Tuesday, March 14, 2023

The Environmental Implications Of A Hydrogen Economy

  • A new study has been published in Nature Communications, which shows that above a certain threshold, hydrogen emissions can react with the same molecule responsible for breaking down methane and lead to decades-long climate consequences.

  • This research poses environmental and technological concerns around hydrogen’s potential as a clean fuel and demands careful management of emissions from hydrogen production.

  • The risk is compounded for hydrogen production methods using methane as an input, further highlighting the critical need to manage and minimize emissions from hydrogen production.

Often heralded as the clean fuel of the future, new hydrogen research suggests that a leaky hydrogen infrastructure could end up increasing atmospheric methane levels. Hydrogen’s potential as a clean fuel could be limited by a chemical reaction in the lower atmosphere, which would cause decades-long climate consequences.

The research from Princeton University and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association has been published in Nature Communications, in which researchers modeled the effect of hydrogen emissions on atmospheric methane.

This is because hydrogen gas easily reacts in the atmosphere with the same molecule primarily responsible for breaking down methane, a potent greenhouse gas. If hydrogen emissions exceed a certain threshold, that shared reaction will likely lead to methane accumulating in the atmosphere with those decades-long climate consequences.

Matteo Bertagni, a postdoctoral researcher at the High Meadows Environmental Institute working on the Carbon Mitigation Initiative said, “Hydrogen is theoretically the fuel of the future. In practice, though, it poses many environmental and technological concerns that still need to be addressed.”

Bertagni is the first author of the research where it was found that above a certain threshold, even when replacing fossil fuel usage, a leaky hydrogen economy could cause near-term environmental harm by increasing the amount of methane in the atmosphere. The risk for harm is compounded for hydrogen production methods using methane as an input, highlighting the critical need to manage and minimize emissions from hydrogen production.

Amilcare Porporato, Thomas J. Wu ’94 Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering and the High Meadows Environmental Institute noted, “We have a lot to learn about the consequences of using hydrogen, so the switch to hydrogen, a seemingly clean fuel, doesn’t create new environmental challenges.” Porporato is a principal investigator and member of the Leadership Team for the Carbon Mitigation Initiative and is also associated faculty at the Andlinger Center for Energy and the Environment.

The problem boils down to one small, difficult-to-measure molecule known as the hydroxyl radical (OH). Often dubbed “the detergent of the troposphere,” OH plays a critical role in eliminating greenhouse gases such as methane and ozone from the atmosphere.

The hydroxyl radical also reacts with hydrogen gas in the atmosphere. And since a limited amount of OH is generated each day, any spike in hydrogen emissions means that more OH would be used to break down hydrogen, leaving less OH available to break down methane. As a consequence, methane would stay longer in the atmosphere, extending its warming impacts.

According to Bertagni, the effects of a hydrogen spike that might occur as government incentives for hydrogen production expand could have decades-long climate consequences for the planet.

Bertagni said, “If you emit some hydrogen into the atmosphere now, it will lead to a progressive build-up of methane in the following years. Even though hydrogen only has a lifespan of around two years in the atmosphere, you’ll still have the methane feedback from that hydrogen in 30 years from now.”

In the study, the researchers identified the tipping point at which hydrogen emissions would lead to an increase in atmospheric methane and thereby undermine some of the near-term benefits of hydrogen as a clean fuel. By identifying that threshold, the researchers established targets for managing hydrogen emissions.

“It’s imperative that we are proactive in establishing thresholds for hydrogen emissions, so that they can be used to inform the design and implementation of future hydrogen infrastructure,” said Porporato.

For hydrogen referred to as green hydrogen, which is produced by splitting water into hydrogen and oxygen using electricity from renewable sources, Bertagni said that the critical threshold for hydrogen emissions sits at around 9%. That means that if more than 9% of the green hydrogen produced leaks into the atmosphere, whether that be at the point of production, sometime during transport, or anywhere else along the value chain, atmospheric methane would increase over the next few decades, canceling out some of the climate benefits of switching away from fossil fuels.

