tv Hearing on the Climate and Methane Pollution CSPAN July 29, 2022 1:00am-2:29am EDT
>> the committee will come to order. without objection, chair is authorized to declare a recess of committee at any time. as a reminder, members participating in the hearing remotely should be visible on camera lout the hearing. for -- throughout the hearing. masks are optional per the office of the attend thing physician. as with in-person meetings, members are responsible for controlling their own microphone. members can be muted by staff only to avoid inadvertent background noise. motions must be submit to the electronic repositive story -- repository, finally, members experiencing any technical problems should inform committee staff immediately. well, good morning, welcome to our cutting methane pollution; safeguarding health, creating jobs and protecting our climate hearing. today we will review community
perspectives on public health, climate and jobs and the economic benefits of cutting methane pollution from oil and gas infrastructure. i'll now recognize myself for 5 minutes for an opening statement. well, welcome to part two of our hearing series on methane, the second largest source of heat-trapping pollution and a major contributor to the climate cry decision. last week -- crisis. last week we discussed state perspectives on cutting methane pollution and waste from the oil and gas sector, this week how to safeguard the public health, create family-sustaining jobs and improve lives across the nation. it's clear that we need federal action to reduce pollution prosecute oil and gas sector which remains the largest industrial source in the united states. according to the majority staff report from the house science committee, oil and gas companies are routinely failing to address super-emitting leaks. deployment of technologies to
find and repair leaks is limited and is inconsistent. in order to fix this, it's crucial that the federal government holds producers accountable for wasteful leaks as well as harmful practices like venting and flaring. unless we step up our work, american families will continue to face the costly harms posed by this superpollutant. the health risks associated with methane pollution are clear. americans living near oil and gas production suffer more asthma attacks as well as other lung and heart problems. living near oil and gas wells can be dangerous to pregnant women, causing lower birth weight and preterm births. in too many cases, these harms fall on front-line communities including communities of color and low income neighborhoods. but these outcomes are entirely avoidable. there are ample technologies available to help producers cut methane in cost effective ways. these include continuous
monitoring technology, hand held optical imaging sensors that use infrared light, satellite that detects plumes from individual sites and technology to cleanly come bust methane on site. deploying these technologies would allow the oil and and gas sector to slash its methane emissions in half at no net cost. this is low hanging fruit. these technologies can reduce waste and help save producers and customers money, but we need more companies to take advantage of them, strong methane regulations from the environmental protection agency to crease the industry's wasteful methane leaks will help drive innovation, enhance employment and create jobs. good news, we're getting help from the biden administration. last week, along with the european union and others, president biden helped launch the global methane pledge energy pathway, the commitment to drive down methane pollution in the oil and gas sector and to eliminate routine flaring as
soon as possible. the president is also committed to slashing methane emissions in half by 2030. as his proposed epa rule would reduce emissions through 2035. house democrats have also taken action, we included improvements to natural gas pipeline safety as well as requirements for minimum performance standards, strict deadlines and the use of advanced technologies to find and repair methane leaks. last year we passed a bipartisan resolution rejecting the trump administration's attempt to weaken methane safeguards. and through the bipartisan infrastructure law, we invested $4.7 billion to help states and tribes plug and remediate abandoned oil and gas wells. we also increased funding for reclaiming abandoned mines, modernizing natural gas pipelines and addressing undocks united orphan -- undocumented orphan wells.
the house-passed reconciliation bill also included a methane fee to address wasteful pollution. and the house passed bipartisan innovation act included provisions to help states to repair and replace leaking natural gas distribution pipelines. so cutting harmful methane pollution will protect public health and the climate. it will catalyze growth of new small businesses, and it will create tens of thousands of new jobs. so i look forward to hearing from our witnesses today as we bring these cost-saving benefits to more american communities. i i yield back the balance of my time and recognize the ranking member, mr. graves of california -- of louisiana, for his 5-minute opening statement. >> thank you, madam chair. i want to thank the witnesses for being hereing those that are here and online. i represent south louisiana, and i'd argue one state that probably is more at risk from sea rise, from more intense
storms than probably anywhere else in the country. and, ms. tomcik, mom to to -- [inaudible] air force. i've got kids too, and i think a lot about the country that we leave them, the planet that we leave them. you read the news and you listen to all the narratives that are out there, and you get the perspective that one side's here and another side's over here. when you actually start digging in and look at the data, you get a very different picture. you get a very different picture. you know, i remind you that the united states has will led the world in reducing emission. we've led the world. it reminds you that russian gas when it's delivered to europe has 41% higher life cycle
emissions. russian gas delivered to asia, 47% higher life cycle emissions compared to the united states. the biden administration has said very clearly, biden administration, that there's going to be a significant increase in natural a gas demand over the next 30 years. they've said that there's going to be a 50% increase in global energy demand over the next 28 years. yet what's happening in the united states? we're watching our administration carry out policies that shuts down american oil and gas production. so you can sit there and say, oh, this is great, because we're getting rid of oil and gas production, so that's going to reduce emissions,st going to save our planet. what the facts show is that results in higher global emission. don't shake your head, that's the fact. it's a fact. you want to debate me, i can't wait, i can't wait to debate this. because, because the united states has some of the lowest intensity of emissions of
conventional fuel production than any other country in the world. don't take my word for it, it's the iaea's data, and it's crystal clear. you want to argue with me on the other one? 2019, september-october report, would love to have that discussion. and so here's the thing, what do we do? instead of going out there and stopping germany from building the nord stream 2 pipeline, the president of the united states effectively lifts the remaining sanctions that were blocking that from being built. you are facilitating more russian gas going into germany. do you know if we just took just the gas coming in from russia into europe in 2021, if we had just stopped it and replaced it -- not just stopped it, stopped it and replaced it with gas, do you know the life cycle reduction would have been 218 million tons of greenhouse gas reductions? 218 million ton. according to your testimony, as i recall, you say that there's 8 million tons of methane
emissions from u.s. oil, gas and coal production, and i'm not going to sit here and try to do the math between total greenhouse gas and the methane, but, my gosh, 218 million tons from one year, and according to your testimony, i believe, it's 8 million tons for oil, gas and coal, for all energy production in the united states. this is baffling to me. this administration shuts down the keystone pipeline whenever you have his own press secretary standing up there and saying, oh, no, it didn't stop the production of the areas where the keystone was going to transport from, they're just are sending it through different means. you know what that means? higher emissions and a greater chance of spilling. wait a minute, i thought we were doing this to protect the environment. you know, what's happening right now with this administration's policies, they say we're going to ban russian oil, we're going to stop it. we said this was going to happen, we said it on february 22nd. if you don't cothis right, it's
