Is LNG a bridge to nowhere? Experts debate its future

The long-term role of natural gas in the global transition to clean energy is a topic of significant debate on the world stage, as there is evidence that LNG could be much, much worse for the climate than previously thought. While these recent findings have spurred significant steps toward reassessing the role of LNG in any “clean” energy landscape, there is also significant pushback against prematurely reducing fossil fuel production and exports, as they could play a critical role in maintaining energy security during this transition phase.

The global LNG industry has grown leaps and bounds in recent years, largely under the pretense that it would serve as a relatively clean “deck fuel” between coal and oil at one end of the spectrum and renewable energies at the other. However, recent research indicates that LNG could emit 33% more greenhouse gas emissions than coal over a 20-year period.

Although coal is the dirtiest fossil fuel to burn, considering the entire life cycle of the fuel paints a very different picture. Most of the greenhouse gas emissions associated with natural gas are involved in upstream activities, particularly drilling and extraction, supercooling the gas until it liquefies, and then transporting the liquefied natural gas around the world. After all, the actual burning of natural gas accounts for only a third of the fuel’s emissions, according to new research published in the journal Energy Science & Engineering this month.

“The idea that coal is worse for the climate is wrong — LNG has a larger greenhouse gas footprint than any other fuel,” said study author Robert Howarth, an environmental scientist at Cornell University. “To think we should be shipping around this gas as a climate solution is just wrong. It is the greenwashing of the oil and gas companies that has severely underestimated the emissions from this type of energy.”

Howarth’s findings, which have already been circulated at the beginning of this yearand which have now been supported by a rigorous peer review process, have already had a significant impact on energy policy in the United States, with ripple effects in other countries. On January 26, President Biden announced that his administration would endlessly interrupt approvals of new licenses to export LNG so the US Department of Energy can take a moment review and evaluation whether the nation’s sizable and rapidly expanding LNG exports “undermine domestic energy security, raise costs for consumers and harm the environment.”

But while Howarth argues that there is “no need for LNG as an intermediate energy source” and that “ending the use of LNG should be a global priority”, other experts vehemently disagree, arguing that ending the use prematurely would be critical destabilizers for energy. national and global security. An interest group called the International Group of Liquefied Natural Gas Importers recently made a public plea at the annual general meeting held in Hiroshima, arguing that “reduced investment (in liquefied natural gas) will impact both access to affordable and reliable energy and economic growth for producers and consumers.”

The group stressed that natural gas will be needed for decades to ensure energy security as the world transitions to cleaner sources. Perhaps unsurprisingly, that outlook is echoed by oil and gas industry leaders such as Shell Plc and Chevron Corp., who forecast a long-term role for LNG in the global transition to clean energy. (It might be worth noting that LNG sales provided most of Shell’s $7.7 billion revenue increase in the first quarter of 2024). However, the International Energy Agency takes a cooler view, projecting that demand for natural gas will peak this decade, making any new long-term projects irrelevant and soon obsolete.

By Haley Zaremba for Oilprice.com

More top reads from Oilprice.com