Natural gas is often held up as a solution to climate change, or at least a transition in the right direction, on the basis of producing less CO2 per unit of energy than oil or coal. Other factors are also relevant, however. Natural gas is mostly methane (CH4) which is a much more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2. If just a few percent of the methane extracted is leaking in the form of ‘fugitive emissions’ from production facilities and pipelines that alone can make it a worse energy source than coal. Methane also has a different atmospheric lifetime. It’s actually much much worse than CO2 in the short term, but unlike CO2 which largely endures for centuries methane breaks down comparatively quickly. This may be relevant to global temperature pathways as the frontloaded impact of methane may make the peak of warming worse and raise the risk of positive feedback effects where the warming we cause induces further greenhouse gas emissions and warming which we cannot control.
There are more complicated arguments about long-term infrastructure, with some arguing that gas is substituting for worse alternatives and others saying big new gas investments are locking in our fossil fuel dependence for decades to come. There’s also always the debate about any prospective energy source versus renewables, with some arguing that options like gas or nuclear are not needed because renewables are becoming cheap so quickly, and others arguing that energy sources like gas or nuclear complement renewables. With gas, the argument is that it’s a deployable energy source you can activate only when renewables don’t supply demand (many gas plants are peaker plants that only run at times of peak demand); with nuclear, people say it’s always-on baseload energy that would provide at least something during renewable dips.
All this is highly relevant because gas production is exploding, especially because of North America’s hydraulic fracturing (fracking) boom. A new Global Energy Monitor report describes $1.3 trillion being invested in gas infrastructure around the world. In particular, massive investments are being made in liquified natural gas (LNG) infrastructure, since unlike gas in pipelines it can be exported by ship intercontinentally.
Canada is hosting a very disproportionate amount of this investment: 35% of the global total, despite our much smaller global population and domestic share of world greenhouse gas production.
Related:
- Moral relevance of the ‘dash to gas’
- Global reserves of unconventional gas
- Hydraulic fracturing and unconventional gas
- How good is gas?
- Shale gas in Canada
- Natural gas as a ‘bridge fuel’?
- Fracking and peak oil
- Stopping fossil fuel proliferation
‘Clean’ natural gas is actually the new coal, report says: Don Pittis
Global investment of more than $1 trillion in planned LNG plants at risk
Ten per cent of northeast B.C. oil and gas wells leak — more than double the reported rate in Alberta: new study
A survey of the province’s database shows wellbores releasing 14,000 cubic metres of methane — a potent greenhouse gas — every single day amid weak regulations and inconsistent monitoring
‘A massive liability’: B.C.’s orphan fracking wells set to double this year
Since 2016 the number of orphaned wells increased by a staggering 770 per cent. Now, as the tally grows, the province is left with contaminated sites, a leaking wastewater pond and an escalating cleanup bill estimated to be in the hundreds of millions
A Shell insider is behind LNG Canada’s disputed claim about reducing carbon pollution
Already one-quarter of B.C.’s total carbon emissions come from extracting and processing fossil fuels. B.C.’s commitment to expanding fracking to supply an LNG export industry is driving the province beyond its legislated GHG targets. The B.C. government is seeking emission reductions by powering upstream fracking and processing with “clean” electricity, while continuing to be a growing exporter of fossil fuels.
This approach to managing the climate costs of fossil fuel extraction is ultimately untenable and contradictory to the spirit and intentions of the Paris Agreement. By accommodating growing emissions from fossil fuel industries, all other sectors of the economy need to tighten their belts even more if B.C. is to meet its target.