actually going to cause greater emissions and greater problems. look what's happening right now. are russia's actually making more money off of their oil today than he were before they invaded ukraine. look at their economy. look at the ruble. and you know what we've done? we're selling cheaper energy right now to india and to china which has higher greenhouse gas emissions. so all we've cone is we've concern dove is incentive -- [inaudible] nice job. and on top of it we've incentivized a higher source and on top of it we've undermined the u.s. economy and lost competitiveness. you know, i've been accused, i'm from south louisiana and we have energy production. by way, some of the lowest intensity emissions of energy production in the world. and i've been accused of being a shill of the oil and gas industry. the policies this administration's carried out have resulted in over 100% increase in gasoline prices,
nearly tripling of natural gas and we've heard price gouging and massive profits from these companies. who's caused that? they have. the policies we're add vote -- advocating for, lower emissions. let me ask you a question, who's the environmentalist? >> now i want to welcome our witnesses. pennsylvania reese tommingcik advocates for equitable solutions to protect children's health. a resident of pennsylvania, ms. tomcik first balm involved with -- air force as a volunteer joining other local parents after fracking was permitted near her children's school. dr. robert kleinberg is a senior research scholar at columbia university's center on global energy policy. his work focuses on energy technology and economics as well as environmental and regulatory issues associated with the oil and gas industry. dr. kleinberg earned a connect
rate in physics from the university of california-san diego and is a senior fellow at the boston university institute for sustainable energy. dr. caroline alsoen is the cofounder and vice president of product markets at long pass technologies which is a greenhouse gas emissions monitoring service based many boulder, colorado. dr. alden earned her doctorate in geology from the university of colorado-boulder, and she previously worked with the national oceanic and atmospheric administration's carbon cycle group on greenhouse gas -- algorithms. sarah ann smith is the chief of programs with the clean air task toing force, a member of the task force senior leadership team. ms. smith led the growth of the organization's methane emissions reduction program building up a small team into a substantial global operation on four continents. without objection, the witnesses' written statements will be made part of record. with that, ms. tomcik, you are
now recognized for 5 minutes. welcome. >> thank you. and hello the, chair castor and members of the select committee. thank you for inviting me to to speak about protecting our health, our climate by cutting methane pollution. i'm patrice tomcik, a national field manager for moms clean air force, weren't money -- can more than one million moms and caregivers united to protect our children from climate change. we envision a safe and equitable future where all children breathe clean air and live in a stable climate. i'm a mother of two boys living in southwest pennsylvania on top of marcellus shale where many oil and gas operations are located within communities like mine. in the u.s. the oil and gas sector is the largest industrial source of methane pollution contributing to climate change. methane is a potent greenhouse gas and the main component of
natural gas. children who live, learn if play near oil and gas operations face higher risk of exposure to oil and gas industry's harmful air pollution. across our nation more than 3.9 million children go to school within a half a mile of an oil and gas operation. my children attend the mars area school district where there are gas wells and a spider bug network of gathering pipelines. the closest wells that have been fracked are approximately a half a mile away from my children's school campus where # 3,200 students' health is at risk. oil and gas operations emit climate-warming methane and also harmful, volatile organic compounds otherwise nobody as concern known as -- [inaudible] smog is a lung irritant that a triggers asthma attacks and increases lung infections. children have a higher respiratory rate than adults and, thus, can be exposed to higher rates of air pollution
than adults. my boys play outdoor sports for school, and i'm very concerned about what they are breathing into their still-developing lungs. in addition, the -- such as benzene are emitted. benzene can affect lung development in children and increase the risk of immune system damage, neurological problems and cancer such as childhood leukemia. as a parent of a child who had leukemia, i know firsthand how critical chien air is to -- clean air is to good health. in fact, it was my youngest son's cancer journey that motivated me to speak out about protecting children's health hong before the first -- long before the first gas well was fracked near my school. every day i send my children to school i fear for their health. this is especially true for carson who's at a higher risk of having cancer again, i'm constantly reminded about how
important my work is to protect my children's e health from air pollution and climate change. families i work whether tell you that our climate crisis is a health crisis. these families are experiencing climate change impacts when smoke from record-breaking wildfires can poise on son the air -- poison the air, when severe heat waves regularly threaten public health preying on older adults, pregnant women and elope income communities -- low income communities. the list goes on. this is happening right now, and we're all impacted by it. especially at risk are black, indigenous and latino communities who are dispropoirgs nately exposed to the harmful pollution from oil and gas operations. we need environmental justice now, and we need climate justice now. quickly and significantly reducing methane pollution is one of the best levers we have to slow the rate of climate change now and clean up the air to protect children's health. our families need strong fall standards to create baseline
methane protection especially for states that have failed to enact meaningful protection. this is why it's so important that the epa finalize comprehensive methane rule to eliminate routine flaring and include frequent inspections for small wells with leak-prone equipment. as parents, we can't control the air our children breathe. that's why we depend on you with, our elected leaders, to do your job and protect our children. what we want is for our congress members to urgently pass legislation that invests in a clean, healthy energy future. thank you. >> thank you very much. next, dr. kleinberg, you're recognized for 5 minutes for a marry of your testimony. welcome. summary. >> yes, good day, chair castor, ranking member graves and members of the select committee. it's an honor to address you. subtitle of today's hearing is gave guarding health, creating jobs and protecting our climate. methane emission mitigation is essential to reducing the rate
of global warming between now and 2050. this is ecically and feasibly -- technically and peez by not economically feasible and has already generated a constellation of innovative u.s. small businesses exploiting american-designed and built technologies. we know we must reduce our risk -- use of fossil fuels, and we know the transition to zero carbon sources of energy will take time. one of our chief challenges will be to minimize damage associated with fossil fuel use during this transition. according to the international energy agency, the world consumed 4 trillion meters of natural gas in 2020. assuming nations adhere to their paris agreement contributions, the world will consume almost exactly the same amount of gas in 2050. assuming the world can do much better than this and satisfy the iaea sustainable development scenario, consumption would still be 2.5 trillion cubic
meters. no matter how optimistic you are that nations will respect their paris agreement commitments, you must take methane emission reduction seriously. moreover, even after the transition from fossil fuels is complete, the methane problem will not go away by itself. biogas and biomethane production and transport have been town to be -- found to be sources of this climate pollutant as well. it is a time-honored truth that you cannot manage what you don't measure. epa relies on emission factor methodology which is now, sadly, outdated. remarkably, over the last seven years american industry, academia and nongovernmental organizations have worked together to find out how much methane the oil and gas industries are actually i mitting. the results -- emitting. the results show that epa dramatically underestimates methane emissions. two examples of new measurement methods are are aerial surveillance and continuous monitoring. the practicality of large scale,
quantity that tative, airborne remote sensing is now well established. a large number of large scale campaigns have been performed in major oil and gas producing regions. costs are surprisingly modest. c. caroline also -- alden will tell us about continuous monitoring in a few minutes. you have probably heard that methane reduction can be implemented at no cost or even implemented at a profit, and i am sure this is true in some cases. but if it were generally true, industry would not be emitting as much methane as it does. i can tell you from personal experience that the petroleum industry does not leave money on the table. as it is, oil and gas-sourced methane emissions are declining at the meager rate of 0.3% per year. truth is industry needs on moneyed to do the right thing -- nudged to do the right thing.