And for blue hydrogen, which refers to hydrogen produced via methane reforming with subsequent carbon capture and storage, the threshold for emissions is even lower. Because methane itself is the primary input for the process of methane reforming, blue hydrogen producers have to consider direct methane leakage in addition to hydrogen leakage. For example, the researchers found that even with a methane leakage rate as low as 0.5%, hydrogen leakages would have to be kept under around 4.5% to avoid increasing atmospheric methane concentrations.

“Managing leakage rates of hydrogen and methane will be critical,” Bertagni said. “If you have just a small amount of methane leakage and a bit of hydrogen leakage, then the blue hydrogen that you produce really might not be much better than using fossil fuels, at least for the next 20 to 30 years.”

The researchers emphasized the importance of the time scale over which the effect of hydrogen on atmospheric methane is considered. Bertagni said that in the long-term (over the course of a century, for instance), the switch to a hydrogen economy would still likely deliver net benefits to the climate, even if methane and hydrogen leakage levels are high enough to cause near-term warming. Eventually, he said, atmospheric gas concentrations would reach a new equilibrium, and the switch to a hydrogen economy would demonstrate its climate benefits. But before that happens, the potential near-term consequences of hydrogen emissions might lead to irreparable environmental and socioeconomic damage.

Thus, if institutions hope to meet mid-century climate goals, Bertagni cautioned that hydrogen and methane leakage to the atmosphere must be held in check as hydrogen infrastructure begins to roll out. And because hydrogen is a small molecule that is notoriously difficult to control and measure, he explained that managing emissions will likely require researchers to develop better methods for tracking hydrogen losses across the value chain.

“If companies and governments are serious about investing money to develop hydrogen as a resource, they have to make sure they are doing it correctly and efficiently,” Bertagni said. “Ultimately, the hydrogen economy has to be built in a way that won’t counteract the efforts in other sectors to mitigate carbon emissions.”

***

There are lots of “ifs” revealed with this kind of research. Hydrogen isn’t formed for free or even particularly efficiently so far. Storage and transport is very much up in the air with lots of seemingly good ideas forthcoming. But none seem to be in that 100% contained zone.

At the consumption end little thought is offered on the volatility and danger in having hydrogen out as a consumer product.

Finally now we can see that freed hydrogen isn’t simply going to whiz off into outer space. First round modeling shows one significant problem.

Nature figured out hundreds of millions of years ago that the best energy store on this planet is hydrogen linked to carbon. There is a lesson from the past . . .

Hydrogen linked to carbon has covered the earth with life.

By Brian Westenhaus via New Energy and Fuel


 

Why It’s Still Not Clear Who’s Behind The Nord Stream Blasts

  • On September 27, Swedish scientists said they had detected seismic waves from explosions a day earlier.

  • Both a Greek-flagged tanker and a chartered yacht have been under investigation for possible involvement.

  • The New York Times, citing unnamed U.S. officials, reported on March 6 that intelligence suggested that a "pro-Ukrainian group" was responsible.

In the first half of September 2022, a Greek-flagged tanker sailed eastward from the Dutch port of Rotterdam, into the Baltic Sea and a busy channel plied by dozens of ships weekly en route to major German, Russian, and other Baltic ports.

Marine traffic tracking data showed the tanker stopped east of a Danish island, drifted for nearly week in the same location, then continued its journey east.

About two weeks later, a series of undersea explosions erupted at nearly the same location, destroying parts of the Nord Stream 1 and 2 pipelines, major conduits for Russian natural gas deliveries to Germany and points beyond in Europe.

The revelations about the tanker and its route were made initially by a Finnish newspaper and then last week in an investigative report by Denmark's public broadcaster.

Along with revelations that German police had searched a yacht chartered in a German port by people who reportedly showed Ukrainian passports, the details provide new pieces to the mysterious puzzle of what caused the undersea blasts and who might be responsible – but fall short of a solution.

Here's what you need to know.

What Exactly Happened With The Pipelines?

For years, the Russian-backed pipelines had been a point of contention between Europe and the United States, which warned that they deepened Europe's dependence on Russian energy. Ukraine also was a loud and persistent critic of the project; Kyiv stood to lose valuable revenues from Europe-bound Russian pumped through Ukraine's sprawling pipeline network.

