Tom Rand’s Post

Ok, it took some digging, but I thought that I'd prepare the chart that most would want to see - ie, WHY are the emissions greater. The paper lists a few scenarios depending on the type of ship used for LNG transport, but I just picked one of them. Basically, 46% of the CO2e emissions come from fugitive methane I've colored blue), 3% in final distribution (leaky pipes to houses), 4% during the liquefaction process in the first place (which surprised me that that was more than the distribution number), and 38% in "upstream and midstream emissions". There are several thousand wells in Canada just venting methane, and I imagine 10s of thousands globally. This is where this comes from. More in next comment.

"Natural gas" aka methane is not the solution some think it is and the recently published paper by Robert Howarth *does* appear to hold up well to peer reviewed scrutiny (https://lnkd.in/eCYbqK2E). The article below examines the attacks and claims against it. "It’s worth noting something masked by the IEA methane leakage and electricity emissions trajectory. Even at the low-ball methane leakage rates, the 20 year GWP of the methane leaks completely eliminates the climate gains from burning less coal. At double the emissions, which is what actual measurement is finding, the electrical generation gains are not just matched, but total GHG emissions for the USA actually have gone up significantly. Electrical generation is the only place where the USA has managed to show a climate win, but shale oil and fracked gas in combination with the USA’s lax engineering standards for the oil and gas industry means that actual US emissions have increased." https://lnkd.in/eKhk2Eay

As we continue witnessing the political debate surrounding the pause on LNG permits, the industry as a whole is naturally highlighting the obvious benefits of LNG. Of course opponents are doing the same against it! Both sides tend to act in absolute terms as a way to balance the discourse. Unfortunately, independent observers tend to be repelled by positions that clearly ignore the fact that no energy source is perfectly good or bad. This excellent article shows how a more balanced view of LNG should help find a credible path forward.

A balanced and well-written article on the use of LNG in the energy transition. Worth the 2 minute read! Thanks to Daniel Bustos for highlighting the article.

Ban coal exports, but also approve cleaner LNG exports. Across time, cleaner natural gas can be blended with renewable natural gas (RNG) and hydrogen. Helping to reshape the energy future of the Indo-Pacific and Europe will do far more for the global environment and global security than unreasonable constraints on Canada's domestic emissions or nuissance taxes ever could. Call it incremental progress or just plain logic. We can also learn to use all forms of energy to a standard of much higher efficiency. https://lnkd.in/gpPTyEre

Food for thought: https://lnkd.in/e32sx4FF Exported gas produces far worse emissions than coal, major study finds Research challenges idea that sending liquefied natural gas around the world is cleaner alternative to burning coal Oliver Milman Shipping containers stacked on an LNG-powered container ship in Los Angeles. Photograph: Mario Tama/Getty Images Exported gas emits far more greenhouse gas emissions than coal, despite fossil-fuel industry claims it is a cleaner alternative, according to a major new research paper that challenges the controversial yet rapid expansion of gas exports from the US to Europe and Asia. Coal is the dirtiest of fossil fuels when combusted for energy, with oil and gas producers for years promoting cleaner-burning gas as a “bridge” fuel and even a “climate solution” amid a glut of new liquefied natural gas (or LNG) terminals, primarily in the US. But the research, which itself has become enmeshed in a political argument in the US, has concluded that LNG is 33% worse in terms of planet-heating emissions over a 20-year period compared with coal. “The idea that coal is worse for the climate is mistaken – LNG has a larger greenhouse gas footprint than any other fuel,” said Robert Howarth, an environmental scientist at Cornell University and author of the new paper. “To think we should be shipping around this gas as a climate solution is just plain wrong. It’s greenwashing from oil and gas companies that has severely underestimated the emissions from this type of energy.” Drilling, moving, cooling and shipping gas from one country to another uses so much energy that the actual final burning of gas in people’s homes and businesses only accounts for about a third of the total emissions from this process, the research finds. —— SNiP —--

➡️LNG imported from the US to Europe & Asia is up to a third more #emissions intensive than #coal, a new study says. ➡️While burning coal produces higher CO2 emissions, the #methane emissions from LNG can more than make up for the gap, the study adds. https://lnkd.in/gjpGgczq

According to a recent Berkeley Research Group study, emissions from U.S. LNG exports to Europe are 53% lower than emissions from European coal-fired power plants and 8% lower than emissions from piped gas imports – more evidence President Biden’s decision to halt U.S. LNG exports is a massive step back in fighting climate change. Read more key findings from the study:

Exported gas emits far more greenhouse gas emissions than coal, despite fossil-fuel industry claims it is a cleaner alternative, according to a major new research paper that challenges the controversial yet rapid expansion of gas exports from the US to Europe and Asia. Coal is the dirtiest of fossil fuels when combusted for energy, with oil and gas producers for years promoting cleaner-burning gas as a “bridge” fuel and even a “climate solution” amid a glut of new liquefied natural gas (or LNG) terminals, primarily in the US. But the research, which itself has become enmeshed in a political argument in the US, has concluded that LNG is 33% worse in terms of planet-heating emissions over a 20-year period compared with coal. “The idea that coal is worse for the climate is mistaken – LNG has a larger greenhouse gas footprint than any other fuel,” said Robert Howarth, an environmental scientist at Cornell University and author of the new paper. "To think we should be shipping around this gas as a climate solution is just plain wrong. It’s greenwashing from oil and gas companies that has severely underestimated the emissions from this type of energy.” Read media coverage of the study here: https://lnkd.in/e6pS8VHr Read the peer-reviewed research in the Energy Science & Engineering Journal here: https://lnkd.in/gvApYcrt