this means smart regulation. oil and gas methane emissions can be remediated by known engineering solutions. in my written testimony, i review some simple measures that can reduce emissions by millions of tons per year. i compare these measures to the health and safety improvements i saw over the course of my career in the oil field. our highly skilled and inventive work force has made our workplaces safer while keeping american industry the most efficient and productive in the world. given smart regulations and and incentives, they will do the same with meth their. methane. finally, to address ranking member graves' point, i would like to point out that russia is taking advantage of inferior methane reporting methods to improve its environmental image. like the united states, russia uses the emission factor method when reporting its methane emission to the unfccc. unlike the united states, russia's self-reported methane emissions from its oil and gas
sector declined by a remarkable factor of 8 since 2015. as a result, russia's self-reported methane intensity is now less than that of the united states. if left unchallenged, the russian reports weaken the case for reduction of european against on russian natural gas. only measurements reveal the truth. please see my written submission for recommendations, and thank you for giving me opportunity to share these observations with you. >> thank you very much. next, ms. finish let's see, dr.al den, you're recognized for five minutes. welcome. >> thank you. chairwoman castor, ranking member graves and members of the committee, thank you for inviting us to testify today. my name is caroline ad -- alden. after a decade researching this topic, i helped cofound long pass technologies, and in my
current role, i developed algorithms, and i work with stakeholders across industry, academia, environmental organizations and the government on how best to reduce emissions. this morning i look forward to discussing the technology and the benefits of measuring and mitigating methane emissions which i believe is a win-win for the climate, for industry and for neighboring communities. methane leaks from oil and gas operations are unpredictable. they can happen anywhere and anytime, and they can be intermittent. plumes are invisible and odorless. these characteristics make methane leaks very difficult to catch without advanced technology. there are three pillars of detection the. number one, frequency of emission readings. total emissions are govern by how long the leak goes on, meaning faster or you catch it, the better. number two, site coverage. it's important to see all emission points on a site. the epa method of hand held cameras often misses unlit
flares, for example, simply because they're high up off the ground. number lee, sensitivity to different -- number three, sensitivity to leak sizes. technologies must ultimately be able to help operators get to zero emissions. there are a range of new detection technologies. airplanes and satellites generally perform periodic surveys. they only really catch. larger leaks, but they do see all of the equipment on a site, and they cover large areas. this informs what emissions look like as a whole including whether policy targets are being met. six continuous monitors provide high emission readingsing allowing for rapid fixing of leaks. most have the ability to catch small leaks, and many have the ability to quantify leak volumes. the u.s. doesn't currently have a regulatory system established to leverage wantification data, but quantity tative data -- [inaudible] for faster repair, prioritize what what equipment to replace,
equipment set points and ultimately assess how welcome mines measures work. long path technologies uses nobel prize winning frequency -- lasers that emit hundreds of thousands of colors of infrared lights to measure methane and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. each laze arer is -- can laser covers 20 square miles measuring emissions for customers within the purview. the network-style coverage lowers the barrier to entry for monitor to have -- monitoring all types of felt its. so going back to those pillars of advanced monitoring, long path provides continuous emission data to customers in realtime. our readings cover all the equipment on the site, and we quantify all sizes of leaks. importantly, the ec is proven through extensive third party testing and in the field, and we have made all of that data publicly available. in closing, i'd like to offer --
emerging policy differentiated markets and with respect to industry's options. number one, methane monitoring reduces emissions, save costs for operators, drives energy efficiencies for the market and creates jobs. long path's -- last year with new jobs ranging from field technicians in west, to software engineers working remotely across the u.s. number two, the u.s. is the world leader in methane monitoring technologies. if we recognize the aligned incentives of policymakers, climate advocates and industry, then u.s. gas can also become the cleanest in the world. to accomplish this, regulations need to encourage operators to use new technologies and plan for quantification-based metrics. e, a -- epa rules should include a mate rick that allows for -- matrix. sec rules should require measurements and responsibly sourced gas standards to
preclude green washing by driving stringency, transparency and quality monitoring. number three, the federal government could invest in the creation of independent third-party bodies to certify and create standards. lastly, number four, continue toous monitoring is inexpensive, and it more than pays for itself through reduced costs and revenue retention for operators. we can outpit if the permian basin for adequate with quantitative, continuous methane monitoring for less than cost of 20-30 miles of interstate highway or if less than cost of the last james bonn movie. thank you for the -- james bond movie. thank you for the opportunity to contribute to the hearing. >> thank you, dr. alden. ms. smith, you're recognized for 5 minutes to provide your testimony. welcome. >> chair castor, reactioning member graves -- ranking member graves, thank you so much for inviting me to testify. my name is sarah ann smith, a
global nonprofit organization working to safeguard against the worst impacts of climate change by catalyzing the rapid deployment of low carbon energy and other climate-protecting technologies. i'd like to emphasize three points. the world is warming rapidly, and serious impacts are here today. simple solutions like finding and fixing plumes of methane at oil and gas sites can dramatically cut u.s. emissions and represent the fastest way to slow warming while also limiting unhealthy air pollution and creating jobs. strong epa standards represent a key opportunity to accomplish this and should be finalized this year. whether it's severe storms, rising seas, heat waves or rampaging wildfires, the impacts of our warming are being felt today. and recent reports from the intergovernmental panel on climate change make it very clear that if emissions continue, these impacts will get
much worse in the coming years. methane is a key culprit responsible for about half a degree of one degree celsius of warming we've already experienced. but methane is also a key opportunity. its high warming potential during its relatively short lifetime in earth's atmosphere provides us with our biggest chance to slow warming over the next few decades. ..