Gas supplies had been curtailed since the beginning of Russia's large-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, which led to a drastic shift by nearly all European countries away from Russian energy. The pipelines were not operational at the time of the explosions, but they did contain gas.

On September 27, Swedish scientists said they had detected seismic waves from explosions a day earlier that were pinpointed to a site on the Baltic seabed more than 100 meters beneath the surface.

Denmark's military later released video of a bubbling swirl of gases on the sea surface over the site.

Western authorities eventually concluded that the pipelines had been partially destroyed by explosives. U.S. officials called the blasts sabotage and European authorities later said that the sophistication of the incident -- in particular the depths at which the explosives would have been placed -- pointed to a state actor with access to complex diving equipment and detonators.

And There's A Greek Tanker Involved?

Last month, the Finnish newspaper Verkkouutiset published a report based on marine tracking data; like airplanes, most commercial ships around the world carry transponders that allow parent companies or maritime insurers or law enforcement agencies to track their whereabouts.

The data homed in on the Minerva Julie, a 183-meter Greek-flagged oil and chemical tanker that departed the North Sea port of Rotterdam on September 2. It sailed into the Baltic, north of the Danish island of Bornholm, and three days later it stopped moving eastward.

For the following week, the tracking data shows, the ship drifted back and forth, with engines on and off, in close proximity to the site where the blasts erupted two weeks after that.

According to the Danish broadcaster TV 2, the ship drifted within 500 meters of the site several times and passed over the pipelines more broadly 29 times.

The ship then continued east, stopping in Tallinn, the Estonian capital on September 14, and then later sailing to St. Petersburg, Russia.

Maritime experts said it was not necessarily unusual that a ship would stop mid-journey and drift in one location for some time -- for example, awaiting new sailing orders from corporate owners.

The Athens-based owner of the Greek tanker, Minerva Marine, did not immediately respond to a request for comment from RFE/RL.

But the company released a statement in response to earlier press inquiries, confirming the ship had drifted in the location detailed by marine data and saying it had been awaiting voyage orders.

TV 2 also highlighted previous reporting from Russian journalist Aleksandr Nevzorov that said one of the co-owners of Minerva Marine had met in the past with top Russian officials, including President Vladimir Putin. And Ukrainian officials have asserted the company has shipped Russian coal and oil in violation of European Union sanctions.

Russia has denied it was behind the blasts.

What Were German Authorities Doing With the Chartered Yacht?

This past January, German federal authorities searched a cruising yacht that had been chartered in the German post of Rostock. The ship was later identified as the Andromeda, a 15-meter cruising yacht.

The search of the yacht, German investigators said in a March 8 e-mail to RFE/RL, was conducted based on suspicions that "the vessel in question may have been used to transport explosive devices" involved in the explosions.

"The evaluation of the seized traces and objects is ongoing," they said. "Reliable statements, in particular on the question of state involvement, cannot be made at the present time."

A satellite image shows gas from the Nord Stream pipeline bubbling up in the water following incidents in the Baltic Sea, in this handout picture released on September 29, 2022, by Russia's Roscosmos agency.

German media, including Der Spiegel and Die Zeit, reported that the Andromeda had been chartered by a group of six people, some of whom showed Ukrainian passports for identification, and set sail from the German port of Rostock on September 6. The entity that chartered the ship was a Polish company owned by two Ukrainians, Die Zeit said.

Investigators also found traces of explosives on a table in the yacht's cabin.

Die Zeit, which collaborated with German broadcaster ARD and other media, did not specify sourcing for its report, but said its sources were based in several countries.

The newspaper Sueddeutsche Zeitung reported on March 12 that some in the group may have shown Bulgarian passports.

The Andromeda, which is small enough to not carry marine tracking beacons, is believed to have departed Rostock on September 6 and made two stops over the following days: in another German port, Wiek, and on another Danish island, Christianso, Die Zeit and The Wall Street Journal reported. Christianso is located about 30 kilometers northeast of Bornholm.

There is no known indication of a connection between the Minerva Julia and Andromeda.

So, Who Did It Then?

That's still very much unclear.

German media have reported that not long after the explosions, an unnamed Western intelligence agency communicated to European security agencies that a Ukrainian commando group was responsible.

