There are two opposing narratives in Canada on Canadian liquefied natural gas (LNG) as a progressive source of primary energy for Asian markets. One group says that if CO2 is a problem, it would be better for Asian countries to burn more Canadian natural gas, and less coal.The other says that doesn't matter because Canadian gas producers leak more methane into the atmosphere than they admit, so best for the planet to just close it down altogether.The pro-Canadian LNG groups — and there are many — openly advocate that our LNG exports into Asia will aid in regional efforts to reduce CO2 emissions in jurisdictions that have signed onto the 2015 Paris Accord. These groups use data obtained from traditional bottom-up surveillance tests called Leak Detection and Repair (LDAR.).On the other hand, the anti-Canadian LNG groups argue that this is not true, given new research suggests that actual fugitive methane (CH4) emissions in the upstream production side of Canada’s natural gas sector are much higher than historically estimated. These newer methods are often called top-down surveillance techniques.However, I will show that the source of the funding for these recent Canadian scientific publications used as the basis for these alarmist claims include the Chinese Government, American environmental activists, and billionaire media moguls... all friends of Steven Guilbeault’s Ministry of Environment and Climate Change.Always follow the money, for in doing so, motive will often become self-evident.For the record, my position on this topic is that the most important reasons to expand our nascent LNG export industry include the following:1. Employment and project equity opportunities for impoverished First Nation communities along British Columbia’s northwest coastal regions.2. Given the median oil and gas salary in Canada is $34,000 higher than the national average (i.e. $79,000 versus $45,000,) increasing the number of jobs in this sector is of paramount importance in arresting Canada’s rapidly declining economic productivity.3. As LNG export terminals are highly advanced heavy industrial projects, these projects will create regional demand for Canadian manufacturing industries. 4. Natural gas production provides land sales, royalty payments and elevated income tax revenues to fund the public sector.Note how I have argued entirely from a Canadian perspective.Canadians simply need to focus on providing our responsibly produced LNG and millions will be lifted out of energy poverty, both here in Canada and around the World.Fundamentally, both top-down and bottom-up methods assume that an emission rate, whether from a union joint between two pipes or from an entire facility, is a function of the concentration of the gas plume multiplied by the velocity of its expansion relative to its point of origin.Both methods have their inherent uncertainties, sources of human error and limitations.At best, they are but estimates with large uncertainties.Traditionally, fugitive CH4 emissions from surface facilities in the oil and gas sector are quantified using LDAR methods. LDAR methods involve measurements of flanges, unions and joints for signs of CH4 leaks by technicians on the ground using hand-held instruments to estimate facility-wide rates of CH4 emissions. These surveillance efforts are used to correct the unintended loss of product through subsequent maintenance (repair) activities.Note that LDAR methodologies have been approved by Canadian and American environmental regulators for decades.Recently, we have witnessed an increasing number of studies originating from Canadian universities that use what is often called a top-down approach to estimating CH4 and other volatile hydrocarbons emanating from oil and gas facilities.In top-down examinations of facility wide CH4 emissions, instrumentation loaded aircraft or drones are used to map-out the three dimensional geometry of the plume of gas emanating from a facility.This plume geometry data, together with parallel measurements of wind speed and direction are used to back-calculate a facility wide emission rate.Note that top-down estimates are prone to errors in estimating surface wind speeds, which are extremely influential in correctly estimating emission rates. Further note that near surface wind speeds are constantly changing as function of hour of day, month of year and from year to year. To illustrate this, I have included both monthly and annual average near surface wind speed data for Western Canada (Figure 2.)Clearly, top-down measurements taken during the summer or shoulder season will not be representative of winter season conditions. Likewise, measurements made in one year can quickly be made obsolete the next, given historic data shows upwards of 250% variability since the 1950s to present..It is most important to emphasize that there is little to no proof provided in these recent top-down publications that demonstrate that the researchers have definitively characterized the micrometeorological conditions of the near surface atmosphere over the oil and gas facilities being studied.There are best practices that are well established in characterizing these fundamental parameters, but as these recent publications fail to disclose, we are left in the dark.Quite frankly, it is as if the peer review and editorial processes used in approving these papers for publication have simply assumed the researcher’s methodologies are representative without proof.When data is presented that calls into question long standing best practices as being inaccurate by over a factor of 10, the burden of proof lies on the pioneers of the newly emerging data and experimental methodologies to demonstrate why their approach is of higher merit.Now we move onto anomalous sources of funding for these recent Canadian publications.Traditionally, the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC) of Canada is the major federal agency responsible for funding natural sciences and engineering