Slashdot Mirror


Obama Planning New Rules For Oil and Gas Industry's Methane Emissions

mdsolar sends this quote from the NY Times: In President Obama's latest move using executive authority to tackle climate change, administration officials will announce plans this week to impose new regulations on the oil and gas industry's emissions of methane, a powerful greenhouse gas, according to a person familiar with Mr. Obama's plans. The administration's goal is to cut methane emissions from oil and gas production by up to 45 percent by 2025 from the levels recorded in 2012.

The Environmental Protection Agency will issue the proposed regulations this summer, and final regulations by 2016, according to the person, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the administration had asked the person not to speak about the plan. The White House declined to comment on the effort. Methane, which leaks from oil and gas wells, accounts for just 9 percent of the nation's greenhouse gas pollution — but it is over 20 times more potent than carbon dioxide, so even small amounts of it can have a big impact on global warming.

6 of 202 comments (clear)

  1. This makes sense nomatter your politik by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Methane is a far more powerful (25 times or so) greenhouse gas than c02, so sealing leaky problem wells and extraction sites makes perfect sense.

    But since Obama proposed it, I'm against it.

    1. Re:This makes sense nomatter your politik by dywolf · · Score: 5, Informative

      Except humans don't emit a lot of water vapor.

      They do however emit a lot of CO2 and Methane, which as part of the feedbook loop in global warming causes more water vapor in the air, further exacerbating the heating effects of all greenhouse gases, H2O included.

      The water vapor argument is a deflection, and a poor one at that.
      http://www.skepticalscience.co...

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
  2. Re:Emperor Obama by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Gas taxes are per gallon, not per dollar. They make more in taxes when gas prices drop and people worry less about saving gas.

  3. Re:Who's in charge, again? by boristdog · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Because brilliant geniuses like yourself remember how awesome it was back before things like the EPA and the Clean Air and Water acts?

    Junior, some of us were alive in the 1960's and 1970's. We remember how well the "invisible hand" of the market didn't do shit to stop rampant pollution. We remember not being able to swim or fish in the rivers, lakes and bays we can now swim and fish in comfortably.

    Go swim in some toxic sewage this weekend. Then get used to that feeling if the EPA is defunded.

  4. Re:Emperor Obama by Penguinisto · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...what AC sibling said, and summarized for visibility: Federal gasoline taxes are a fixed amount per gallon, not a percentage of retail. Gas can be $0.50/gallon or $50.00/gallon, and the feds will take in the same amount based on actual consumption.

    Higher gasoline taxes are however beneficial to the Oil Shale industry, which OPEC is currently trying to damage by creating the current glut.

    I think it will however backfire on them as Russia is experiencing collateral damage from this, as is Venezuela, Canada, and other economies which rely on oil exports for a significant percentage of their wealth.

    I don't see too much of an impact here in the US (outside of Texas and North Dakota), and what damage does occur may be offset by lower prices overall brought by the cheaper fuel/transportation costs.

    I also doubt that Obama is specifically doing this to lash out at the oil industry, so much as doing it to satisfy his particular ideological and supporters' demands/desires as regards fossil fuels.

    --
    Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
  5. Re:reduce production by CaptainLard · · Score: 5, Interesting

    To be fair,

    Nahh, thats no fun. If we play the politics game we get some fun facts(ish): Obama has delivered Michelle Bachman's promise of $2 gas (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/aug/19/michele-bachmann-stands-by-2-a-gallon-gas-pledge/) and is on track to deliver Mitt Romney's promise of 12M new jobs (or get real close anyway, 2.5M jobs are currently being added each year). Of course we all know the main connection between administrations and economic issues is taking credit when things are good and getting blamed when things are bad. (That said there are exceptions such as deregulation->mortgage crisis...getting off topic here)

    If we want to be fair, these new methane regulations are merely holding oil producers accountable for the consequences of their activities. If that reduces production then its only reverting back to what it should have been all along had all costs been considered at the outset.

    Side note: since those industrious oil scamps increased production all on their own without federal handouts (i.e. access to fed managed land) then we no longer need to consider drilling in ANWR and the like, right?