But according to Sueddeutsche Zeitung, the intelligence, which it said came from the CIA, was based on "intercepted Russian communications" and was discounted.

The New York Times, citing unnamed U.S. officials, reported on March 6 that intelligence suggested that a "pro-Ukrainian group" was responsible and that the explosives had likely been placed with the help of "experienced divers who did not appear to be working for military or intelligence services."

"The review of newly collected intelligence suggests [the possible perpetrators] were opponents of President Vladimir Putin of Russia, but does not specify the members of the group, or who directed or paid for the operation," the report said.

The Ukrainian government had previously denied any involvement in the explosions. The new reporting from the Times in particular prompted a retort from a top adviser to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy, Mykhaylo Podolyak, who repeated that Ukraine had nothing to do with the incident.

The Times of London, meanwhile, on the same day that German investigators confirmed the search of the Andromeda, pointed the finger at an "influential figure" who bankrolled the sabotage operation "involving a yacht, elite divers, forged passports and the procurement of shaped explosive charges only available to the gas and oil industry with a specific license and at great cost."

"If you looked at these details, like them going out there, with a small yacht, during September conditions, in this area, it all sounds a little bit, well, adventurous," said Julian Pawlak, a research associate at the German Institute for Defense and Strategic Studies in Hamburg.

Pawlak also cited earlier reports from European officials as saying that it would take several hundred kilograms of explosives to cause the damage observed on the pipelines.

"How this would have been done would have been interesting, well, interesting," he told RFE/RL.

"It sounds like they would be a professional group with professional IDs and all, and yet they seem to be not so professional," he said. "They leave such blind evidence on the table?"

What About Seymour Hersh?

In early February, Hersh, a prize-winning American investigative journalist, published a report in his blog on Substack that claimed the Nord Stream pipelines were bombed by the United States.

The February 8 article drew wide attention and was embraced quickly by Russian officials -- but it also drew widespread criticism for, among other things, its reliance on a single anonymous source.

Open-source researchers from Bellingcat and other investigative outfits also pointed to marine traffic data and other details to argue that Hersh's article had major holes.

In an interview published on March 13, Nikolai Patrushev, who is the head of Putin's Security Council and known for espousing conspiracy theories about the West, again denied Russia's involvement and suggested, without providing evidence, that either the United States or Britain was behind the blasts.Others who have voiced suspicion that the United States was responsible have pointed to a statement by U.S. President Joe Biden, who just days before Russia's February 24, 2022, invasion, said: "If Russia invades, that means tanks and troops crossing the border of Ukraine again, then there will be no longer a Nord Stream 2. We will bring an end to it."

On February 8, White House National Security Council spokeswoman Adrienne Watson dismissed the allegation in Hersh's article as "utterly false and complete fiction."Former Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski, meanwhile, posted a photo of the blast site on Twitter on the same day as reports first emerged saying: "Thank You, USA." He later deleted the tweet.

By RFE/RL

Ban On IOCs In Iraqi Kurdistan May Be Lifted

  •  International Oil Companies (IOCs)

  • IOCs had effectively been banned from operating in both the north and the south of Iraq.

  • The deal between Baghdad and the KRG about oil sales and its proceeds has not worked out as it should.

  • The FGI’s reinvigorated toughness last year on the KRG’s independent sale of oil from the north indicates that Russian companies lost influence.

The recent signing by Iraq’s federal government in Baghdad of three long-term oil and gas sector contracts with the UAE’s Crescent Petroleum – a company also heavily involved in the same sectors of Iraq’s semi-autonomous region of Kurdistan – may indicate that the ban on international oil companies (IOCs) trying to operate in both regions has now been relaxed by Baghdad.  Crescent Petroleum has been highly active in Kurdistan since it and its affiliate, Dana Gas, signed agreements in April 2007 with the government of the semi-autonomous Kurdistan region for the development of its gas resources. The company is still integral to the development, processing, and transportation of natural gas from the Khor Mor and Chemchemal Gas Fields to provide natural gas supplies for power generation plants near Erbil and Sulaymaniyah in the Kurdistan region. 