research in Canadian universities. However, when we examine the sources of funding for these recent top-down publications, the following sources jump out as unusual.The first anomalous source of funding is from the Ministry of Science and Technology of China (grant no. 2019YFC0214700) through Professor Shao-Meng Li (College of Environmental Sciences and Engineering, Peking University, Beijing, China) who contributed to the following two top-down publications:1. Reconciling the total carbon budget for boreal forest wildfire emissions using airborne observations.2. Total organic carbon measurements reveal major gaps in petrochemical emissions reporting.Why is the Communist Party of China (CCP) funding studies in Canada that opaquely claim that our oil and gas sector’s emissions are much higher than historical surveillance methods suggest?Considering that China’s CO2 2023 emissions grew by almost as much as Canada’s total CO2 emission rate, it is hard to believe that their motivation is based on a sense of climate duty.I suspect the motivation is geopolitically motivated, where it is in the CCP’s best interest to weaken Canada economically and therefore politically. History is rife with evidence showing that critical commodities offer significant geopolitical leverage.The second anomalous source of funding is from the Environmental Defence Fund (EDF) for the publication titled Comparisons of Airborne Measurements and Inventory Estimates of Methane Emissions in the Alberta Upstream Oil and Gas Sector.It is no secret that the US based EDF claims to be committed to end the North American oil and gas sector. As this unproven top-down method makes Canadian oil and gas operations look like wasteful climate laggards, this publication is great for its public relations and fund raising efforts. The EDF is just one of many rent seekers embedded within a multi-billion dollar per year public relations cabal.I believe the true motivation of the EDF is the same as with so many American climate activists.The EDF undermines Canadian efforts to end the status-quo, where Canadian energy remains largely landlocked and heavily discounted relative to international prices, while the US reaps the rewards of exporting our natural gas as LNG.The third anomalous source of funding for the publication titled A measurement-based upstream oil and gas methane inventory for Alberta, Canada reveals higher emissions and different sources than official estimates came from the McCall MacBain Foundation. John and Marcy McCall MacBain are ex-media moguls who hide their fortune behind charity tax laws and who use their wealth to convince Canadians to end our oil and gas production to bring an end to human caused climate change. In view of the highly contentious sources of funding and lack of transparency on methodologies being used, Alberta’s Ministry of Environment needs to reject top-down surveillance methods as a replacement of LDAR in quantifying fugitive emissions in the oil and gas sector.
There are two opposing narratives in Canada on Canadian liquefied natural gas (LNG) as a progressive source of primary energy for Asian markets. One group says that if CO2 is a problem, it would be better for Asian countries to burn more Canadian natural gas, and less coal.The other says that doesn't matter because Canadian gas producers leak more methane into the atmosphere than they admit, so best for the planet to just close it down altogether.The pro-Canadian LNG groups — and there are many — openly advocate that our LNG exports into Asia will aid in regional efforts to reduce CO2 emissions in jurisdictions that have signed onto the 2015 Paris Accord. These groups use data obtained from traditional bottom-up surveillance tests called Leak Detection and Repair (LDAR.).On the other hand, the anti-Canadian LNG groups argue that this is not true, given new research suggests that actual fugitive methane (CH4) emissions in the upstream production side of Canada’s natural gas sector are much higher than historically estimated. These newer methods are often called top-down surveillance techniques.However, I will show that the source of the funding for these recent Canadian scientific publications used as the basis for these alarmist claims include the Chinese Government, American environmental activists, and billionaire media moguls... all friends of Steven Guilbeault’s Ministry of Environment and Climate Change.Always follow the money, for in doing so, motive will often become self-evident.For the record, my position on this topic is that the most important reasons to expand our nascent LNG export industry include the following:1. Employment and project equity opportunities for impoverished First Nation communities along British Columbia’s northwest coastal regions.2. Given the median oil and gas salary in Canada is $34,000 higher than the national average (i.e. $79,000 versus $45,000,) increasing the number of jobs in this sector is of paramount importance in arresting Canada’s rapidly declining economic productivity.3. As LNG export terminals are highly advanced heavy industrial projects, these projects will create regional demand for Canadian manufacturing industries. 4. Natural gas production provides land sales, royalty payments and elevated income tax revenues to fund the public sector.Note how I have argued entirely from a Canadian perspective.Canadians simply need to focus on providing our responsibly produced LNG and millions will be lifted out of energy poverty, both here in Canada and around the World.Fundamentally, both top-down and bottom-up methods assume that an emission rate, whether from a union joint between two pipes or from an entire facility, is a function of the concentration of the gas plume multiplied by the velocity of its expansion relative to its point of origin.Both methods have their inherent uncertainties, sources of human error and limitations.At best, they are but estimates with large uncertainties.Traditionally, fugitive CH4 emissions from surface facilities in the oil and gas sector are quantified using LDAR methods. LDAR methods involve measurements of flanges, unions and joints for signs of CH4 leaks by technicians on the ground using hand-held instruments to estimate facility-wide rates of CH4 emissions. These surveillance efforts are used to correct the unintended loss of product through subsequent maintenance (repair) activities.Note that LDAR methodologies have been approved by Canadian and American environmental regulators for decades.Recently, we have witnessed an increasing number of studies originating from Canadian universities that use what is often called a top-down approach to estimating CH4 and other volatile hydrocarbons emanating from oil and gas facilities.In top-down examinations of facility wide CH4 emissions, instrumentation loaded aircraft or drones are used to map-out the three dimensional geometry of the plume of gas emanating from a facility.This plume geometry data, together with parallel measurements of wind speed and direction are used to back-calculate a facility wide emission rate.Note that top-down estimates are prone to errors in estimating surface wind speeds, which are extremely influential in correctly estimating emission rates. Further note that near surface wind speeds are constantly changing as function of hour of day, month of year and from year to year. To illustrate this, I have included both monthly and annual average near surface wind speed data for Western Canada (Figure 2.)Clearly, top-down measurements taken during the summer or shoulder season will not be representative of winter season conditions. Likewise, measurements made in one year can quickly be made obsolete the next, given historic data shows upwards of 250% variability since the 1950s to present..It is most important to emphasize that there is little to no proof provided in these recent top-down publications that demonstrate that the researchers have definitively characterized the micrometeorological conditions of the near surface atmosphere over the oil and gas facilities being studied.There are best practices that are well established in characterizing these fundamental parameters, but as these recent publications fail to disclose, we are left in the dark.Quite frankly, it is as if the peer review and editorial processes used in approving these papers for publication have simply assumed the researcher’s methodologies are representative without proof.When data is presented that calls into question long standing best practices as being inaccurate by over a factor of 10, the burden of proof lies on the pioneers of the newly emerging data and experimental methodologies to demonstrate why their approach is of higher merit.Now we move onto anomalous sources of funding for these recent Canadian publications.Traditionally, the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC) of Canada is the major federal agency responsible for funding natural sciences and engineering research in Canadian universities. However, when we examine the sources of funding for these recent top-down publications, the following sources jump out as unusual.The first anomalous source of funding is from the Ministry of Science and Technology of China (grant no. 2019YFC0214700) through Professor Shao-Meng Li (College of Environmental Sciences and Engineering, Peking University, Beijing, China) who contributed to the following two top-down publications:1. Reconciling the total carbon budget for boreal forest wildfire emissions using airborne observations.2. Total organic carbon measurements reveal major gaps in petrochemical emissions reporting.Why is the Communist Party of China (CCP) funding studies in Canada that opaquely claim that our oil and gas sector’s emissions are much higher than historical surveillance methods suggest?Considering that China’s CO2 2023 emissions grew by almost as much as Canada’s total CO2 emission rate, it is hard to believe that their motivation is based on a sense of climate duty.I suspect the motivation is geopolitically motivated, where it is in the CCP’s best interest to weaken Canada economically and therefore politically. History is rife with evidence showing that critical commodities offer significant geopolitical leverage.The second anomalous source of funding is from the Environmental Defence Fund (EDF) for the publication titled Comparisons of Airborne Measurements and Inventory Estimates of Methane Emissions in the Alberta Upstream Oil and Gas Sector.It is no secret that the US based EDF claims to be committed to end the North American oil and gas sector. As this unproven top-down method makes Canadian oil and gas operations look like wasteful climate laggards, this publication is great for its public relations and fund raising efforts. The EDF is just one of many rent seekers embedded within a multi-billion dollar per year public relations cabal.I believe the true motivation of the EDF is the same as with so many American climate activists.The EDF undermines Canadian efforts to end the status-quo, where Canadian energy remains largely landlocked and heavily discounted relative to international prices, while the US reaps the rewards of exporting our natural gas as LNG.The third anomalous source of funding for the publication titled A measurement-based upstream oil and gas methane inventory for Alberta, Canada reveals higher emissions and different sources than official estimates came from the McCall MacBain Foundation. John and Marcy McCall MacBain are ex-media moguls who hide their fortune behind charity tax laws and who use their wealth to convince Canadians to end our oil and gas production to bring an end to human caused climate change. In view of the highly contentious sources of funding and lack of transparency on methodologies being used, Alberta’s Ministry of Environment needs to reject top-down surveillance methods as a replacement of LDAR in quantifying fugitive emissions in the oil and gas sector.