each state has a gap in admissions by 60 percent. these solutions do not require plans. this standard epa should put in place would require the oil and gas industry to check their equipment for leaks using modern instruments and replace equipment that is designed to dump methane gas into the air with modern cleaning equipment . epa's proposal last fall would go a long way to accomplish the introduction but the methane reduction
program would serve as an effective and efficient complement to the epa regulations does it would go into the facts more quickly for existing forces incentivizing the highest operators to invest in cleaner equipment. these policies would lead to dramatic cuts in methane from us oil and gas. nearly 8 million tons per year of methane and as miss wisconsinóthese would cut pollution beyond methane as well. millions of tons of other precursors and over 100,000 tons of air toxins like carcinogenic benzene out of the air. finally strong epa standards would create more than 60,000 high-paying jobs according to epa estimates. in manufacturing and other sectors.
these policies can dramatically cut us methane emissions by 2030 and build on global momentum to address methane emissions as seen in this pledge led bythe united states . the us has shown great leadership on methane around the world and can back up that leadership with strong action to cut methane here and at home. methane emissions from oil and gas are wreaking havoc on our communities. and we have to solution in hand to raymond in. we must use them now. >> thanks to all our witnesses for your insightful testimony. i like the american can-do spirit you all have. now will go to member questions .as of miss transects. >> thank you madam chair and i feel like this is the first time i've ever been first on the committee to ask questions so thank you for
that. according to the international energy agency natural gas markets could have sold some additional hundred 80 billion cubic meters of natural gas if all the leaks from fossil fuel operations in 2021 had been captured. a volume equal to the entire gas market of europe. ms. smith you noted in your testimony routine clearing wasted enough gas to heat over .5 million homes. this seems like it should be a powerful economic incentive for industry to stop leaks and players from drilling so what you think account for industry's failure to do more on their own to address the problem? do you think industry's failure to take the problem is yet another argument for strongepa standards ? >> thank you for the question representative brownlee and you're right the amount of waste is staggering.
billions of dollars worth of natural gas is emitted every year. why hasn't the industry acted ? we haven't had uniform requirements and that's the role that epa can play by issuing strong safeguards. >> do you see any industries beginning to regulate this on their own just to protect their bottom line? >> some companies have been more forward thinking in this area. we release benchmarking that looks at the top 100 operators and there's a big range when it comes to them. so again that underscores the solutions do exist but are not being used uniformly. >> thank you for that. miss tomcik, thank you for your testimony. you mentioned and talk about your children's school being half a mile or so from
fracking wells. so with all of the new technology and satellite data that's readily available now to track methane flares and emissions has this data helps you in any way to raise awareness at the local level about these problems? >> i'm sorry, could yourepeat the last part of that question ? >> i'm asking if with all of the tools and data that we have available now to track methane flares and emissions has any of this, these tools, this data. has that been able to help you in terms of raising awareness in your own community? to improve upon those leaks
etc. that are happening? >> what we do know is there's a lot of oil and gas, air pollution that is impacting communities where they live. and so the information, the technologies are making it clear that we need federal methane rules and regulations to protect those communities are being impacted by flattering and also the solution that's created for the leaks from small leak prone wells so it's very important that these methane rules are enacted as quickly as possible to protect the health and help protect people from climate change. >> thank you again thanks for being here. miss smith you noted in your testimony there are a variety of different kinds of leak detectors including close range technology screening.
do you have an estimate of how much these various technologies would cost, for instance the handheld device that you spoke of. >> i'm sorry, was that for me or doctor kleinberg? >> miss smith. >> thank you for making that question. fortunately over all the costs are very low. we look at states like colorado for example which had strong standards on the books and it hasn't had an impact on their rate count and productivity compared to other states that do not have standards. >> can you add anything to that?>> sure. i completely agree with ms. smith and it's pretty amazing how the implementing this kind of monitoring drives and
acing efficiencies so it really does keep products in the pipeline, identifies functions which whether it's a leak or not that provides this kind of instant feedback on obligations on how folks dial into their systems. the technologies are very affordable. >> thank you, i yelled back madam chair. >> next representative gonzales, you are recognized. >> thank you ranking member graves for holding this hearing today and for our witnessesfor all your work and your testimony. i'm going to start with you . as you know rpe plays a valuable role in us energy innovations and transformative technologies. in some casesthat are too risky for the private sector to invest in .it's great to see however that long path as a recipient particularly in
selection of the scaling program. despite the successes of rpe many of my colleagues and i remain concerned that some companies may face your product barriers from agencies outside the doe and the rd process to chill future private investment and slow down the path of future relations so with that as the backdrop can you provide some insight into experience with regulatory agencies such as the epa during the rbe process? >> sure and we're using the federal government to invest in high risk high reward activities and some others will pan out, some do and that's great for the american economy when they do. so working with other agencies, it's tough for federal regulations to keep peace pace with technological innovation that's happening right now. i think epa hastaken great first steps . they opened the doors to the newest technologies which is huge and we've been working directly with them and a whole bunch of other
stakeholders to help them get those rules across the finish line in terms of planning for the future for better technologies taking hold. to the extent that agencies can look at regulations that are essentially adaptable in the future and also setting metrics that we think we can achieve in the future, that's a positive. >> and outside of the rulemaking process are there any other specific recommendations you would make to improve the process on your side? just to make sure that we don't have a bunch of great technology companies stock in some sort of bureaucratic mess which i know happens at times . >> yes, i think the ability to have these rules that are very much inviting of stakeholderfeedback is very positive . and certainly a great step right now in terms of looking
at agencies like rbe or rpl or some of those groups would be to now what we really need to enable these technologies is to take hold and get out there large-scale is going to be a governing body or independent group and i think that doe and some of those agencies could help to fund an independent group to create those standards and certifications to make sure these technologies are really of the highest quality. >> shifting gears i want to take a minute to focus in on how the various methane monitoring technologies work together to improve our detection systems . in recent years one of the more popular emissions control devices have been satellites but how satellite observations carry many benefits and it features their considerable range of uncertainty apply to smaller emitting sources. can you explain how monitoring systems like long path has been working in collaboration with today's