Meanwhile, the recent three 20-year contracts signed between Iraq’s Oil Ministry in Baghdad and Crescent Petroleum are focused on the evaluation, development and production of oil and gas from two blocks in the Diyala Governorate, adjacent to Kirkuk and Sulaymaniyah in the north, and one in the Basra Governorate in the south. According to comments from the Iraq’s Oil Ministry, the Diyala Governorate’s Gilabat-Qumar and Khashim Ahmer-Injana fields will be developed with a target to produce 250 million standard cubic feet per day (MMscfd) of non-associated gas at first. The Khider Al-Mai block in the Basra Governorate will be focal point for Crescent Petroleum’s development efforts in the south. 

This news will be highly welcome to several IOCs that from the middle of last year had effectively been banned from operating in both the north and the south of Iraq, as demarcated by the regions governed by either the Federal Government of Iraq (FGI) in Baghdad or the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) in Erbil. For several years, there had been intermittent legal battles between the two governments on the right, or not, of the KRG to develop its oil own and gas resources and then to sell them independently of the FGI. 

Legally, the issue is highly debatable as to whether the KRG can sell the oil and gas produced from fields in its own region. According to the KRG, it has authority under Articles 112 and 115 of the Iraq Constitution to manage oil and gas in the Kurdistan Region extracted from fields that were not in production in 2005 – the year that the Constitution was adopted by referendum. The KRG also maintains that Article 115 states: “All powers not stipulated in the exclusive powers of the federal government belong to the authorities of the regions and governorates that are not organised in a region.” As such, the KRG posits that as relevant powers are not otherwise stipulated in the Constitution, it has the authority to sell and receive revenue from its oil and gas exports. The KRG also highlights that the Constitution provides that should a dispute arise then priority shall be given to the law of the regions and governorates. 

However, the FGI in Baghdad and Iraq’s State Organization for Marketing of Oil (SOMO) argue that under Article 111 of the Constitution oil and gas are under the ownership of all the people of Iraq in all the regions and governorates. Consequently, they believe that all oil and gas developed across all of Iraq should be sold through official channels of the central Federal Government of Iraq in Baghdad. As long ago as 2014, the FGI showed its no-nonsense approach to enforcing this view, with Iraq’s Oil Ministry, represented by SOMO, threatening to sue any buyer lifting Kurdish crude oil. The previous five months in 2014 had seen more than 11 million barrels of Kurdish crude exported through the Iraq-Turkey Pipeline (ITP) and delivered to destinations such as Israel, China and Croatia, according to international legal sources close to the parties, exclusively spoken to by OilPrice.com at the time. Shortly after this, SOMO initiated proceedings in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas against the ‘United Kalavyvata’, which had allegedly been carrying one such cargo of oil from Kurdistan. 

It was thought that a practical solution to this enduring legal problem had been agreed by both sides in November 2014 in a budget disbursement-for-oil deal agreed between the FGI and KRG. The deal was that the KRG would export up to 550,000 barrels per day (bpd) of oil from the northern region of Kurdistan’s oilfields and Kirkuk via the FGI’s Baghdad-based SOMO in the south. In return, Baghdad would send 17 percent of the federal budget (after sovereign expenses) - around US$500 million at that time - per month in budget payments to the Kurds. 

Although apparently fair to both sides, the agreement rarely functioned as it should. The KRG frequently, and accurately, was cited by the FGI in Baghdad for selling oil independently of SOMO, and the FGI in Baghdad was frequently, and accurately, cited by the KRG for not disbursing the requisite funds from the budget on time or in the correct amounts. This already difficult situation was complicated further by the involvement initially of Iran and then of Russia after it effectively took control of the northern Iraq oil sector in 2017, as analysed in-depth in my latest book on the global oil markets

Any hopes held by IOCs that the FGI’s view might have softened towards them doing business in both the north and the south of Iraq appeared to have been squashed by a letter sent on 2 June 2022 by Hassan Muhammad Hassan, the deputy director general of the state-run Basra Oil Company (BOC). In the letter, he called on “all lead contractors and sub-contractors” of IOCs working in Iraqi Kurdistan to pledge that they would no longer work in Kurdistan and that any current contracts should be terminated within three months. This was followed by an order from the BOC director general, Khalid Abbas, to “all lead contractors” that ordered them to “suspend dealing with the following subcontractors and never invite them to any future works or projects in BOC oil fields as per the licensing contracts signed with your companies”. According to local reports, multiple oil companies working in the northern Iraq Kurdistan region at the time (including DNO, Western Zagros, Gulf Keystone, Genel Energy, and ShaMaran Petroleum) also received personalised letters on 19 May 2022 that summoned them to appear at the Commercial Court in Baghdad on 5 June that year. 

