The fossil gas industry leaks methane into the atmosphere at almost every step in the supply chain. Methane is a greenhouse gas that is, in the short term, over 80 times more potent than carbon dioxide and has also driven more than a quarter of global warming to date.
Is liquified natural gas or LNG a clean fuel?
Overseas export of liquefied natural gas (LNG), gas kept in a liquid form for ease of transport, is rapidly expanding. Historically, gas has been considered a “bridge fuel”—cleaner and with lower carbon dioxide emissions than coal or oil—and a potential tool to help address climate change. However, LNG is neither clean nor particularly low in emissions. In addition, the massive investments in new infrastructure to support this industry, including pipelines, liquefaction facilities, export terminals, and tankers, lock in fossil fuel dependence, making the transition to actual low-carbon and no-carbon energy even more difficult.
Analysis shows that using LNG to replace other, dirtier fossil fuels, is not an effective strategy to reduce climate-warming emissions. In fact, if the LNG export industry expands as projected, it is likely to make it nearly impossible to keep global temperatures from increasing above the 1.5 degrees Celsius threshold for catastrophic climate impacts.
The greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from the extraction, transport, liquefaction, and re-gasification of LNG can be almost equal to the emissions produced from the actual burning of the gas, effectively doubling the climate impact of each unit of energy created from gas transported overseas.
The liquefaction, tanker transport, and re-gasification steps required for overseas export can account for up to 21 percent of total life-cycle emissions for LNG.
Leaks and intentional releases of methane, a potent GHG, during the extraction and transport of the LNG, can constitute up to 14 percent of LNG’s life-cycle emissions.
The GHG footprint of LNG is, at best, only modestly smaller than that of other fossil fuels. In fact, LNG can actually have a larger climate footprint than other sources of LNG for many importing countries.
Over a long-term climate time frame (the next 100 years), the GHG emissions from LNG are lower than those of coal and some other sources of gas. But because methane has a much stronger and more immediate climate impact, the near-term climate effect (over the next 20 years) of LNG is close to that of coal, just 27 to 33 percent lower. This is the same 20-year period during which the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has concluded that emissions must be cut by about 75 percent to avoid catastrophic climate impacts.
Compared with clean, renewable energy sources, LNG falls far short. Life-cycle GHG emissions for solar power are less than 7 percent of LNG emissions; emissions for wind power are even lower, less than 2 percent of LNG emissions.
In the US, the industry alone will generate 130 to 213 million metric tons of new GHG emissions by 2030, equal to the annual emissions of 28 to 45 million fossil fuel-powered cars and enough to reverse the 1 percent per year decline in total U.S. GHG emissions measured during the past decade.
The Philippines is importing LNG and Prices Will be High
According to the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA), the Philippines’ plan to import its natural gas needs following the depletion of the Malampaya field is being upended by the rise in natural gas prices.
In its report, the IEFA said that the Philippines is entering the global LNG market at a time of extreme uncertainty as global LNG supply is constrained due partly to the Russian invasion of Ukraine. LNG prices continue to hit record highs, and the risks surrounding limited global LNG supply are expected to continue over the next decade. If the Philippines relies on LNG to augment its energy supply to meet its needs, this importation move can potentially derail the Philippines’ growth plans, which are predicated on generating sufficient energy.
The Ukraine war has disrupted the global market for gas, and this triggered sanctions on Russia and caused Europe to seek gas elsewhere so that it can reduce dependence on Russian gas, sending prices upward.
Several LNG importing countries are protected by long-term purchase contracts, which require sellers to deliver LNG on a predetermined schedule and price formula. The Philippines, however, does not have any long-term contracts according to the International Energy Agency’s gas market update.
What this means is that the Philippines will be forced to outbid wealthy buyers in Europe and Northeast Asia for limited LNG supplies, exposing the country to high prices and extreme volatility.
Not for Energy Security but Profit-Driven
For the last four years, the United States (US) has been gearing to become the world's largest liquefied natural gas (LNG) exporter by 2023 as it expands LNG infrastructure. It is currently the third-largest LNG exporter with exports of 75 million tons in 2021 based on information from the Anadolu Agency from Shell, the International Gas Association, and the US Energy Information Administration (EIA).
Australia sits on top of the list with exports of 83 million tons, followed by Qatar with 81.3 million tons.
In its latest report, published in December 2021, the EIA said the US first started exporting LNG in February 2016 and became the third-largest LNG exporter in 2020.
With just six operational terminals currently, the EIA said new terminals will be active by the end of the 2022 to allow the US to “have the largest LNG export capacity in the world.”
The US has been investing heavily in its LNG infrastructure and is now considered a country with the capacity to meet the growing natural gas needs of Asia and Europe.
The US, which exported 33 million tons of LNG in 2019, exported 44.8 million tons in 2020 and heavily increased this to 75 million tons in 2021.
The US exports nearly 45 percent of its exports to Asia, 41 percent to Europe, and the remainder to the Americas. (data from https://www.pna.gov.ph/articles/1170696)
This fossil gas growth is incompatible with a healthy climate. In order to achieve the Paris Agreement goal of keeping warming under 1.5 degrees Celsius – a goal scientists warn must be achieved to avoid the worst impacts of the climate crisis – gas production and consumption must drop by 40% worldwide over the next decade. Yet in a vicious cycle, importing gas promotes new gas production, and new gas production drives an expansion of gas exports. #