet have a definitive agreement in place with Carlyle, which was conditionally selected to enter into exclusive negotiations, so few details are finalized.

However, the Army has set a short timeline to start operating by late 2027. That means construction will have to start soon, Fitzgerald said.

“The ideal endstate is that we would be at least (operational) by the end of ’27, which is moving pretty quick,” Fitzgerald said. “That would mean construction would need to begin in the not-so-distant future.”

Water, electricity concerns

Meeting three gigawatts of electricity demand with natural gas-fired turbines – cited by Army officials as the most likely power source – would likely produce huge amounts of greenhouse gases in a central area of El Paso, such as carbon dioxide, as well as other harmful pollutants including particulate matter.

And even if the data center doesn’t take service from El Paso Water and instead receives water from wells managed by Fort Bliss, it would rely on groundwater pumped out of the Hueco Bolson aquifer, the city’s main source of water.

The solicitation issued by the Army cites water risk for El Paso as “extremely high” and notes that most of Fort Bliss’ water supply comes from wells within the installation.

Fitzgerald said the Army is aware of the public’s concern that the data center could unsustainably guzzle El Paso’s groundwater to cool the data center’s computer servers. He said the facility will be “water neutral.”

It’s also not clear how the project could replace the same amount of water that it consumes.

It’s possible the Kay Bailey Hutchison Desalination Plant – co-owned by El Paso Water and the U.S. Army – could play a role in making the data center water neutral. But El Paso Water said it has no details about how the data center facility could achieve water neutrality.

El Paso Water is “more than willing to continue to share ideas for best practices in sustainability to help protect our regional water resources,” the utility said in its statement.

As far as electricity generation, Army officials said they don’t know if El Paso Electric would build a new power plant to serve the data center. It’s also possible that Carlyle Group or another private company could build its own power generation source for the data center that’s isolated from the power grid El Pasoans use every day.

“We have to decide whether El Paso Electric is going to be the ones building whatever is coming, or if this is going to be some independent power producer,” Waksman said.

El Paso Electric is planning to develop a 366 megawatt power plant made up of over 800 small gas generators to power Meta’s data center. The utility will build more generation in the coming years to meet 1 gigawatt of total demand from Meta’s facility. Meanwhile, as the technology giant Oracle develops Project Jupiter, the company said Monday it is seeking to power the campus using 2.45 gigawatts of fuel cell power systems provided by the company Bloom Energy.

For perspective, 3.45 gigawatts – the combined projected demand of those two major data centers – is enough electricity to power as many as a million homes, depending on the time of day and weather.

The Fort Bliss project would have to meet environmental regulatory requirements, and the developer needs to include a plan for providing utilities and infrastructure needs such as access to the facility, according to a request for proposals issued by the Army in December 2025. Army officials emphasized the project would not impact El Pasoans’ water or electric bills.

Who is Carlyle Group?

Carlyle Group is a global investment management firm that oversees $477 billion of assets from entities such as pension funds.

The company invests that money by buying businesses ranging from wine producers to Asian telecommunications companies, or by developing infrastructure projects such as renewable energy generation and data centers. The company in 2025 posted distributable earnings of nearly $1.7 billion on $4.8 billion in revenue.

The Army wants to build the facility at Fort Bliss in partnership with Carlyle because the installation has a large amount of available, unused land and because of the water and electricity infrastructure already in place in El Paso, Fitzgerald said.

The Carlyle data center planned for El Paso is part of a wider U.S. military effort to quickly build infrastructure that supports the use of artificial intelligence — both on the battlefield and in running its day-to-day operations, according to government documents.

Army officials nodded to the use of AI in drone warfare and targeting systems. And a hyperscale data center facility can also securely house information such as the military’s cloud database that details pay and entitlements for every U.S. soldier, said Maj. Gen. Curtis Taylor, commanding general of the 1st Armored Division and Fort Bliss.

Data centers are “essential parts of power projection,” Taylor said. “But we have to protect those servers. And that’s why there’s great utility in building that infrastructure on military installations.”

The Fort Bliss facility would be located on a plot of land near the intersection of Loop 375 and Montana Avenue. The site is just east of the Camp East Montana immigrant detention facility, and near El Paso Electric’s gas-fired Montana power station.

The plan is for Carlyle to utilize the majority of the data center’s capacity for its business needs, and the military would have access to a more secure portion of the data center for its own uses.

The Army is developing another similar data center project in Dugway, Utah. Other Army bases identified as potential sites include Fort Hood in Texas and Fort Bragg in North Carolina.

The U.S. Air Force in October issued a solicitation saying it is “accepting proposals for the development of Artificial Intelligence data centers,” on unused land at different bases, including in California, Georgia, Arizona and Tennessee. The push was enabled by executive orders signed by Trump that seek to speed up permitting and development timelines for AI data centers.

Would the Fort Bliss data center pay taxes?

A privately-financed data center on Fort Bliss would likely have to pay some taxes – unlike on-base government facilities – but there’s a lot of uncertainty.

Carlyle Group is leasing the land for the data center under an “enhanced use lease” that allows branches of the military to rent under-used land on bases.

Land on federal installations is not subject to state or local taxes. However, the statute that authorizes the U.S. military to lease excess land to private entities says that “the interest of a lessee of property leased under this section may be taxed by State or local governments.”

So, while the land the data center is built on would not be subject to taxation, the structures housing the data center could be subject to local property taxes.

But it depends on how the deal is structured, including factors such as whether Carlyle or the Army ultimately takes ownership of the buildings.

The Army in January awarded a contract to Korean-owned Hanwha Defense USA, which will invest $1.3 billion to develop a munitions factory at a base in Pine Bluff, Arkansas, using an enhanced use lease.

Fitzgerald, the Army undersecretary, acknowledged the public pushback to other data centers such as Meta and Project Jupiter. But he said the Army wants to ensure the project is developed “the right way.”

“There are always elements that will kind of make this an ‘us versus them’ sort of a construct, but I don’t think we view it that way from the Army,” he said. “I think there’s a path here that will benefit not just the installation, but the community as well.”

Trending News