{"id":9555,"date":"2015-03-03T12:25:09","date_gmt":"2015-03-03T18:25:09","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/energyexchange\/?p=9555"},"modified":"2015-05-27T10:01:22","modified_gmt":"2015-05-27T15:01:22","slug":"the-ut-methane-studies-critique-and-response","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/energyexchange\/2015\/03\/03\/the-ut-methane-studies-critique-and-response\/","title":{"rendered":"The UT Methane Studies: Critique and Response"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"452548129\"<\/a>Science is a process of asserting a hypothesis, collecting data, presenting results, and then having those data and results tested by other researchers. Peer-reviewed journals routinely allow for comments on papers and responses by the authors precisely in order to ensure that knowledge evolves and the dialogue is part of the public scientific record.<\/p>\n

People paying close attention to the growing body of research on methane emissions from the oil and gas industry may note a recent exchange in Environmental Science & Technology (ES&T) between Mr. Touch\u00e9 Howard and a team of scientists lead by Dr. David Allen of the University of Texas. The studies by Allen et al. are among of a group of 16 studies on methane emissions from the natural gas supply chain being coordinated by Environmental Defense Fund.<\/p>\n

ES&T published comments by Mr. Howard,<\/a> who has worked on methane emissions quantification, regarding the two studies (here <\/a>and here<\/a>) authored by Dr. Allen et al. Howard cites several possible complications with the data used in the UT research, which he contends could have caused researchers to underestimate methane emissions: 1) Faulty in-line flow meters; 2) Sensor failure in the Hi-flow instrument; and 3) Potential reset of malfunctioning pneumatic controllers when installing flow meters.<\/p>\n

In a reply comment<\/a>, Dr. Allen and his coauthors outline why they believe Mr. Howard\u2019s concerns are misplaced.<\/p>\n