Is the LNG Industry Gaslighting the Path to Net-Zero?

Methane Princess moored on the River Fal

Numerous recent studies suggest a major expansion of LNG exports from Canada would contribute to the growing climate crisis, rather than mitigate it as proponents claim. Both the International Energy Agency (IEA) and the United Nations Environment Programme warned this past fall against expansion of fossil fuel infrastructure that could lock in carbon emissions for decades.

Cornell University ecosystem scientist Robert Howarth recently concluded that LNG exported from the U.S. to Asia or Europe has higher carbon intensity than local coal use due to the leakage of methane—a powerful warming agent—throughout the LNG supply chain, but particularly during shipping. To address the urgency of the climate crisis, the world must “move away from any use of LNG as a fuel as quickly as possible, and immediately stop construction of any new LNG infrastructure,” he wrote in a paper released in November.

Howarth has been an outspoken critic of natural gas for more than a decade, facing years of harassment for his stance. But he’s not alone in his critiques. Researchers at RMI—the Rocky Mountain Institute—published a paper last July in which they concluded that methane leakage rates as low as 0.2% can eliminate any carbon advantage natural gas would have over coal-fired energy.

Hundreds of studies using an array of measurement techniques have concluded that the industry’s methane emissions are often wildly underestimated. Methane can leak from a number of points in the natural gas cycle, from extraction and processing to transportation and power generation facilities—and there are no reliable government systems in place to comprehensively track the leaks.

Globally, the IEA has estimated that methane emissions are 70% higher than industry reports. Carleton University’s Energy and Emissions Research Lab recently completed a census of methane emissions from upstream oil and gas production. Led by engineering professor Matthew Johnson, the researchers measured emissions at 3,500 oil and gas facilities and 5,600 wells. As Carleton reported, “Johnson and his team discovered that the actual quantity of methane produced by Canada’s oil and gas sector in the provinces of British Columbia, Saskatchewan, and Alberta is consistently far higher than what was previously reported.” Alberta’s facilities, in particular, were found to be underreporting by nearly 50%.

Still, backers of LNG Canada, Woodfibre, and Cedar LNG remain optimistic. TC Energy’s $14.5-billion, 670-kilometre Coastal GasLink pipeline that will ship supply from the gas fields of northeastern B.C. to the coast is 98% complete, according to the company. Construction at Woodfibre and the LNG Canada site is well under way; LNG Canada expects the first LNG shipments in 2025. Cedar’s owners—the Haisla and Pembina Pipeline—are aiming to make a final investment decision in the coming months.

Given all the uncertainties, it’s unclear whether Canadian-based producers will be able to benefit in the marketplace from any carbon advantage they claim. Will buyers opt for supplies from a producer that can certify its low GHG intensity? Will they be willing to pay a premium? Would they sell credits from reducing any coal use that the additional LNG supply might allow? To date, there has been little evidence of that type of energy trading.

At most, Canada may add another LNG plant or perhaps two. Investment decisions are looming on Cedar LNG and LNG Canada’s phase two. They will depend on a host of political, environmental, and market-based factors.

One thing is clear, however: a major expansion of Canadian LNG production runs counter to climate goals and entails a significant risk of big financial losses down the road for the producer, their First Nations partners and, potentially, for Canadian taxpayers. |Read more https://www.theenergymix.com/is-the-lng-industry-gaslighting-the-path-to-net-zero/ | theenergymix.com/is-the-lng-in…

#cdnpoli #environment #LNG #gaslighting #ClimateCrisis #pollution #methane #taxpayers #indigenous

Crucial ‘Stumble’ on Renewables Moratorium Could Cost Alberta ‘Forever’

Alberta’s moratorium last summer on new renewable energy projects was just supposed to be a pause, a breather for an overburdened regulator and concerned public to catch up with an industry growing beyond expectations.

“It’s unlikely to think this kind of pause and decision will have no impact on investment,” said Sara Hastings-Simon of the University of Calgary’s School of Public Policy. “It’s hard to know how large (the impact) is—but we’re in a competitive market to attract capital.”

As recently as last summer, the sun shone bright and the breezes were favourable for Alberta renewables. The Business Renewable Centre, a group that links buyers and producers of renewable energy, said Alberta was on track to see $3.7 billion worth of construction by the end of this year, creating more than 4,500 jobs.

Government officials initially said the pause was made at the request of rural municipalities and the Alberta Utilities Commission. When it turned out no such requests had been made, the move was justified by concerns over reclamation, destruction of farmland, and despoiling of what the government called “pristine viewscapes.”

Premier Danielle Smith has since expressed public doubts over renewables, calling them a “fantasy” and suggesting they are unreliable and expensive. She mused about creating a Crown corporation specifically to fund natural gas-fired power generation.

Weis said the pause’s end date of February 24 doesn’t necessarily signal a return to normal.

The Alberta Utilities Commission has another month after that to complete an inquiry into the industry. Then the government has to digest and implement recommendations.

“If (it has) announced that we need another two or three years to figure out the rules, that’s going to add to the uncertainty,” Weis said.

Meanwhile, other jurisdictions are making moves. Nova Scotia, Ontario, Quebec, and British Columbia are opening their doors to more renewable power—not to mention the vast U.S. appetite for investment capital.

The favourable economics of renewable power in Alberta could also be eroded by increased costs, whether from new regulatory requirements that force companies to front-load clean-up costs or competition for labour and materials as the backlog of projects breaks.

As for decommissioning and remediating costs, developers say those requirements already inform their budgets. Mindorff said a pause wasn’t needed to firm up rules around something companies were already doing.

He said placing roadblocks in front of an industry that hasn’t caused any problems is “unbelievable gall.”

“Without dealing with the decommissioning of oil and gas sites, how can you with a straight face say the renewable energy industry should deal with decommission?” |Read more https://www.theenergymix.com/crucial-stumble-on-renewables-moratorium-could-cost-alberta-forever/ | theenergymix.com/crucial-stumb…

#abpoli #renewables #moratorium #extended #ucp #roadblocks #investments #business