LNG study: Our Take, with Doug Sheridan
Howarth’s final analysis isn't nearly as clear-cut as he and the media sought to portray when the non peer-reviewed version was released last year... and later acted upon by the Biden admin.
The FT writes, an academic paper that influenced the Biden admin’s pause on new LNG projects after reporting that LNG generates more GHGs than coal has had its findings peer reviewed, sparking a renewed clash between environmentalists and industry over the fuel’s impact on the environment.
Mand an expert in methane, argues in the study that the emissions footprint of LNG exceeds that of coal by 33% over a 20-year period, challenging the oil and gas industry’s assertion that the fuel is cleaner than coal.
Howarth writes that LNG, which is largely produced from shale gas, emits a “substantial amount of methane” that increases during liquefaction and tanker transport of the fuel.“ The world is spiralling towards a climate catastrophe,” Howarth said. “Since LNG has a larger climate impact than any other fossil fuel, we should move away from it immediately.”
The paper has generated a political firestorm since it was first published in draft form last year, as it challenges a core tenet of the rapid expansion of the global LNG industry—that displacing coal generation with gas is helping the world to decarbonise.
The initial draft played a critical role in persuading the Biden admin to pause approvals of new LNG export terminals in Jan. The results of Howarth’s study, which was part funded by the Park Foundation, an environmental group, contrast sharply with other studies.
It also deviates from the results of a 2019 study commissioned by the US gov't, that determined the use of US LNG for power production in European and Asian markets would “not increase greenhouse gas emissions” from a life cycle perspective.
Our Take 1: So, an environmental organization pays Howarth to examine LNG's GHG footprint, and he comes up with a different, more anti-LNG answer—in his non peer-reviewed draft version—than the EPA and most other academic studies? Then the Biden admin puts the kibosh on new permitting of LNG facilities based on his non peer-reviewed findings? That smell right to you?
Our Take 2:
Howarth’s final analysis isn't nearly as clear-cut as he and the media sought to portray when the non peer-reviewed version was released last year... and later acted upon by the Biden admin. To wit, he now admits in the final peer-reviewed version that total GHG emissions from LNG estimated using a 100-year—rather than 20-year—horizon are actually *equal* to those for coal in scenarios with short voyages and only 12% more for the *longest* cruises. He previously asserted they were a full third higher overall.
Our Take 3: Howarth is skating where the LNG and midstream emissions puck was a few years ago, ignoring the recent and future reductions in methane emissions—both as recently mandated by the EPA, and voluntarily by the oil and gas industry. Arguably, Howarth's math is now obsolete.
♻️ 👀
#naturalgas #lng #methane