satellites and drums to monitor and identify leaks? >> yes, as i mentioned there's a real value in large-scale serving technologies as you mentioned and having real x monitors to provide that mitigation piece . satellites are extremely powerful especially on the world stage. there are a lot of places where it's too hard. you're not going to be able to get ground-based monitors so even aircraft in place. local state or use piece of the puzzle. in the us where you have the ability to deploy this scale i see some value in staff solutions in terms of you get your continued use monitors on your discrete path so take batteries, lng terminals. compressor stations. and then there's a lot of other infrastructure that's a little more diffuse. gathering pipelines and pipelines for example can be a nice place to fill in that gap with some of the aerial
technologies. certainly redundancy can't hurt in this role. >> you for that. thank you for all the work you're doing and for that i yelled back. >> next representative 11. >> thank you for holding today's hearing. i'm glad we're continuing this conversation on the benefits of cutting methane pollution and i to think about these issues as a parent of two kids nine and eight years old and my wife and i encouraged them to learn basic science and i've i would start with very simple facts. as weaver methane is a key greenhouse gas driving global mean temperature rise when addressing carbon dioxide emissions it's a focus in many conversations around climate change. the reason this at scripps confirmed what we already know. reducing carbondioxide alone is not enough .in order to
stay below these metrics the study notes we must focus on addressingmethane emissions . other non-carbon dioxide pollutants or triggering our personal climate change methane is important because it has a warming potential. nearly 80 times greater than carbon dioxide over 20 years and human caused emissions represent one third of all warning from greenhouse gases . given methane intense warming potential stopping methane pollution is one of the most impactful interventions we can take in the short term to avoid warming in the coming years as we continue working to decolonize all facets of our society but as we discussed something methane weeks doesn't have climate benefits but we also know reducing methane images has he economic benefits. as part of the united states efforts to help reduce europe's dependence on russian fossil fuels resident biting recently committed to provide an additional 50 billion cubic meters per year if the us would provide
natural gas.recent analysis by the environmental defense fund found reductions in methane wastes could meet 50 percent of president biden's commitment of sending50 billion cubic meters to our allies . the oil and gas industry focus on reducing waste of our natural resources at the most tangible short-term solution to increase the domestic supply of natural gas. mrs. the you agree that reducing methane pollution by the platelet protection represents a key opportunity to increase our overall supply of natural gas and help address high energy crisis both domestically and for our european allies western mark. >> thank you for the question. yes, and the waste would free up additional gas. europe should be a priority and we're talking about billions of dollars of gas going straight into the air every single year's my hope
is that if we are serious about maximizing the potential of our current gas that we should be doing all we can to mitigate leaks and we should be preventing flattering. with my time remaining i like to shift the to discuss efforts going on in my home state of california and using aerial surveys to improve the detection of methane weeks . doctor kleinberg as you know between 2017 and 2021 carbon pilot programs used airplanes to detect methane leaks from sources of oil fields as part of this initiative 44 california facilities voluntarily repaired weeks after they were notified as part of the pilot program. this sex has prevented 1.2 million metric tons of carbon dioxide from escaping his people to taking about a quarter of 1 million cars off the road for a year. and as a result of the success carbon carbon matter
of planning on wanting to satellites to provide regular complete and timely measurement not just of methane but carbon dioxide emissions as well as 25 other environmental indicators. doctor kleinberg, given the success of california's pilot program what lessons should the government take on these programs to detect and mediate methane weeks aerial surveys perhaps on a national level? >> the california survey was a model for the way i think we should be moving forward with this regulation and measurements. it was extremely comprehensive. 272,000 sites that were testified last week at the house committee. this is exactly what we need to be doing. it is remarkably inexpensive to do it and as carol and i have pointed out comprehensive. so this is the way to go. >> i'm grateful to have the
opportunity to have that pilot in california. i hope the rest of the country will take notice and it's great to hear from a graduate on our panel today so i thinkb& and i'll yield back to chair. >> next representative partner, your recognize. >> thank all of you for being here. thank the witnesses for being here. look, as much as my colleagues on the other side of the aisle don't want to admit itor don't like it , we have to admit that fossil fuels, that natural gas are going to be part of our portfolio for a long time. let's face it, we know a great percentage of our energy portfolio today is fossil fuels and that didn't happen overnight. and it's notgoing to change overnight no matter how hard we want to do that or how badly we want to do that . but i have to tell you i'm encouraged by the progress that's the oil and gas industry, fossil fuel
industry has made in decreasing emissions. i have a group in my office earlier this week, a group of six oil companies that are doing something up in canada and they have a desire, they have a goal of being carbon neutral by 2050. even with the fossil fuels. and i applaud them for that. i think we don't get enough credit to the fossil fuel and oil and gas industry or the progress they've made in decreasing emissions and a lot of that has to do with the policies. just last week we had the governor of wyoming before this committee and he was telling us how he has directed the state to pursue a goal of net zero carbon dioxide emissions and continue to use fossil fuels. so you know, it's going to be
part of our future. i understand that technology can play a big part of that as well. but i wanted to just a little bit because we all know this is climate change and this is a global problem. we would be remiss and we are being remiss not thinking about third world countries and about and coming countries, developing countries. because they are using fossil fuels and they're going to do their best to use renewable energy and clean energy but they are going to use whatever they have to in order to get their economies going and to have electricity . these developing and growing nations. just as an example indian governments are modeling shows that they will program overwhelmingly depend on fossil fuels even though they're going to have a rapid rise in renewables.
nigeria's vice president put it this way and i quote around no country in the world has been able to industrialize using renewable energy that developing countries are being expected to do so when everybody else in the world knows that we asked howard industries business. so it's just is part of it. doctor alden i wanted to ask you. my question for you is this. doesn't that mean it's extremely important to continue to invest and innovate in technologies like the staff has so we can reduce these emissions while still providing reliable energy western mark. >> absolutely. i think looking at the global stage as i mentioned there are satellites can go everywhere a lot of the time and least these are large emissions in other countries. but i think there's a lot of potential for exporting the
technologies that have been developed in the us. there's a whole host of new tech here that's just ready to go abroad as well. i think there's a great opportunity for the investments that have been made in us innovations. to export overseas and try to solve that problem and although i think that the other pathway is that we've got the technology here, let's implement it and improve but the measurements that us gas is clean and we can even export that gas. >> let me ask you this quick. what about regulations? wasn't improving regulations to encourage more options of technology like we see at long path? wouldn't that contribute to the potential for job creation in these areas ? >> absolutely.
