Liquefied Gas Blows Away Pipeline Gas And Coal In Emissions To Europe, Asia
Originally published on Forbes.com on December 17, 2024
New data on integrated greenhouse emissions of LNG exported to Europe, and Asia are critical to the incoming Trump administration and the future of the LNG golden age.
Everyone knows that coal burns twice as dirty as liquefied natural gas (LNG), insofar as emitting greenhouse gases (GHG) such as carbon dioxide, and CO2. But comparing pipeline gas with LNG is something new, and is relevant to Europe and Asia which import a lot of pipeline gas, even after Europe shut down Russia’s supply after 2022.
The 2024 analysis by BRG Energy makes these comparisons. The report presents a lot of insightful data and the conclusions are critical, especially for exports of LNG from the U.S. to Europe and Asia. This is because future exports of LNG will have stricter limits placed on their life-cycle GHG intensity by these importers.
This write-up follows a recent report about President-elect Trump likely to rescind the LNG pause once he is in office, which will enable the golden age of LNG to continue.

Comparing Emissions For Supplies To Europe.
In Figure 1, USLNG refers to exports of LNG from the U.S. to Europe. The black bars in the right panel are CO2 emissions released when gas or coal is burned in power plants. The small black bars in the other two panels are CO2 emissions from burning off gas (flaring) at wellheads, drilling and fracking motors, or trucks and other transport engines. The turquoise bars are methane, CH4, which corresponds to methane leaks or vents during production or transport. For USLNG, the emissions of CO2 and CH4 in the figure are about 50:50.
The figure raises several points. First, in emissions, USLNG is on par with pipeline gas but blows away coal. Since these are averages, the report looked at individual pipelines to understand this better. Norway gas is close by which is partly why its emissions are 25% less than USLNG. Azerbaijan has about the same emissions. But pipeline gas from Algeria and Russia have about 25% greater emissions than USLNG.
Second, emissions from burning the fuels (downstream) eclipse the emissions in production and transport (upstream and midstream). This is the source of the attitude, expressed by a colleague last week, “Why should we in the U.S. worry about reducing our footprint emissions because these are dominated by burning of the fuels?” Climate environmentalists would answer, “That’s why you have to cut back drilling and fracking of oil and gas wells, to reduce the dominance of fuel-burning emissions.”
Third, if the upstream and midstream sectors of the figure are added together, for LNG or pipeline gas, the level of emissions rises to about half of the fuel-burning emissions. So, it is still worth cleaning up the production and transport footprints for these energies.
Fourth, the burning of LNG or pipeline gas is a bit less than half of the emissions from burning coal (righthand panel of Figures 1, 2). This makes it clear that gas should be used to displace coal in Europe and Asia, and it explains why gas in either form is a bridge fuel to additional renewable resources.

Comparing Emissions In Supplies To Asia.
As in Figure 1, GHG emissions from burning coal are much greater than from burning gas (right panel). But unlike Figure 1 for Europe, USLNG blows away pipeline gas regarding emissions. Methane leaks and vents seem to be a big problem in the upstream pipeline from Turkmenistan, while emissions from the Russian pipeline (which is in Asia) are about the same as USLNG. This is less of a problem in midstream (central panel), where CO2 and CH4 are roughly the same.
Last, USLNG blows away pipeline gas and coal in Asia, with one exception: Pipeline gas from Russia, which is in Asia, is on a par with USLNG. Other than this, Asia will be a welcome market for USLNG for many years to come, to displace coal. This may be less true in Russia, which has its pipeline gas, but will be especially true in countries of Southeast Asia.
What This Means For The Incoming Trump Administration.
The message from Figures 1 and 2 is that it’s still worth cleaning up the production and transport emission footprints for USLNG. The U.S. has been taking action here, with new rules from the EPA that limit gas flaring and methane leaks from wellheads, storage tanks, and pipelines. This will accelerate with new measurements from MethaneSAT, the new satellite from EDF that in 2025 will begin to publish methane leaks for free use by oil and gas companies, and regulators.
Despite his stated hesitancy about climate change, incoming president Trump should support these efforts to reduce GHG emissions on U.S. soil and when transported overseas. For one big reason—it’s the golden age of LNG exports for the U.S. Overseas buyers of LNG, including Europe and Southeast Asia, want cleaner products, and they are setting limits.
In this respect, larger companies that deal in LNG have pushed to keep government regulations in place, but smaller companies do not so much. The U.S. government should recommend that emission levels be monitored and verified by a third party, for transparency. Such a third party should have worldwide accreditation for reporting and verification of full-cycle LNG emissions.
What The Data Tells Us About Scope 1,2,3 Emissions.
The dominance of fuel-burning emissions in the righthand panels of Figures 1 and 2 is the origin of Scope 3 emissions. Scope 1 refers to emissions directly responsible to a company, such as diesel motors used for fracking. Scope 2 refers to emissions indirectly responsible to a company, such as electricity used in their frac data van.
Scope 3 is emissions that come from products a company makes and then sells, such as oil and gas. The responsibility for Scope 3 emissions is debatable. Figure 1 shows that the Scope 3 downstream emissions exceed Scope 1 emissions of upstream and midstream totaled, by about a factor of 2 for USLNG and pipeline gas, meaning Scope 3 is 67% of total emissions for gas.
The difference is by a factor of 4 for coal numbers in Figure 1, meaning Scope 3 is 80% of total emissions for gas. This accords with independent estimates that insist Scope 3 is the dominant fraction of total emissions and sometimes approaches 95%.
Natural gas with its lower Scope 3 emissions in Figures 1 and 2 is a desirable bridge fuel in any energy transition toward low-carbon renewables.
This finding also highlights Occidental, an oil and gas company who has committed to net-zero emissions by 2050 including Scope 3 emissions. This is much harder to achieve than reducing just Scope 1 and 2 emissions. Most other oil and gas companies do not include reducing Scope 3 emissions to net zero.