Earlier this year, S&P Global insights released a new report analyzing methane emissions from the Permian Basin. The report claims that emissions have been dramatically reduced, with a 50% reduction in methane intensity between 2022 and 2024. The report has some major flaws and Oilfield Witness has released a fact sheet analyzing it. The two most important conclusions from that work are that S&P’s acknowledges that the error rate on their emissions quantification is 40%. Compounded over the study’s timeframe, that could mean that the entire reduction observed by S&P is the result of errors. S&P also acknowledges that satellite data covering the Permian Basin more comprehensively shows no meaningful improvement in emissions over the time frame. In short, the report’s conclusions have massive caveats and cannot be assumed to be true.
Unfortunately, the report has made waves in the media. The Financial Times is asking “What’s driving the ‘surprising’ drop in Permian Basin emissions?.” The Artesia Daily Press called it a “A Win for the Environment and Industry.” Using preliminary data published last year, Bloomberg reported “Methane Emissions in Permian Basin Fall as Drillers Plug Leaks.” Clearly, there is a disconnect between the strength of S&P’s data and the way it is being reported.
It is apparent that much of this disconnect arises from journalists repeating the studies top-line conclusions without including the limitations of those conclusions detailed in the body of the report. The report is only eight pages, but highlights a 40% error rate and acknowledges the existence of credible conflicting data and omitting that context fundamentally changes the perception of the report. Instead, the primary source of information for the media articles touting surprising success in the Permian around methane emissions appears to be S&P press releases. Some outlets, like Yahoo finance quoted the press release directly, regurgitating S&P’s emphasis on “the most accurate, basin-wide estimate of methane emissions” without noting that that accuracy is only about 60%. Many journalists appear to take for granted the veracity of the reductions and instead opt to focus on what is triggering them. Again parroting S&P’s talking points, we see journalists like the Midland Reporter Telegram speculating that the reductions are the result of AI. Such analysis is not conducive to meaningful environmental reform when it speculates on the cause of a trend that may not even exist.
Unfortunately, this is a common problem in oil and gas data analysis. Companies like S&P which are for-profit and have oil and gas clientele generate data without making the raw data nor their modeling public. A report based on it is then released to the public with a press release. The press release takes the most optimistic possible interpretation of the results. In this case, claiming emissions are down significantly in the Permian Basin and suggesting this is the result of industry action. The press release is distributed and reported on by journalists who assume based on the institutional credibility of the company that the data is accurate.
As part of these efforts, the report is also amplified by the oil and gas industries spokespeople. The Texas Oil and Gas Association called this report evidence of “unmatched environmental progress”; “far more than a statistical blip; it’s a testament to the hard work, proactive efforts, and constant innovation of Texas oil and natural gas operators.” The Heartland Institute declared that “New Analysis Shows Massive Decline in Permian Basin Methane Emissions.” Exxonmobil said “We welcome the report’s validation of our efforts and those of our entire industry.” The end result is that dubious conclusions from questionable data are legitimized and amplified even when their flaws are apparent with a cursory reading of the report they originate from.
Journalists have limited time and there is obviously too much happening in the world right now for everything to receive intense scrutiny, so it would be great to put the onus for these problems on S&P. Their press release and the statements of their employees grossly downplay the limitations and shortcomings of their data. In reporting their findings as unmitigated progress for the oil and gas industry, S&P is actively facilitating greenwashing. However, that is the point. Analysis like this exists to reaffirm that the oil and gas industry can be sustainable. It is a business tool, not an academic analysis. The onus must be on journalists to treat it as such. There is a reason that academic analysis mandates that results be replicable. When an organization reports on their own nonpublic data which they analyze using models that they claim are “proprietary” and therefore cannot be made public, that report cannot be assumed to be accurate. There are plenty of academically reviewed emissions inventories. (In fact, the contractor S&P used to generate the data in this report is working on one right now which finds emissions are more than 200% higher than reported by S&P). Treating work like this as comparable to rigorous academic analysis is not an acceptable practice.
