Forget That Howarth Study Used by Bidenestas to Justify the LNG Pause: It Got It Wrong

Guest post by Jim Willis of Marcellus Drilling News.

In October, MDN told you about a Congressional investigation looking into the Department of Energy’s use of a prematurely released “study” as an excuse to “pause” (i.e., ban) new LNG export approvals (see Congress Probes Role of Bob Howarth Study in DOE LNG Pause).

Cornell professor Robert Howarth, using money from the anti-fossil fuel Park Foundation, wrote a “study” that purports to show that LNG is worse for the environment than burning coal! It’s an elaborate exercise in mental gymnastics. The DOE used the study before it was peer-reviewed and published, i.e., before it was properly vetted. Now comes a true peer-reviewed study that exposes Howarth’s study as sloppy and unreliable.

The new study, published in ACS Sustainable Chemistry & Engineering, uses scientific methodologies and detailed, data-driven approaches to provide a clearer picture of LNG’s environmental footprint. That picture shows LNG’s emissions are lower than earlier estimates by biased researchers like Howarth.

A Forbes writer picked up on this new research and summarized it in the following article:

Liquefied natural gas (LNG) has transformed global energy markets, in large part because of U.S. emergence as a leading exporter. However, the environmental impact of LNG, particularly greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, remains contentious.

A new study, Gas Pathing: Improved Greenhouse Gas Emission Estimates of Liquefied Natural Gas Exports through Enhanced Supply Chain Resolution, published in ACS Sustainable Chemistry & Engineering, sheds new light on this issue.

Revolutionizing Life Cycle Assessments

Life Cycle Assessments (LCAs) are vital for evaluating LNG’s environmental footprint, covering its journey from extraction to end use. This new study by Roman-White et al. refines LCA methodologies, improving accuracy and offering actionable insights. Building upon earlier research sponsored by Cheniere Energy, it delves deeper into emissions variability across LNG supply chains.

Key Findings

• Enhanced Gas Pathing Algorithm: The study introduces a sophisticated algorithm that identifies 138 distinct pathways for natural gas within the U.S., revealing significant emission variations based on transportation routes.

• Lower Emissions Estimates: Reference GHG intensities for U.S. LNG delivered to Europe were found to be 22-53% lower than prior studies, suggesting earlier overestimations.

• Impact of Modern Data: When incorporating recent measurement data, emissions estimates increased by 41-52% over the reference case but remained 20-28% lower than older studies relying on less empirical data.

• Variability in Emissions: Emissions varied by up to six times between pathways, emphasizing the need for pathway-specific assessments to grasp the full environmental impact of LNG.

Methodology and Approach

The study utilized detailed data from two U.S. liquefaction facilities, analyzing various stages of the LNG supply chain. These included production, processing, transmission, liquefaction, and shipping. By applying their gas pathing algorithm, researchers crafted a comprehensive emissions profile, accounting for regional and operational nuances.

Implications for the Energy Sector

1. Policy and Regulation: The study underscores the necessity for precise emissions data to craft effective climate policies.

2. Industry Practices: It provides the LNG industry with tools to optimize supply chains, lowering their environmental impact.

3. Consumer Awareness: Enhanced understanding of LNG’s emissions equips stakeholders to make more sustainable energy choices.

This study adds depth to ongoing debates about LNG’s environmental implications. A recent Forbes article explored claims that LNG might exceed coal in emissions. However, Roman-White et al.’s detailed LCAs suggest that LNG’s emissions are often lower than earlier estimates, depending on specific pathways. This highlights the importance of granular data in evaluating energy sources.

Conclusion

The study by Roman-White et al. marks a pivotal advancement in quantifying LNG’s GHG emissions. By refining methodologies and embracing detailed, data-driven approaches, it provides a clearer picture of LNG’s environmental footprint. This research not only aids policymakers and industry stakeholders but also supports global efforts toward more sustainable energy practices.

Note that this new study was made possible by funding from Cheniere Energy, the U.S.’s largest LNG exporter. Which might suggest a conflict of interest. Our response is, What about the virulent anti-fossil fuel Park Foundation funding Robert Howarth’s prematurely released “study” that was used to pause new LNG export approvals? We say this study, funded by Cheniere, is far more scientifically rigorous than Howarth’s study. If we (in fossil fuels) don’t fund real research, it won’t get done, and people will remain in the dark. So, good on Cheniere Energy for stepping up to fund this important and trustworthy research.

For more great articles on natural gas development every single weekday, subscribe to Marcellus Drilling News using this convenient link.

#LNG #Howarth #ParkFoundation #Cheniere #MarcellusShale #Forbes