making sure the new schools that come onlineare recognizing new technologies and creating a direct program . it's going to be hugely important to stimulate that new innovation in the technology sector and to get folks on the ground who want to use it. >> let me say i've always said in order to address the situation were going to have to have adaptation and innovation . i truly believe the greatest innovators and scientists are in the united states and we should be encouraging that. thank you madam chair and i'll yield back. >> next representative bonnie t. >> thank you so much chair. i sit on the science space and technology committee as well as the select committee and earlier this month we released a staff report finding oil and gas companies are failing to address leaks and are not consistently deploying the innovative protection of the technology that exist and your poly was
there at the hearing where we spoke about this and i wanted to follow up on some of the questioning that you've been responding to. we know as others have established the technology now exists and that there are financial incentives but apparently the industry does is not adapting to technology so how can congress motivate industry to adapt this continuous monitoring technology and i appreciate your comments something i brought over the last decade on the science committee is regulating technology is challenging because the technology changes so much more rapidly than regulation so can you talk about the best things congress can do to motivate industry for this monitoring and also if you could mention as well there's been a lot of talk about the oil and gas industry but it's not the only so can you talk
about how your technology works with others and imitate those sources? >> those are great questions. what the epa rules and sec rules and other rules coming down the pipeline i think the technologies are here and knowing that we can obtain the metrics we want if you want a metric like methane effectively fails across different production zones in a meaningful way we can get there now with the technologies we have. i think in a more immediate term epa pools weworked with a lot of stakeholders . doctor kleinberg has a that been a great leader in creating a technology matrix that the epa can implement so that we can have this technology ready to go. the reason that's important for industry adoption is the epa rules for sec rules don't
allow a direct on-ramp to receive new technologies and industry will be stuck doing the old methods. they're going to be stuck doing the old surveys four times a year and are not going to want to spend x amount of money to do the monitoring that is effective so we need to make sure that we're encouraging at least not this incentivizing operators to use these technologies. i think those will be really important things. so let's recognize that technology here. and your second point it does absolutely a huge issue is that biogas and other incredible innovations coming online are going to need monitoring because if you're effectively capturing methane from various sources and moving it around as you do in oil and gas infrastructure it's equally difficult to find if not harder to find so we're incentivizing the development and application of the measurements as well. and really inventory just
doesn't cut it. you can't predict whenthese leaks are going to happen . >> director, in your written testimony you cite any reform epa's alternative means of remission. can you please explain a little bit the process and how adjusting this limitation reduction technologies. >> i'll be happy to. one thing that's important in regulations is having adaptive . so much technology is developed so fast. this begs for a regulatory scheme that takes no account in technology. it's blossomed in the last seven years. and the alternative means of emission limitation is a provision of the clean air act that basically anticipates that. but the way it's implemented so far by the environmental protection agency it's turned out to be more of a barrier
and since 2012 when it was first implemented, there was no application between 2012 and 2020 while people like caroline aldenand others were developing this phenomenal technology because the process was so onerous . now it's improved a bit in 2020 still one application which is still sort of floating around, we need to do better than that. we need to get epa resources to handle these applications and regulations encourage innovation, not discouragement. >> i appreciate that and i have another question for ms. smith but i'm out of time so i'm going to be submitting that for the record as well as the follow-up for doctor kleinberg so that you madam chair, i yield back. >> next mister armstrong you're recognized for five minutes .
>> if we think capturing 100 percent of the natural gas with lower our energy prices in the near term i don't think we're being honest about our market. in fact one of the two biggest drivers for north dakota mass-producing oil and gas is we have a workforce shortage as a lot of people do is gas capture. we would capture 100 percent of the gas in thekota we would drop probably $250-$300,000 of oil . would happen overnight. so you wouldn't produce more gas, you would produce less and the reason for that is what the chamber ethics center said, we don't have the capacity so when we're considering methane emissions from oil and gas we continue to hear the majority painted it with one broad brush. it's important when we talk about who these producers are and where they do business.
yes there are large multinational corporations but the majority of the burden from a broad federal onshore policy will fall on small and medium-sized oil and gas companies and these companies rightfully have concerns with these proposals not because they aren't already being regulated but because they don't want to be subjected to regulation from oil to market and the real problem with actions by the epa and congress is that even if their intended, they're burdensome. the majority has noted states are supporting innovative technologies. we did this in north dakota and the state legislature talking about rewriting oil pipelines and time we were talking about census and were interested in how we were going to use them. they didn't work and we continue to move forward. north dakota does this through the deq, investment and regulation.
the problem is when you revert to obama era epa policies for a one-size-fits-all approach is by the nature of federal regulation. and it's unusable by producers. need to not slow down regulation. in your presentation you want for the technology developed by long to support monitoring facilities and provide leak detection and quantifiable data in real-time. are you accurately quantify conditions that helps operators that use that technology work more effectively and howcan it benefit the industry but also its emissions ? >> your question is about how confrontational? the qualification drives a lot of insights. we hear a lot of operators say you need to know if there's a leak or not but when folks do start on board quantitative data that's actually accurate and reliable we find a lot of it
so for example you can prioritize and start to tune in while types they want to get alerts on. in order to really need assistance of not attacking those work leaks first. they can track and compare performing in different settings they can look at how on windy days the separator that doesn't have over control students blows out and it leaks gas but this other one over here with a murder control unit doesn't. so we see a lot of value in being able to track those initiatives over time. really look at their productions over time. and then compare site to site . >> we are only interested if it will work in february and north dakota. that's a bigconcern for us . as you state in your technology these regulations that allow for deployment of new technologies.
