In 2011, researchers from Cornell University caused an uproar when they published a study that found methane emissions from shale natural-gas development and use had a bigger greenhouse gas footprint than coal energy. The study was immediately attacked by the gas industry, the environmental groups that argued for gas as a bridge fuel and many within government.

Since that study, numerous other studies looking at the climate impact of natural-gas development have been published.

One widely touted study looked narrowly at the leakage and venting of gas from individual wells, chosen by industry. It found much less methane escape than the Cornell study. Another looked at methane in the atmosphere above the Uintah Basin in northeastern Utah, a major gas-development area, and found much higher levels than the Cornell study implied.

The overall conclusion, in what is clearly a still-developing understanding, is that natural gas has a much bigger climate footprint than was previously assumed. Exactly how much bigger is debated.

The long-standing argument that natural gas is a “bridge fuel” that will help transition us to a more climate-friendly future is based on the carbon-dioxide release from burning gas compared to oil or coal. The new debate is focused on the release of methane (the primary component of natural gas) into the atmosphere before it is burned.

Methane is released into the air both intentionally and unintentionally during the drilling and completion (fracking) of the wells, during the development of oil wells that also have some gas and during the years of well pumping, piping, compression and refining.

Once in the atmosphere, methane is a much more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. This is especially true during the first few decades after the release.

One of the craziest components of the whole issue is that it is the methane that thousands of wells are being drilled for. Why is it being allowed to escape into the atmosphere where it unarguably becomes a problem? Regardless of the low prices lately for natural gas, it is still far from free.

The question is not just a climatic one. It is estimated that in 2012 flaring (burning off gas, primarily at oil wells) resulted in the loss of about $1 billion worth of gas. That is lost revenue for the companies, their shareholders, the royalty owners and tax revenue.

This loss also flies in the face of both the Bureau of Land Management and Colorado Oil and Gas Commission rules and mandates. The BLM is expressly directed to “use all reasonable precautions to prevent the waste of oil or gas developed.” The COGCC mission has four points, the second of which is: “the prevention of waste.”

Now waste in oil and gas terms is usually meant to refer to leaving the resource in the ground – wasting it by not developing it. Yet, clearly, the intent is not to just move it from a resource in the ground to a pollution in the atmosphere, without any benefit gained from the effort.

In addition to the many studies of the scale of the problem, there have been many solutions presented. Colorado’s Air Quality Control Commission’s recently passed rules updating the state’s rules governing oil and gas development focused on both volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and methane. The rules picked the low-hanging fruit of technologies and maintenance and will result in significant savings of gas from leaks and old machinery.

The awareness of economically sensible, and environmentally beneficial, techniques and technologies has been widespread within the industry for more than a decade. Yet traditions die hard, and any imposition by regulators, even when not financially burdensome, are opposed.

In the southern part of the San Juan Basin, by Lybrook, N.M., the new oil wells are flaring all the gas found. Despite being extremely close to gas pipelines and processing plants, the companies are choosing to pollute. The BLM is allowing them to do so.

Such reckless disregard for the U.S. taxpayers, the federal or private royalty owners and our current and future environment is absurd and inexcusable.

Methane is a potent greenhouse gas and pollutant, and is too valuable to “waste.” The continued leakage, venting and flaring must stop.

dan@sanjuancitizens.org. Dan Randolph is executive director of San Juan Citizens Alliance.