RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:Trends in atmospheric methane abundance in past 40 yearsWe're talking about Methane emissions here and I've quoted you the numbers. The point is that in today's world average, NG is as bad as coal for GHG (thank you Saudis). Canada is ahead of the pack but still were leaking a *** tonne. When all is said and done NG is still dead in the water. That's because even in the most ideal blue sky scenario with zero leaks NG still doesn't fit in the carbon budget.
www.vox.com/platform/amp/energy-and-environment/2019/5/30/18643819/climate-change-natural-gas-middle-ground
So all the gas that's currently been found developed reserves, we can't get it out the ground and used without scrapping Paris accord and without busting 1.5 degrees warming. And if we use the developed reserves we are busting the 2.0 degree budget.
So there is simply no room for new development. Ng is not a bridge fuel it must be phased out immediately. Adding leaks into the mix is just the final nail in the coffin for NG. we can't build new NG plants because that locks in capital and ensures we will want to use more than the 2 degree budget. Or someone will be left with a useless asset.
What does this mean for you as a Peyto shareholder? It's a toxic asset. Kind of like inmate in death row just going day to day. I'm holding this bag because I got screwed with the 90% drops. I'm looking to get out on a temporary bounce with as little loss as possible, then never touch FF with a 10 foot pole ever again.
Seppelt wrote: I was so alarmed by GoldStandard and felt so bad as a user of natural gas that I was about to scrap my furnace and hot water tank and call Enbridge to get rid of all gas pipes near the house. Lol.
But reading this article about LNG I quickly changed my mind. https://www.canadianenergycentre.ca/new-us-lng-project-required-to-use-natural-gas-from-canada-to-lower-ghgs/
I am so proud of Canada and will stick to natural gas eventhough not sure if gas in Ontario comes from Alberta or Appalachia via recently built Nexus or Rover pipelines.
Note:
A life-cycle analysis of the project conducted in 2018 – including “upstream” GHG emissions from natural gas production – found Canada to have a lower footprint than the US. GHG emissions from natural gas production in the United States “may be as much as five times higher than those for Canada,” the report said.
The difference could be even greater, the PSCAA said, citing research that found fugitive methane emissions from natural gas production in the US could be 60 per cent higher than published figures. This could lead to upstream emissions that are eight times higher than natural gas produced in Canada, the regulator said.