a neutral regulatory framework help deploy these technologies and how important is it regulatory agencies work with stakeholders to adopt a framework that allows this approach . >> as i mentioned there's a group of stakeholders and that industry folks, ngos, technologists like myself. legal experts together crafting what we call a matrix approach for this rule and we're very hopeful and i think expecting that the epa will adopt this new goal and what that will do is allow for technology neutral metrics like how frequently does the technology work and what detection levels do we needto have . what size leaks do we need to find reliably so that's a great first in terms of, i think that probably will go into the epa's rule and i
think theepa is opening doors to that regulation . the second thing i want to emphasizeadaptive regulation . so it's a rule right now, it pushes the epa rules a little further away from where they happen historically but getting in place the ability to fix the metrics you want for the long-term. fix quantification and build your rule around and after three years and five years and seven yearsreturned to the desperate science on what conditions are best science on what you want . >> i yield back. >> representative hoffman. >> chair and thanks to the witnesses for their very interesting testimony . doctor kleinberg i like to start with you. you gave us a lot to think about in terms of methane from the oil and gas sector we also hear a lot about methane in agriculture and other sources. could you just in terms of the scale of the problem we're trying to deal with and
that is the context ofthe conversation ? >> i'll be happy to. people talk about oil and gas because basically the people that run oil and gas are very well-capitalized, very high technology . that looks like the sector to work on and in the is. nonetheless the agriculture sector is abigger problem . and in fact in a survey of california as representative levin mentioned many of the largest sites turned out to be either agricultural dairy farms or waste management plans. those are also very big problems. that we should not ignore. and in some ways are easier to deal with because it's less itinerant industry. there's always new wells here and there. and with many possibilities for high-pressure gas and so on. agriculture might be easier
in a different way. different problems but think that we should be working on right now. >> different solutions, yes. >> i appreciate that. if we achieve total methane control in the oil and gas sector and just did a great job with all these technologies detecting the methane and eliminating the leaks. if we're meeting ever higher amounts of global energy demand with natural gas is still increasing co2 in the atmosphere, aren't we ? i think it's important as we think about what do we do with this methane issue? obviously we've got well that met mrs. smith and others have talked about because it's a super pollutant 84 times more than co2 and global heating is happening fast though we get methane
under control but if we are not simultaneously bringing co2concentrations down we're in real trouble, largely . >> definitely long-term methane access and gives you instant gratification but in the long run you need to deal with co2 absolutely . >> i just wonder about the moral hazard or the policy hazard of maybe assuming sometimes i hear it suggested by colleagues across the island that we will tackle this methane problem, do that and go out with clean natural gas and everything will be just fine.that innovation will figure out new ways to capture theco2 emissions . will use offsets and any thoughts about the moral hazard of getting this clean bill of health to natural gas as westare down a climate crisis ?>> know, i think your concern is well-founded but i will say is been brought up thismorning that carbon capture and sequestration is another ruse
to take in carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere . >> so is time travel but neither of them are happening scale right now. i mean, do you disagree western mark. >> the technology exists to do it. the problem is that ccs cost about $60 a ton. we need a price on carbon work because nobody takes away your garbage for free. >> right now ccs is. all this additional natural gas we're trying to sell all the world not of itis getting captured . imedical because there's no price . >> thank you. >> the other point i think is methane pollution as has all of these other pollution impacts. so ms. smith i wonder if you could take a little bit more about the other reasons we want to be very concerned in terms of public health and environmental justice for reducing methane pollution. >> yes, our long-term exposure from the oil and gas operations can be life
altering for communities. benzene another human carcinogen is released in very large amounts and there's the estimated three quarters of 1 million attacks to children each year directly attributable to the oil and gas industry so again that's why we epa to do this well established authority as far as it possibly can. she methane emissions and in addition to the methane role epa should keep this well established authority to reduce air pollution he produces like power plants. >> much, i yield back. >> your recognized for five minutes. >> thank you ma'am chairman. i appreciate the opportunity to speak about this genesis when it comes to how people are impacted by the policies of my colleagues across the
aisle. and they talk about environmental justice but they rarely talk about energy justice or economic injustice . i brought this up in this committee and other committees multiple times about this town in illinois, pembroke. on account of about 2200 people and i think the population, there were 90 percent, 90 something percent african-american. these are people who don't have access to natural gas. therefore to heat their homes with propane or wood-burning stoves. some of them are cooking on wood-burningstoves . i just wonder miss tomcik if you would support pembroke getting access tonatural gasoline . it's a yes, sir number. >> thank you representative.
i think that is an important. >> it's a yes, sir no, would you support a natural gas line for these low income families that live in pembroke township in illinois, yes, sir no? >> i would like to ... >> i'll take that as a number the good news is jesse jackson disagrees with you and other members in the civil rights movement disagree with you and they work tirelessly to get a gas pipeline and the legislature has finally approved it so they will be getting access to clean burning natural gas that they can use to heat their homes, cook their food and warm their water and hopefully bring some businesses in to their city so they can have better jobs and invest in my opinion and economic justice and energy justice. also i want to point out some things about research.
we love to talk about technology in this committee and in some of our other committees. we act as though methane is a problem that can't be solved and it's just not thecase . the university of illinois since we were talking about the state of illinois has developed a process to convert methane to methanol. pacific northwest natural laboratories or converting methane to hybrid with zero co2 emissions . it is converting methane to fuel or chemical. on-site at the wellhead. that technology is not commercially available yetbut i predict it will be . we're doing a tremendous job in that area. then there's also the issue of the research shows that common claim products is what they use in letter can be used to turn methane
emissions. i realize methane is a major greenhouse gas but is also one of the most volatile greenhouse gases . i want to ask doctor alden a couple of questions. you mentioned the development of new technology to detect methane leaks isessential for the reduction of methane emissions . talk about what long is doing to reduce methane leaks about government mandate? >> there's been some pretty great industry options of trials of these technologies. the industry is interested. their testing stuff out. they're looking at the new tech and there sometimes try a different types of technology and kind of the emissions can be reduced.so i think as i mentioned no one wants to double up on what
they need to do but having theregulations to allow that would be phenomenal . >> when you're talking about methane what the rest of my colleagues and makes it sound like they're fine and it's just not true. you've noted reducing these leaks is a win for industry. what are the benefits? i think there's a an actual benefit for reducing these leaks. without the accurate? >> there certainly is. it's having a really powerful tool to track what's going on in their operations. it's not just the leaks problem. they're generally an inefficiency in the system so it's a really powerful tool to ask the toolkit to just drive this operations . >> thank you. miss tomcik i don't want to feel bad about putting on the spot. thank you.