https://vancouversun.com/opinion/marc-lee-planning-for-a-managed-wind-down-of-b-c-s-fossil-fuel-sectors
Canada’s LNG dreams frustrated as global demand shrinks for first time in eight years
Canada now has to ship gas 4,700 kilometres to turn it into LNG and market chaos is stymieing efforts to find a shorter route
David Hughes: LNG exports will doom B.C.’s emissions reduction goals
Opinion: Meeting the Roadmap’s targets with the LNG Canada project
would mean even more drastic cuts to the non-oil and gas sector, along
with controversial, costly and energy-intensive carbon capture and
storage technologies
https://vancouversun.com/opinion/david-hughes-lng-exports-will-doom-b-c-s-emissions-reduction-goals
Gorgon, as it is called, has a pockmarked history. It cost $54bn to build, a whopping $20bn over budget. That was partly because the cost of manpower and material soared amid a $200bn Australian lng investment binge during the past decade. To respect the sanctity of the island’s wildlife, Chevron enforced covid-like quarantining. On arrival, thousands of construction staff had to be inspected at the airport for stray seeds; bulldozers, diggers and trucks were fumigated and shrink-wrapped before shipment. Since production started in 2016, Gorgon has been dogged by unplanned outages. Tax filings suggest it has yet to make a profit. And its failure so far to sequester four-fifths of the carbon dioxide produced from its gas reservoirs has shredded the credibility of its environmental commitments. Carbon capture is considered crucial for the future of lng on Barrow Island and elsewhere.
For all that, it is emblematic of the belief among iocs that even if oil demand peaks as the world shifts to cleaner fuels, consumption of lng will continue to grow for decades to come, especially in Asia. Gorgon alone hopes to produce and ship natural gas until the mid-2050s, one day for considerable profits. A sharp rise in lng prices in recent months amid a surge in demand from China has fanned those hopes. Yet even as the majors double down on the fuel, they are running up against the reality that it is becoming harder to take controlling stakes in new megaprojects, and even those they can develop have rising risks. LNG is nothing like the relatively safe bet the oil industry portrays it as.
Natural gas can rival coal’s climate-warming potential when leaks are counted
Natural gas has long been considered a more climate-friendly alternative to coal, as gas-fired power plants generally release less carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than their coal-fired counterparts. But a new study finds that when the full impact of the industry is taken into account, natural gas could contribute as much as coal to climate change.
Natural gas is primarily composed of methane, a potent greenhouse gas. A new peer-reviewed analysis in the journal Environmental Research Letters finds that when even small amounts of methane escape from natural gas wells, production facilities and pipelines, it can drive up the industry’s emissions to equal the effects of coal.
https://www.npr.org/2023/07/14/1187648553/natural-gas-can-rival-coals-climate-warming-potential-when-leaks-are-counted
Evaluating net life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions intensities from gas and coal at varying methane leakage rates
The net climate impact of gas and coal life-cycle emissions are highly dependent on methane leakage. Every molecule of methane leaked alters the climate advantage because methane warms the planet significantly more than CO2 over its decade-long lifetime. We find that global gas systems that leak over 4.7% of their methane (when considering a 20-year timeframe) or 7.6% (when considering a 100-year timeframe) are on par with life-cycle coal emissions from methane leaking coal mines. The net climate impact from coal is also influenced by SO2 emissions, which react to form sulfate aerosols that mask warming. We run scenarios that combine varying methane leakage rates from coal and gas with low to high SO2 emissions based on coal sulfur content, flue gas scrubber efficiency, and sulfate aerosol global warming potentials. The methane and SO2 co-emitted with CO2 alter the emissions parity between gas and coal. We estimate that a gas system leakage rate as low as 0.2% is on par with coal, assuming 1.5% sulfur coal that is scrubbed at a 90% efficiency with no coal mine methane when considering climate effects over a 20-year timeframe. Recent aerial measurement surveys of US oil and gas production basins find wide-ranging natural gas leak rates 0.65% to 66.2%, with similar leakage rates detected worldwide. These numerous super-emitting gas systems being detected globally underscore the need to accelerate methane emissions detection, accounting, and management practices to certify that gas assets are less emissions intensive than coal.
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ace3db
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
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/oct/04/exported-liquefied-natural-gas-coal-study
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.
a man looks out from behind a wooden fence outside
‘Fear and intimidation’: how peaceful anti-pipeline protesters were hit with criminal and civil charges
Read more
“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.
The large resulting emissions mean there is “no need for LNG as an interim energy source”, the paper says, adding that “ending the use of LNG should be a global priority”.