Let’s Talk Methane

It’s time to have a conversation about methane emissions. Methane gas is a very potent greenhouse. One of its properties is to trap heat. Combusting LNG does not only trap heat from fugue methane emissions, but also emits CO2, H2O. Two studies in relation to underreporting methane  emissions in Alberta gives us insight to how big of a problem underreporting of methane is.  The first study is “Sevenfold Underestimation of Methane Emissions from Non-producing Oil and Gas Wells in Canada” (Klotz), the second, “Renewable energy production potential of abandoned and orphaned oil and gas wells and sites” (Boutet). Both studies came to the same conclusion. A study released in 2024, “The Greenhouse Gas Footprint of Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) Exported from the United States” concludes that methane has a greater impact on climate than previously thought to be.

CO2 dominates the conversation, we hear it on the news, environmental and climate activists, our colleagues, friends and children. Although discussions revolving around CO2 are essential, it time to add methane into the mix. Conversations about methane emissions are important in their own right. CO2 does stay in the atmosphere for one-hundred years to methane’s twenty, methane is eighty times more potent than CO2. Even if methane emissions are stretched out over 100 years, it still is traps 28 times more heat than CO2 (Moseman). CO2 seems to be the toast of the town because it is much more prevalent in the atmosphere than methane.

LNG is not clean, not green nor a low emission source of energy.

Methane comes from many sources that include some large mammals, like elephants, cows, sheep, goats, kangaroos and more. With our carnivorous appetite for beef, cows are a big problem. Methane is emitted as peatlands melt, wetlands, the ocean, termites, volcanoes, seepage through rocks and wildfires.

Some natural processes can’t be mitigated. Volcanoes can’t cease to erupt with our intervention, or stop being produced by animals (but we certainly can eat less meat, therefore less cows). One thing humans can mitigate is to stop fracking, liquifying and transporting LNG.

Underreporting such a large amount of our national emissions makes the Canada National Inventory inadequate & flawed. In addition to the underreporting of methane the ones reported are stretched out over the same lifecycle of CO2 of 100 years rather than the 20 years it stays in the atmosphere. This ignores the critical, drastic repercussions of methane emissions on global warming.

In the 2024 “The greenhouse gas footprint of liquefied natural gas (LNG) exported from the United States”, performed a life cycle assessment of LNG to determine the GHG intensity of LNG compared to other fossil fuel sources of energy.  The life cycle spans from fracking through to combustion.

Transportation of exported LNG is emission intensive.  He created four different scenarios for 2 & 4 stroke tanker engines, the fuel source used to power the tanker, travel distance and the volume the tanker held. His baseline was determined by averaging the results of the four scenarios. His final conclusion was that methane emissions were 33% worse than coal emissions.

Canada’s push for LNG is not intended for the Canadian domestic market, but solely to be exported to the Asian market. The results of this study should be taken in consideration before declaring it to be a major project. Based on what is displayed on the federal government website, this is not being done.

The study mirrors Canada’s LNG major projects. The LNG produced will cross the ocean to reach its market. Where is the logic in shipping LNG across the Ocean to offset coal, even though LNG is 33% more potent than coal?

Transporting LNG across international waters are not accounted for by either the exporting or importing country, but by International Maritime Organization (IMO). This allows both the importer and exporter to present a much rosier emission picture than it actually is.

PM Carney’s has claimed LNG burns clean or a low emission energy. Not only is this untrue, but it also leads Canadians to support clean energy projects. LNG is 95% methane, a fossil fuel. When burned it releases about half the amount of CO2 than emitted by burning coal. In addition to CO2, it also emits

nitrogen oxide and water vapour, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), carbon monoxide sulphur dioxide and heavy hydrocarbons and methane resulting from incomplete combustion. Although lower than the emissions of burning coal, they are still a far cry from being clean or a low emission energy source.

The Prime Minister announced the recent methane reduction regulation to reduce methane emissions by 75% by 2035, Alberta is the largest contributor of methane emissions producing 10.9 billion cubic feet per day of LNG, more so than any other province. The methane emissions from 425,000 uncapped and stranded wells that litter the Albertan landscape is underreported by 600%. Emissions could be reduced by sealing the wellbore, removing surface equipment, reclaiming and remediating the site and finally implementing long term monitoring of the site.