>> i recognize myself for fiveminutes . the reason we've devoted so much time in this committee to hearings the methane is because it is a super bowl. it is super damaging to the climate and that is driving higher costs.what we talk about some ofthe health impacts . in your testimony what caught my attention is you said venting methane into the atmosphere is like throwing garbage into the street outside your home. it's worse than that. it's like throwing good food that could be used elsewhere into the treesoutside your home . the last committee meeting we had governors talk about what they were doing and governor grissom from new mexico worked with all stakeholders and has really developed a model but there's a real patchwork of what's going on across the country. is that why it's important to have strong federal standards
here on methane? what is your view? >> i think federal regulations are needed. and it carries a lot, i'm a big believer in federalism but there's some states that are very much advanced in adopting new technology and encouraging, colorado comes to mind. canada, actually canada came up. canada has strong regulations . but other states not so much. we need a level playing field and also with respect to our exports to the rest of the world particularly europe , europe once to see upstream low upstream greenhouse gases . that's best done on a national scale and much comes out of the permian basin for corpuschristi . >> you said we have the solutions in an to reduce
methane and then you said this is not rocket science. it's more like modern plumbing. what is your view on the importanceof federal standards ? >> i agree with doctor kleinberg. we have a patchwork of state rules and large portions have not been enacted so we need those safeguards and they have toapply to the existing equipment . that's responsible for about 60percent of the aleutian problem in the us . >> miss tomcik you really spoke from the heart. your perspective as a mom. the impact of pollution on your children and really spoke on behalf of parents everywhere for their hopes. i mean, this is a massive public health issue. i know we getinvolved in a lot of the technical questions over time air pollution is a killer . this is harmful, hard. and if you are way to help
reduce the health impacts and the harmful consequences to our kids we should bedoing . >> absolutely. the reality is that the oil and gas operations that are in communities today will be there for a long time . and the potential to include is going to be there for a long time. so we need federal rules to protect this community who are living near them. so what we do know is that states like pennsylvania, is the second largest natural gas producer in the nation and the oil and gas industry in that state is responsible for embedding over 1 million metric tons annually . and strong eva methane rules particularly in lower methane
pollutants along with the accompanying bses are really impacting communities. the reality is that we don't know exactly what's in the air in communities because there is not widespread community monitoring. so that's something that really needs to be addressed in order to protect this space and i'm hoping that epa will come out with really strong solutions to help communities that are living with this today. >> and what do your kids say? >> my kids are worried about climate change. they've heard about the oil and gas wells in their communities . when we talk about they are concerned about what the world will be for their children when they're old enough to have to. i just want to let you know that i told my kids i was coming here and my son said let them know that i'm the
best one cross player in the country and that i won the state championship. i tell you this because i want you to know we are people, we are real families. we are individuals living here with oil and gas. and we methane rules to our health from your pollution and climate change . >> thank you very much. missmiller you're recognized for five minutes . >> thank you jerry cassidy. and thank you all for being here today. in my home state of west virginia which i will talk about frequently with abundant and natural resources i am a member of this committee because our energy producing communities deserve a voice in the debate on the future of energy and climate policy. i'm deeply committed to
finding this solution to combat missions. although our role climate has changed and will continue to change since god first created or we have science like never before that we can depend upon tohelp us solve these problems and mitigate and reduce the emissions . i'm most concerned not with our ability to find solutions so much but the willingness to make sure that we have the ability to do so. this administration and my colleagues across the aisle have tried to make it possible to invest in the technologies that will reduce emissions from reliable sources of energy. without future investments these technologies will even exist and we will not be able to bring our energy producing communities along into the next generation of prosperity. doctor alden, thank you for joining us today. i was intrigued reading your testimony on the work that long past technologies is
doing to track methane emissions. can you explain how a monitoring makes the oil and gas industry more viable for a less carbon intensive future west and mark. >> thank you congresswoman miller. yes, measuring methane emissions really does contribute to reduction in emissions across the supply chain for oil and gas. i do think it's important for the public and private sectors to both invest heavily in technologies that can help us reduce emissions wherever possible and i think it's a win-win for reducing emissions. >> more generally can you talk about the importance of continued investment in more traditional forms of energy and the new technologies that will support those types of producers ? >> i can't the general investments in fuels because
that's not quite my expertise but i can helping these technologies continue to evolve and be more responsive and more sensitive, more quantitative is certainly going to help everybody. >> long path currently operates the permian basin which is quite flat. does the technology also work in more mountainous areas west virginia where we have abundant natural gas well reserves? >> that's a great question long past technologies is a new technology . right now we're at max efficiency in terms of our system be able to get to smaller and smaller sites and the reason that it is we need one laser to cover many oil and gas companies so right now areas like the permian are ideal because we can spread that system out over many operators and drive the cost of monitoring to very
low levels. certainly as our technology continues to evolve we will be to track down and get out of these areas where you guys are. so again i think keeping these technologies rolling and pushing forward will certainly help get monitoring . >> that's why investing is so important for innovation. , i yelled back my time. you are recognize. >> humana chair. i think we all agree that we should quantify and limit emissions and we've been trying to help companies like long past get the epa approval they need to do this important work. it should also be said not of us want harmful materials in the air these are regulated. i do want to take a step back and note some inescapable facts. methane is a component of natural gas.
number two natural gas has been and will be a key factor in reducing global emissions as it displaces higher in a cold . number three no matter what we talk about the transfer natural gas around the world will increase drastically. number four, us natural gas is for our slimmer than our largest competitor russia, only one percent in lifecycle emissions and nowwe have a cost-benefit question . our citizens are facing higher energy prices and suffering from the associated inflation and this administration can't stop coming up with ways to discourage investment in our oil and gas industry and increase production which is our only hope of reducing prices anytime soon. so if we want to tell the american people today that they should accept even higher prices there better be the extraordinary benefit awaiting them but here's the
thing. well and gas methane emissions make up 20 percent of global emissions. the us makes up about seven percent of that global emissions and us oil and gas makes up about 2.8 percent of global methane emissions so again we're talking about tackling 2.8 percent . you have to ask what will happen? what will reducing a fraction of a fraction at great cost even really accomplish? mrs. smith mentioned earlier this was the fastest way to reduce global emissions. this is clearly false just by the numbers. if we wantto be factual we would recognize 50 percent of the world emissions come from foreign cold . coal is most likely to be displaced bynatural gas . our domestic gas producers tell me they could quadruple
exports in the next 10 years. so our export policy was targeted at displacing foreign cold this would have the emissions equipment of electrifying 100 percent us passenger cars power in every home in america with solar and battery packs and adding 54,000 windmills which would mean doubling us windcapacity . that would seem like a better investment to me reducing global emissions was our goal while maintaining the price stability and energy reliability so that we can have it all if we want. so my questions are for doctor kleinberg and you talk about russian gas earlier and some of the problems with measuring their gas and how we can compete with that frankly if the country is looking to purchase natural gas should they purchase from the us or from russia? >> to be honest we don't actually know the answer to that question and i've studied the russian statistics very carefully and they just looked fishy.