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

These three Houston innovators have been recognized by Time Magazine. Photos courtesy

Three Houston executives — Andrew Chang, Tim Latimer, and Cindy Taff — have been named to Time magazine’s prestigious list of the 100 Most Influential Climate Leaders in Business for 2024.

As managing director of United Airlines Ventures, Chang is striving to reduce the airline’s emissions by promoting the use of sustainable aviation fuel (SAF). Jets contribute to about two percent of global emissions, according to the International Energy Agency.

In 2023, Chang guided the launch of the Sustainable Flight Fund, which invests in climate-enhancing innovations for the airline sector. The fund aims to boost production of SAF and make it an affordable alternative fuel, Time says.

Chang tells Time that he’d like to see passage of climate legislation that would elevate the renewable energy sector.

“One of the most crucial legislative actions we could see in the next year is a focus on faster permitting processes for renewable energy projects,” Chang says. “This, coupled with speeding up the interconnection queue for renewable assets, would significantly reduce the time it takes for clean energy to come online.”

At Fervo Energy, Latimer, who’s co-founder and CEO, is leading efforts to make geothermal power “a viable alternative to fossil fuels,” says Time.

Fervo recently received government approval for a geothermal power project in Utah that the company indicates could power two million homes. In addition, Fervo has teamed up with Google to power the tech giant’s energy-gobbling data centers.

In an interview with Time, Latimer echoes Chang in expressing a need for reforms in the clean energy industry.

“Addressing climate change is going to require us to build an unprecedented amount of infrastructure so we can replace the current fossil fuel-dominated systems with cleaner solutions,” says Latimer. “Right now, many of the solutions we need are stalled out by a convoluted permitting and regulatory system that doesn’t prioritize clean infrastructure.”

Taff, CEO of geothermal energy provider Sage Geosystems, oversees her company’s work to connect what could be the world’s first geopressured geothermal storage to the electric grid, according to Time. In August, Sage announced a deal with Facebook owner Meta to produce 150 megawatts of geothermal energy for the tech company’s data centers.

Asked which climate solution, other than geothermal, deserves more attention or funding, Taff cites pumped storage hydropower.

“While lithium-ion batteries get a lot of the spotlight, pumped storage hydropower offers long-duration energy storage that can provide stability to the grid for days, not just hours,” Taff tells Time. “By storing excess energy during times of low demand and releasing it when renewables like solar and wind are not producing, it can play a critical role in balancing the intermittent nature of renewables. Investing in pumped storage hydropower infrastructure could be a game-changer in achieving a reliable, clean energy future.”

Trending News