A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between Alberta (and other province) and the federal government will delay methane reduction targets until 2035, 5 years longer than what the Federal government’s methane regulations call for. By deferring Alberta’s compliance by 5 years, it will lead to another 1.9 million tonnes of atmospheric methane, the equivalent of annual emissions produced by half of Canada’s cars.

Under an Equivalency Agreement Alberta may use provincial regulation rather than stricter federal regulations as long as they meet their emission reduction target. Emissions could be reduced by sealing the wellbore, removing surface equipment, reclaiming and remediating the site and finally implementing long term monitoring of the site. Instead, the province is planning to use Carbon Capture & Sequestration (CCS) technology to meet their reduction target. CCS faces significant challenges and currently isn’t ready for commercial deployment. Scalability is another issue that makes it difficult for CCS technology deliver what’s promised. After 50 years of operation, CCS now removes 0.1% of greenhouse gases, woefully inadequate to make dent in achieving their 2035 reduction target.

To compound this, Prime Minister Carney is promising to double the production of oil, along with a pipeline to transport bitumen from the Tar Sands to port in British Columbia. Two new LNG facilities, both 100% foreign owned, have been announced as fast track major projects to double Canada’s LNG output.  This will increase greenhouse gas emissions significantly.

There are other sources of methane that are either not reported or underreported, including thawing peatlands, wildfires, broken equipment at oil sites, seepage of methane from coal mines, soil disturbance, landfills, dump sites, agriculture and sites producing less than 15 barrels a day that are exempt from strict oversight, thought to amount to 50% of the total of gas and oil emissions.

Peatlands are also a significant source of greenhouse gases. Canada holds 25% of the world’s peatlands. As permafrost thaws, the peatlands transition from a carbon sink to an emitter of methane and CO2.  A 2020 study estimated that a discrepancy of roughly 35 Mt CO2e per year in methane emissions from oil and gas land increase national annual methane estimates by about 40%.

Methane emissions require serious consideration. In order to predict, prepare and take climate action, we need accurate reporting. It is clear that the world will not meet its 2035, nor 2050 emission reduction targets, but by adding emissions rather than cutting them, we’re ensuring future generations will face a world that is essentially unhabitable.  Every increment in temperature results in increased severe and irreversible climate impacts. We can choose to continue down the fossil fuel path or seriously take climate action. It’s time to have a conversation about methane emissions.

Studies:

Boutot, Jade, and Mary Kang. “Renewable Energy Production Potential of Abandoned and Orphaned Oil and Gas Wells and Sites.”  Environmental Research Letters, vol. 20, no. 5, 28 Mar. 2025, pp. 054037–054037,   https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/adc6a0.Accessed 18 Nov. 2025.

Klotz, Louise A, et al. “Sevenfold Underestimation of Methane Emissions from Non-Producing Oil and Gas Wells in Canada.” Environmental Science & Technology, vol. 18, no. 59, 29 Apr. 2025,   https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.4c05602.

Howarth, Robert W. “The Greenhouse Gas Footprint of Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) Exported from the United States.” Energy Science & Engineering, vol. 12, no. 11, 3 Oct. 2024,   https://doi.org/10.1002/ese3.1934.

References

Howarth, Robert W. “The Greenhouse Gas Footprint of Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) Exported from the United States.” Energy Science & Engineering, vol. 12, no. 11, 3 Oct. 2024,   https://doi.org/10.1002/ese3.1934.

Klotz, Louise A, et al. “Sevenfold Underestimation of Methane Emissions from Non-Producing Oil and Gas Wells in Canada.” Environmental Science & Technology, vol. 18, no. 59, 29 Apr. 2025,   https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.4c05602.

Moseman, Andrew. “Why Do We Compare Methane to Carbon Dioxide over a 100-Year Timeframe? Are We Underrating the Importance of Methane Emissions?” MIT Climate Portal, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 28 June 2021, climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/why-do-we-compare-methane-carbon-dioxide-over-100-year-timeframe-are-we-underrating.

World Ocean Review. “Climate Change and Methane Hydrates «World Ocean Review.” Worldoceanreview.com, 2010, worldoceanreview.com/en/wor-1/ocean-chemistry/climate-change-and-methane-hydrates/.