Big Oil Is Lying Like Mad to Keep Methane Pollution Fees out of Budget Bill

In private, lobbyists admit there’s no financial incentive to curb releases.

Gas is flared at an oil pumping station in North Dakota in 2015.Eric Gay/AP

This story was originally published by HuffPost and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration.

The $3.5 trillion budget reconciliation package at the center of a heated congressional debate this week represents a unique opportunity for Democrats to advance ambitious climate policies. Among its provisions is a fee on methane, an extremely potent greenhouse gas released from a number of sources, including oil and gas operations.

The oil and gas industry is desperately fighting this proposed fee by reupping old, disingenuous claims about having an “economic incentive” to curb methane, since it is the main component of natural gas and supposedly valuable to fossil fuel producers. In other words: Don’t worry about our emissions, we’ll take care of them ourselves. 

But in closed-door meetings, industry leaders have admitted the opposite: Methane gas has very little value. That fact undercuts the idea that it’s in the industry’s best interest to capture that gas and sell it rather than vent and leak it into the atmosphere.

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) and other progressives introduced a provision in March that would assess a fee of $1,800 per ton of methane pollution beginning in 2023, with a 2 percent increase above inflation each subsequent year. In September, the House Energy and Commerce Committee voted to include the methane fee in the reconciliation bill, despite vehement Republican opposition. 

Methane is 86 times more powerful than CO2 over 20 years in the atmosphere and accounts for approximately one-fifth of human-caused planetary warming. Atmospheric concentrations have spiked more than 150 percent since 1750. 

Over the last three months, ExxonMobil, the American Petroleum Institute and other fossil fuel interests have flooded Facebook with ads opposing the budget bill and its climate provisions. ExxonMobil alone has spent $2 million on Facebook ads over the last three months, CNBC reported this week. 

In a letter earlier this month to leaders of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, the American Petroleum Institute and more than 100 other groups outlined their opposition to what they described as an “unreasonable, punitive” fee on methane pollution that “could jeopardize affordable and reliable energy with likely little reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.”

The groups insisted fossil fuel interests are committed to mitigating methane. “Not only is this in the best interest of the environment, it’s in the best economic interests of the nation’s oil and natural gas companies as any methane lost to the atmosphere is product that can’t be used to power our nation’s electric utilities, heat our homes and businesses, fuel our manufacturing facilities, create chemicals used in goods that make us healthier, safer, and more productive, manufacture our steel, or help produce the foods that feed our families,” they wrote. 

In private, however, oil lobbyists have described methane as an unwanted waste product. “This pesky natural gas, to me, it’s almost like produced water,” Ron Ness, president of the North Dakota Petroleum Council, said at a 2019 gathering of industry groups. “The value of it is very minimal. But you’ve got to manage your gas to produce your oil.”

The New York Times first reported Ness’ comments last year after obtaining a recording of the industry meeting organized by the Independent Petroleum Association of America. HuffPost recently obtained a recording and a transcript of the discussion from a source who asked not to be identified. 

At the event, Ness described methane emissions and flaring as a “serious threat” to the fossil fuel industry’s public image and long-term future.

“I’ll tell you, there’s not a more difficult interview to do in anything related to oil and gas than when you’re talking on TV, and they put up a 5,000 barrel a day Bakken well with a flare up and out of it,” Ness said. “Or when all the fishermen across North Dakota don’t need to use their lights on their boats on Lake Sakakawea now because the flares are illuminating the lake.”

“We got to go to work,” he added. “We can’t be the deniers anymore.”

“I cannot emphasize enough what [Ness] was saying about emissions, and particularly flaring,” said Pete Obermueller, president of the Petroleum Association of Wyoming. He noted that a Wyoming legislator who he “would assume to be pretty friendly” to industry had recently posted to Facebook about driving through a stretch of the oil-rich Permian Basin and urged Wyoming residents to be careful what they wish for in terms of fossil fuel development. 

Ness’ view that methane is of little value didn’t keep the North Dakota Petroleum Council from signing on to the September letter in which dozens of groups touted the “economic incentive” to slash emissions. Neither the North Dakota Petroleum Council nor the Independent Petroleum Association of America responded to HuffPost’s request for comment.

The oil industry has long fought efforts to regulate methane by arguing that the gas is valuable. When the Obama administration finalized rules to rein in methane emissions on federal lands in 2016, the Independent Petroleum Association of America published a document “debunking” several claims about methane pollution, including that “large quantities of natural gas are wasted during oil and gas production.”

More Mother Jones reporting on Climate Desk

ONE MORE QUICK THING:

Or at least we hope. It’s fall fundraising time, and we’re trying to raise $250,000 to help fund Mother Jones’ journalism during a shorter than normal three-week push.

If you’re reading this, a fundraising pitch at the bottom of an article, you must find our team’s reporting valuable and we hope you’ll consider supporting it with a donation of any amount right now if you can.

It’s really that simple. But if you’d like to read a bit more, our membership lead, Brian Hiatt, has a post for you highlighting some of our newsroom's impressive, impactful work of late—including two big investigations in just one day and covering voting rights the way it needs to be done—that we hope you'll agree is worth supporting.

payment methods

ONE MORE QUICK THING:

Or at least we hope. It’s fall fundraising time, and we’re trying to raise $250,000 to help fund Mother Jones’ journalism during a shorter than normal three-week push.

If you’re reading this, a fundraising pitch at the bottom of an article, you must find our team’s reporting valuable and we hope you’ll consider supporting it with a donation of any amount right now if you can.

It’s really that simple. But if you’d like to read a bit more, our membership lead, Brian Hiatt, has a post for you highlighting some of our newsroom's impressive, impactful work of late—including two big investigations in just one day and covering voting rights the way it needs to be done—that we hope you’ll agree is worth supporting.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate