- Location
- Glen Clova, Angus, DD8 4RD
Absolutely.
The NFU and NBA both support the use of methane inhibitors so we can imagine their response
All based on comprehensive democratic member engagement, of course
Methane
- Thread starter delilah
- Start date
The NFU and NBA both support the use of methane inhibitors so we can imagine their response
All based on comprehensive democratic member engagement, of course
Is your grassroots group still active ? Would that be the best way of submitting a group response ?
- Location
- Glen Clova, Angus, DD8 4RD
Yes and yes. We probably will.
- Location
- Derbyshire
on the case
FT today; They've admitted to 120 Million metric tonnes. What about the rest?
ft.com
Jamie Smyth
5–6 minutes
Stay informed with free updates
Simply sign up to the Oil & Gas industry myFT Digest -- delivered directly to your inbox.
A dozen of the world’s biggest oil and gas companies are expanding a satellite monitoring campaign to detect methane emissions in emerging economies following detection of 26 large leaks of the planet-warming gas over Kazakhstan, Egypt and Algeria.
The Oil and Gas Climate Initiative, which includes Shell, Saudi Aramco and ExxonMobil among its members, told the Financial Times it plans to extend its year-long monitoring campaign, which ended in August 2023, to seven or eight new countries. It claimed the campaign is already reducing methane emissions.
As of October 2023, two operators in Kazakhstan and Algeria had plugged three big methane sources that, combined, were emitting 3,200kg of methane per hour, or the equivalent of the hourly carbon emissions from almost 4,000 petrol-fuelled cars.
OGCI is engaging with four operators to find solutions for the remaining emissions sources, according to a report due to be published on Monday at CERAWeek, a major energy conference in Houston.
The report does not reveal the identity of any of the operators responsible for the methane leaks, saying it is critical to build a relationship of trust rather than “name and shame”.
Bjørn Otto Sverdrup, chair of OGCI’s executive committee and a former executive at Equinor, a Norwegian energy company, said: “We are able to detect emissions and then use sophisticated technology to make the gas visible — that’s one step. Then we use the unique access that we have as companies to be able to engage with local operators even in remote geographies.”
The campaign by OGCI, which is a chief executive-led organisation representing roughly 30 per cent of global oil and gas production, comes amid growing focus by policymakers on the climate threat posed by methane emissions from oil and gas infrastructure.
The invisible gas is more than 80 times more potent than carbon dioxide at trapping heat in the atmosphere over a 20-year timescale. Experts estimate methane is responsible for almost a third of global emissions-induced increases in global temperatures since the start of the industrial era.
Despite pledges by more than 150 countries to crack down on methane emissions at COP28 in Dubai in December, emissions remain near record levels.
A report published by the International Energy Agency last week said the oil and gas sector was responsible for putting more than 120mn metric tonnes of methane into the atmosphere last year, a small increase on 2022.
The US — the largest global producer of oil and gas — was also the largest emitter from oil and gas operations, closely followed by Russia, it said.
The OGCI report focuses on the group’s engagement with national oil companies and joint venture partners with extensive fossil fuel infrastructure and the use of satellite monitoring through its partnership with GHGSat, a company backed by a climate investment fund founded by OGCI. But it also highlights some of the challenges facing the industry in identifying and fixing methane leaks and reducing emissions in emerging economies.
Just 15 of the 26 large and persistent methane sources identified by satellite were subsequently confirmed on the ground by local operators. In some instances the leak may have stopped or it was not possible to find the source. Action to reduce emissions from the identified leaks still needed to be taken in many of the cases identified, according to the report.
The main sources of methane emissions identified were venting and incomplete flaring of methane from equipment and storage tanks, equipment and pipeline leaks, and incomplete combustion from burning pits of waste liquids and gases from fossil fuel production.
Satellite detection is an increasingly important tool in detecting methane leaks, particularly in emerging countries where there is often less focus on greenhouse gas emissions than in developed economies.
Andrew Baxter, an energy director at the Environmental Defense Fund, said the OGCI initiative is important because it combines satellite detection with peer-to-peer engagement and technical and financial support to tackle emissions.
“Maybe as long as methane emissions are being reduced, that’s enough. But I think transparency is a huge incentive for folks to act,” Baxter said, adding that a new methane-sniffing satellite launched by EDF this month would provide full transparency.
ft.com
Oil companies expand methane detection campaign in emerging economies
Jamie Smyth
5–6 minutes
Stay informed with free updates
Simply sign up to the Oil & Gas industry myFT Digest -- delivered directly to your inbox.
A dozen of the world’s biggest oil and gas companies are expanding a satellite monitoring campaign to detect methane emissions in emerging economies following detection of 26 large leaks of the planet-warming gas over Kazakhstan, Egypt and Algeria.
The Oil and Gas Climate Initiative, which includes Shell, Saudi Aramco and ExxonMobil among its members, told the Financial Times it plans to extend its year-long monitoring campaign, which ended in August 2023, to seven or eight new countries. It claimed the campaign is already reducing methane emissions.
As of October 2023, two operators in Kazakhstan and Algeria had plugged three big methane sources that, combined, were emitting 3,200kg of methane per hour, or the equivalent of the hourly carbon emissions from almost 4,000 petrol-fuelled cars.
OGCI is engaging with four operators to find solutions for the remaining emissions sources, according to a report due to be published on Monday at CERAWeek, a major energy conference in Houston.
The report does not reveal the identity of any of the operators responsible for the methane leaks, saying it is critical to build a relationship of trust rather than “name and shame”.
Bjørn Otto Sverdrup, chair of OGCI’s executive committee and a former executive at Equinor, a Norwegian energy company, said: “We are able to detect emissions and then use sophisticated technology to make the gas visible — that’s one step. Then we use the unique access that we have as companies to be able to engage with local operators even in remote geographies.”
The campaign by OGCI, which is a chief executive-led organisation representing roughly 30 per cent of global oil and gas production, comes amid growing focus by policymakers on the climate threat posed by methane emissions from oil and gas infrastructure.
The invisible gas is more than 80 times more potent than carbon dioxide at trapping heat in the atmosphere over a 20-year timescale. Experts estimate methane is responsible for almost a third of global emissions-induced increases in global temperatures since the start of the industrial era.
Despite pledges by more than 150 countries to crack down on methane emissions at COP28 in Dubai in December, emissions remain near record levels.
A report published by the International Energy Agency last week said the oil and gas sector was responsible for putting more than 120mn metric tonnes of methane into the atmosphere last year, a small increase on 2022.
The US — the largest global producer of oil and gas — was also the largest emitter from oil and gas operations, closely followed by Russia, it said.
The OGCI report focuses on the group’s engagement with national oil companies and joint venture partners with extensive fossil fuel infrastructure and the use of satellite monitoring through its partnership with GHGSat, a company backed by a climate investment fund founded by OGCI. But it also highlights some of the challenges facing the industry in identifying and fixing methane leaks and reducing emissions in emerging economies.
Just 15 of the 26 large and persistent methane sources identified by satellite were subsequently confirmed on the ground by local operators. In some instances the leak may have stopped or it was not possible to find the source. Action to reduce emissions from the identified leaks still needed to be taken in many of the cases identified, according to the report.
The main sources of methane emissions identified were venting and incomplete flaring of methane from equipment and storage tanks, equipment and pipeline leaks, and incomplete combustion from burning pits of waste liquids and gases from fossil fuel production.
Satellite detection is an increasingly important tool in detecting methane leaks, particularly in emerging countries where there is often less focus on greenhouse gas emissions than in developed economies.
Andrew Baxter, an energy director at the Environmental Defense Fund, said the OGCI initiative is important because it combines satellite detection with peer-to-peer engagement and technical and financial support to tackle emissions.
“Maybe as long as methane emissions are being reduced, that’s enough. But I think transparency is a huge incentive for folks to act,” Baxter said, adding that a new methane-sniffing satellite launched by EDF this month would provide full transparency.
- Location
- Glen Clova, Angus, DD8 4RD
Hmmmm
This will get "interesting" when they add in methane
I bet they include agricultural methane, not just fossil methane
No problem with that if the inventory system is fair
But it's not
- Location
- North Norfolk
They are worried about a static number of cattle while New Scientist reports
"On average across the regions surveyed, they found methane leaking at a rate of 2.95 per cent of total natural gas production, a number nearly three times what the US Environmental Protection Agency’s estimates. The number is also about 50 per greater than the current best estimates based on more limited measurements, says Sherwin.
"The estimated 6.2 million tonnes of annual methane emissions from these sites represent about $1 billion in annual losses due to the value of the gas, which is the main constituent of natural gas fuel. It also represents more than $9 billion in damages from the associated climate effects. The leakage rates could affect the price of US oil and gas as the climate impacts of production are increasingly scrutinised. “It’s important to get this right,” says Sherwin."
View attachment Methane leaks from US oil and gas are triple government estimates _ New Scientist.pdf
"On average across the regions surveyed, they found methane leaking at a rate of 2.95 per cent of total natural gas production, a number nearly three times what the US Environmental Protection Agency’s estimates. The number is also about 50 per greater than the current best estimates based on more limited measurements, says Sherwin.
"The estimated 6.2 million tonnes of annual methane emissions from these sites represent about $1 billion in annual losses due to the value of the gas, which is the main constituent of natural gas fuel. It also represents more than $9 billion in damages from the associated climate effects. The leakage rates could affect the price of US oil and gas as the climate impacts of production are increasingly scrutinised. “It’s important to get this right,” says Sherwin."
View attachment Methane leaks from US oil and gas are triple government estimates _ New Scientist.pdf
The governments havent finished trialling or published how inhibitors work yet!!! Ongoing and specific to the UK. Why promote them before the results are published??Absolutely.
The NFU and NBA both support the use of methane inhibitors so we can imagine their response
All based on comprehensive democratic member engagement, of course
- Location
- Glen Clova, Angus, DD8 4RD
I've just read this piece.
Inside Climate News is usually better written than this in my experience
Saying "Cutting methane emissions—which come mostly from livestock—presents a particularly expedient and effective way to slow warming" is simply false. It goes on to say "Most of the legal action against the livestock industry, which is responsible for anywhere between 10 and 30 percent of global emissions depending on the calculation, has so far occurred in Europe, Bray and Poston found" which contradicts the first statement and is again lacking evidence....
insideclimatenews.org
Inside Climate News is usually better written than this in my experience
Saying "Cutting methane emissions—which come mostly from livestock—presents a particularly expedient and effective way to slow warming" is simply false. It goes on to say "Most of the legal action against the livestock industry, which is responsible for anywhere between 10 and 30 percent of global emissions depending on the calculation, has so far occurred in Europe, Bray and Poston found" which contradicts the first statement and is again lacking evidence....
As Legal Challenges Against the Fossil Fuel Industry Notch Some Successes, Are Livestock Companies the Next Target? - Inside Climate News
A new paper traces legal action against the livestock industry and outlines strategies for new legal claims.
insideclimatenews.org
Depending on the calculation…I've just read this piece.
Inside Climate News is usually better written than this in my experience
Saying "Cutting methane emissions—which come mostly from livestock—presents a particularly expedient and effective way to slow warming" is simply false. It goes on to say "Most of the legal action against the livestock industry, which is responsible for anywhere between 10 and 30 percent of global emissions depending on the calculation, has so far occurred in Europe, Bray and Poston found" which contradicts the first statement and is again lacking evidence....
As Legal Challenges Against the Fossil Fuel Industry Notch Some Successes, Are Livestock Companies the Next Target? - Inside Climate News
A new paper traces legal action against the livestock industry and outlines strategies for new legal claims.
This isn't just bollox, it's M & S bollox.
https://www.feednavigator.com/Article/2024/04/09/M-S-to-help-dairy-farmers-slash-methane-emissions
https://www.feednavigator.com/Article/2024/04/09/M-S-to-help-dairy-farmers-slash-methane-emissions
- Location
- Shropshire
Saw this yesterday on a link to a Telegraph article.
Interestingly when I read the comments pretty much every one was calling it out for exactly what it is...
Denis Rijnders, of Royal DSM, told us
"We’re absolutely over the moon that govts don’t seem to have anyone capable of understanding the basics of climate gases, and so they have fallen hook line and sinker for our flawed cost-benefit models, and we’re now going to be printing money as a result, with the public stuffing our pockets with obscene amounts of money without knowing why they’re being fleeced or getting a say."
- Location
- Glen Clova, Angus, DD8 4RD
Sorry I have been unable to get on much with this earlier. Here's my first go:
International commitments
1) What role could methane emissions reduction play in meeting the UK’s domestic and international climate change targets?
Methane reductions can play a significant role in the short – medium term but the impact, while immediately positive, is time-limited. Cutting fossil fuel methane emissions offers the greatest benefit because such emissions entail a net increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration even after the methane all degrades, typically around 12 years from emission. Biogenic methane emissions, on the other hand, do not follow this characteristic as their carbon content comes from contemporaneous atmospheric carbon capture.
The IPCC 6th assessment report (IPCC AR6) makes clear that cutting fossil fuel origin methane offers the greatest potential atmospheric warming reduction impact at the lowest margin cost. It also, critically, makes clear that without deep and permanent cuts in fossil origin CO2 emissions any cuts to methane emissions would be a wasted exercise in terms of limiting overall climate warming. Cutting methane must, therefore, be matched by deep and permanent cuts to fossil fuel use.
2) What is your assessment of the Global Methane Pledge: is the UK on track to meet it? If not, how could this be accelerated?
So far the UK appears to be targeting livestock emissions of methane while failing to hold the UK fossil fuelindustry to account for methane leaks, venting and flaring.
3) What are the implications of the separate Global Methane Pledge for overall UK efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions?
4) Given UK progress in methane reduction in recent years (with notable reductions before 2020) what are the cost/ benefit implications of meeting the pledge?
Reducing methane emissions by ceasing routine flaring or venting in oil and gas operations is likely to be at net zero or even negative cost as the gas has commercial value. Cutting methane emissions from the UK ruminant sector will incur cost for most producers that cannot be covered from the marketplace without government intervention as livestock farmers are price takers in a highly concentrated market. Given the poor financial performance over recent years of UK beef, sheep and dairy businesses this could be an existential threat for many.
5) How significant are UK methane emissions when compared to global emissions? What impact could UK efforts on reducing methane emissions have on total emissions?
6) What is the UK doing to lead and facilitate international action on methane reduction? Could this be enhanced?
7) What lessons could the UK learn from abroad?
Data, measurement and monitoring
8) What is the status of methane accounting, monitoring and reporting in the UK at present and how does it compare internationally? Is UK accounting and reporting considered to be accurate and robust? What improvements, if any, are possible and what benefits would these deliver?
Current methane monitoring in the UK is largely reliant on self-reporting, notably by the fossil fuel/energy sector and landfill operators, or by modelling based estimations which are subject to large margins of error. Recent advances in remote monitoring of methane emissions have revealed many self-reported emitters to be greatly under-reporting.
Further, there is great uncertainty in current assessment of non-fossil methane sources both globally and in the UK. Take the IPCC Special Report on Climate Change and Land (2019) for example, which states that agriculture is responsible for methane emissions equating to 4.0 +/- 1.2 GT CO2e/Yr, meaning it could be as high as 5.2GT CO2e/Yr or as low as 2.8GT CO2e/yr.
9) What progress is being made on methane monitoring and data collection in the UK using technologies such as satellite data and drones?
10) Are there significant methane leakages in the UK, and if so where do they usually occur?
Yes. Remote monitoring using drones and satellites regularly report large point emissions from mains gas leakage, energy site leakage, oil and gas infrastructure venting and flaring and from landfill sites.
11) What are the advantages and disadvantages of available metrics used to report and compare methane emissions including GWP100 and GWP*?
All national and global inventory accounting currently quantifies GHGs using GWP100 for conversion to a CO2 equivalent. The IPCC AR6 has highlighted that this distorts the warming impact of methane and should be used with extreme caution. It confirms that accounting for rising methane emissions using GWP100 under reports the warming impact by a factor of 5 to 6 and accounting for falling methane emissions using GWP100 over reports the warming impact by a factor of 3 to 4. It also confirms that, due to the addition of CO2 to the atmosphere, fossil source methane emissions actually generate a higher warming impact than equivalent volumes of biogenic emissions do. GWP* offers a much closer approximation to the actual warming impact when applied to short-lived climate pollutant gasses including methane. Which metric is used to assess national inventories is a political decision, not a scientific one, but it is irrational to knowingly use a metric to assess emissions which distorts their warming impact when the target being addressed is a warming based one.
There are crucial implications of this for GHG policy. An understanding of current scientific knowledge around methane warming impact reveals that warming reductions achieved by cutting methane expire after around 12 years. This matters not where such cuts to emissions are cost neutral or negative but becomes deeply damaging where cuts incur positive cost.
As an example of this, it is proposed by DEFRA and others that livestock farmers should feed methane suppressants to their livestock., This carries a net cost. Whilst these offer a warming impact reduction there may be a business case for this, especially if farmers are paid to undertake it. However, after 12 years there is no longer a warming impact benefit yet the additives must continue to be fed in perpetuity else the warming reduction is reversed. Who will then pay for the feeds when there is no climate benefit to feeding them?
UK Methane emissions and sectors
12) What progress has the UK made on reducing methane emissions and where is there room for improvement?
In relation to farmed livestock, where our expertise lies, the UK ruminant population has been in steady decline for some 4 decades. This has led to a steady cut in ruminant methane emissions from UK livestock. Because of how methane actually drives atmospheric warming, this has had a significant cooling effect.
13) Which sectors are most promising for achieving further methane emissions reductions? And which are likely to be at least relative cost?
It is feasible to cut methane emissions from landfill to zero by capturing and using them to add to mains gas supplies. The technology for this is readily available. The issue is likely to be that many closed landfill sites venting methane are no longer owned by their original operators and their current owners may lack the technical and financial resources to undertake this.
The greatest and most rapid gains are likely from requiring the energy and fossil fuel industries to deeply cut their fugitive emissions. Both industries have the technical and physical capacity to do so but lack the necessary impetus.
Methane emissions from farmed livestock can be reduced further by a range of measures including selective breeding, greater use of key plant species in pastures known to reduce ruminant methanogenesis, earlier finishing of livestock and feeding of commercial or natural methane suppressants. Each of these potential actions has different impact potentials, cost profiles and technical constraints. None of them are without issues.
14) Are there sources that could be mitigated quickly and easily in the short term, and which would take longer or be more complex?
15) To what extent is there existing regulation in each emitting sector to mitigate methane emissions, and how well is this working?
Agriculture
16) Are there emerging technologies, such as methane suppressant feed products or approaches to slurry management, that could aid with methane emissions reduction in agriculture? What impact could they deliver?
17) How effective are existing policies and incentives, such as Slurry Infrastructure Grants, in driving methane reduction?
18) What other policy tools, frameworks or incentives could be employed in agriculture to drive methane reduction?
19) How can efforts to mitigate methane emissions in agriculture be integrated into broader approaches to facilitate and incentivise climate and nature-friendly farming practices?
20) How can efforts to reduce methane reduction be balanced against other important considerations in the agricultural sector, including food security?
Waste and waste management
21) What further progress could be made in the waste and waste management sector on reducing methane emissions? Are there interventions and/or technologies that could bring emissions down?
22) Given the regulations already in place for methane reduction in the waste sector, why are emissions from the waste sector static over recent years? Are existing regulations monitored and enforced?
23) Is the UK on track to meet the Government’s deadline of all local authorities collecting food waste separately from landfill by March 2026?
24) To what extent will improved methane captured at landfill sites, remain necessary to reduce methane emissions after this date?
Fossil fuels
25) Are there further methane reductions that could be made in the UK fossil fuels sector (e.g., oil, gas or other fossil fuels), or at a faster pace?
26) How can we ensure that reducing methane emissions in the oil and gas sector are not at the expense of reducing CO₂ emissions?
27) What impact would bringing forward the ban on flaring and venting have on both emissions and the industry?
- Location
- Glen Clova, Angus, DD8 4RD
I've just finished watching Wednesday's HoL climate committee session on methane with Dave Frame and John Gilliland. I implore you all to find 1 hour 45 minutes to watch it as things said there will impact us all.
The Parliament live embed player isn't working at the moment but you can go to this link then selcet the date of April 17th and get to the session from there as per this screenshot:
parliamentlive.tv
The Parliament live embed player isn't working at the moment but you can go to this link then selcet the date of April 17th and get to the session from there as per this screenshot:
Parliamentlive.tv - Guide
parliamentlive.tv
From your tone am guessing they recommend medicated feed ? We know who John G is and would expect that from the AHDB, who is Dave Frame ?
Prof. Involved in bringing GWP* into existence.
So did the two Profs tell the HoL we don't need to medicate the feed ? Because that's the question asked in the call for evidence. They can't fudge the answer, it's either a yes or a no.
- Location
- Glen Clova, Angus, DD8 4RD
As I say, it's worth watching for the nuances and the many answers that cover the whole range of methane stuff.
To answer your question straight:
Nobody said "no, we shouldn't use feed additives".
John Gilliland made these points, amongst others:
- That his farm and some others are already BEYOND net zero
- That selecting genetically for low methane lines is FAR the best cost effectiveness
- That his cattle eating willow and mixed herbs emit far less methane, it's as effective as the feed additives but at much lower cost
- That the dung from his cattle drive his soil carbon sequestration and he can prove that his silvopasture land captures and holds more carbon than his 250 year old oak woodlands as a result
- That methane reducing feeds don't fit with grazed cattle
- That catching methane from slurry pits doesn't apply to grazed cattle or most beef units and has to be cheap enough to be justifiable anyway
The lady from the Met Office talked about needing to reach net zero methane which John Gilliland and Dave Frame said is not necessary or appropriate.
Dave Frame made the point that the Paris Agreement allows for choice of metric to reach the started temperature target. He said that it's irrational and unscientific to use an emissions metric (GWP100) for methane in that regard rather than a warming metric (GWP*). He also said that he was an author of chapter 7 of AR6 and doesn't understand why their comments about GWP* being more accurate for methane than GWP100 weren't carried through as major points into the "Summary for policymakers".
So they are on the way then. Which allies with the consensus on here. Methane as belched by cows is a contributor to man made climate change, and as such is a legitimate target for man made solutions. I fail to see what anyone has to complain about.