These moves had been presaged by two landmark legal rulings made in February 2022 by the Supreme Court of the FGI in Baghdad, analysed in depth at the time by OilPrice.com. The first of these rulings was that sales of oil and gas by the KRG, done independently of the central government in Baghdad, were unconstitutional and that the KRG had to hand over all oil production to the FGI, represented by the Oil Ministry. The second ruling, and an even greater direct threat to all oil and gas operations of IOCs operating in the northern region, was that the Oil Ministry had the right to: “Follow up on the invalidity of oil contracts concluded by the Kurdistan Regional Government with foreign parties, countries and companies regarding oil exploration, extraction, export and sale.” 

The FGI’s reinvigorated toughness last year on the KRG’s independent sale of oil from the north may have been a function of how badly Russia was doing in its invasion of Ukraine. There had been a distinct lull in such a tough approach after Russia had effectively taken over the KRG’s oil industry in 2017 to when it became clear by the middle of last year that the Russian military machine was not what it once had been, and probably nor was the political shrewdness of President Vladimir Putin either. The potential reappearance of a softer line from the FGI now, though, is unlikely to have resulted from a change in this FGI view of Russia or Putin. Instead, it is likely to have resulted from a renewed desire to bring northern Iraq closer to the central government in Baghdad to present a more united front to a replacement superpower sponsor to Russia. 

In this context, alongside the recent deals signed by Crescent Petroleum were other deals signed by Chinese firms, including the erstwhile little-known Geo-Jade Petroleum Company (which won two - Huwaiza, in Missan, and Naft Khana, in Diyala), and its United Energy Group (which won Sindbad in Basra). However, it is also apposite to note that Baghdad has a long and successful history, from its perspective, in inveigling the U.S. into extending waivers for it to keep importing gas and electricity from Iran and into bailing out its budget by dangling such rivalries under Washington’s nose.

By Simon Watkins for Oilprice.com

Canadian Government Orders Oil Sands Firm To Contain Tailings Leak

The federal government of Canada has ordered Imperial Oil, the operator of the Kearl oil sands project, to contain a leak of tailings water that occurred last year but was only reported months later.

The tailings leak is harmful to wildlife as it contains dangerous levels of arsenic, metals, and hydrocarbons, the Globe and Mail reported, citing Environment and Climate Change Canada—the government agency in charge of environmental protection.

"Based on information enforcement officers have to date, the seep is believed to be deleterious, or harmful, to fish," a spokeswoman for Environment and Climate Change Canada said, as quoted by the National Observer.

“On March 10, 2023, enforcement officers issued a Fisheries Act direction to Imperial Oil. The direction requires immediate action to contain the seep and prevent it from entering a fish-bearing water body," she also said.

The testing of samples from the leak comes months after it actually began because the Alberta energy regulator, whom Imperial Oil informed about the leak as soon as it detected it, failed to pass on the message to the federal government until nine months later.

Unsurprisingly, the federal environment minister and head of Environment and Climate Change Canada said it was “very worrisome” that Alberta’s energy regulator had failed to inform the government about events at the Kearl mine.

Imperial Oil, meanwhile, said that it had installed water pumps at the site to prevent the leaked tailings from entering the nearby lake and plans to collect the fish from that lake and install a barrier to prevent more fish from migrating into the area, the Globe and Mail also wrote.

"We need to see a clear remediation plan from the company and to better understand the apparent failures of communication for the notification of this spill," Environment Minister Steven Guilbeault said earlier this month, as quoted by Reuters.

The Kearl oil sands project has reserves of some 4.6 billion barrels of recoverable bitumen, according to Imperial Oil. Production at the facility began in 2013 and ramped up to 220,000 barrels daily in 2015.

By Charles Kennedy for Oilprice.com