Illinois CO2 Sequestration Monitoring Well Leak: Needs Repair but Not a Danger to Aquifer Thousands of Feet Above It

 

     CO2 leakage from CCS projects, either from pipelines or from the ground itself is a real concern with CCS. CO2 is a fluid that is more buoyant, or “energized” than other subsurface fluids. Thus, trapping and sealing are very important for evaluating potential CO2 sequestration reservoirs and for keeping the fluids from leaking or migrating out of the reservoir. This has happened on a few occasions due to the injection rate exceeding the fracture gradient of the reservoir rocks, essentially unintentionally hydraulically fracturing the reservoir. That is very rare, however, and should be fairly easy to avoid with good evaluation. Using CO2 as a working fluid for enhanced oil recovery (EOR) has given scientists and industry personnel a good idea of the subsurface behavior of CO2 in those contexts.

     The recent acknowledgment of fluid migration at Archer Daniels Midland (ADM) CCS project monitoring well in their Decatur, Illinois project has caused some concerns, but it is extremely unlikely to affect nearly a mile above the zone of migration due to many low permeability confining layers between the zone and the aquifers. The project has been in operation for a decade. A previous monitoring well leak resulted in that well being plugged in October 2023. The company reported the new leak as they are required to do. “Noise” logs indicate that fluid has migrated into zones the project was not designed to do. However, it is better described as unintentional fluid migration in terms of the reservoir. It is a well leak and not a reservoir leak. The zone to which the fluid migrated was not authorized to collect CO2 according to the Class VI injection well permit conditions. Thus, the EPA issued a Proposed Order requiring ADM to take action to ensure the safety of the project. According to the EPA:

“The proposed order will require ADM to take compliance measures at its well, including implementing provisions of the permit’s emergency and remedial response plan. These measures include identification and implementation of remedial actions. The order also requires a comprehensive evaluation of the fluid migration and that the company take the necessary steps to address the alleged violations.”

“The fluid migration was caused by holes in one of ADM’s monitoring wells. According to the company, the lower portion of the well has been plugged to stop further fluid migration. The movement of fluid into an unauthorized zone is an alleged violation of the EPA’s underground injection regulations and ADM’s operating permit. EPA also alleges that ADM failed to monitor the Class VI injection well in accordance with the permit.”

     Thus, there is indeed a leak in one of the monitoring wells and it is likely that the leak can be repaired.

     Oddly perhaps, according to the Center Square article referenced below a Republican state senator, Chapin Rose blamed Democrat policies for the leak:

“This is exactly what I was sounding the alarm about back in May when Democrats were ramming through their supposedly ‘green’ Carbon Sequestration bill,” Rose said on Sept. 13. “This is exactly why that bill should not have passed, why Governor Pritzker should never have signed that bill. Because it leaves the Mahomet Aquifer exposed to this exact danger. And this is why my legislation … which would protect the aquifer from CO2 injection needs to be passed immediately.”

It is not at all feasible that any fluid would migrate that far up section in the subsurface to reach a drinking water aquifer without a permeable pathway.

     Democrats in the state are now advocating for a bill to “to prohibit carbon sequestration activity over, under, or through a sole-source aquifer.” However, Illinois governor, J.B. Pritzker, a Democrat, is rightly skeptical of the need for such a bill, which environmental groups support.

     As I read some LinkedIn posts and mostly commentary about the monitoring well leak I see that the monitoring well is an uncommon design unique to the ADM project in that it penetrates the confining interval and that most operators prefer “indirect monitoring in wells that TD above the injection targets to avoid any mishaps.”  Corrosion is also thought to be an issue with the failure of the monitoring well, we know that CO2 is very corrosive in the presence of water and that corrosion monitoring will always be needed in CCS projects. One commentator noted that corrosion was found in two of the monitoring wells.

     The ADM CCS project injects into a deep saline reservoir, the Cambrian-aged Mt. Simon Sandstone, as depicted below.

 

     On October 4, ADM released more information about the issue including the following:

 

What Happened

• Currently ADM has a CO2 injection well supported by two deep monitoring wells installed for downhole monitoring and periodic fluid sampling more than 5,000 feet below ground level. ADM’s CCS operation has extensive monitoring in place to ensure that it promptly detects and can address any issues detected.

• In 2023, ADM detected some corrosion in a section of one of our deep monitoring wells at approximately 5,000 feet. That monitoring well was plugged in October 2023 and is not being used. Given the extreme depth of the fluid and the multiple layers of shale and other confining rock up to the surface, at no time was there an impact to the surface or groundwater sources, nor any threat to public health.

• In March 2024, ADM discovered an anomaly in a rock layer known as the Ironton-Galesville at an approximate depth of 5,000 feet. This rock layer, while still several thousand feet below domestic water wells, is just above the zone where ADM is permitted to inject, which is 5,553 to 7,043 feet in depth.

• ADM sent fluid samples for independent testing to assess the anomaly. ADM received the independent testing report in late July 2024, which confirmed CO2 had entered a different rock zone at a depth of approximately 5,000 feet, just above the zone where ADM is permitted to inject.

 

What ADM Is Doing

• ADM plugged deep monitoring well #2 in October 2023. For deep monitoring well #1, we are currently conducting additional diagnostic tests in close consultation with U.S. EPA and external experts.

• We detected, evaluated and addressed these developments as we learned about them, reported them to U.S. EPA, and continue to work closely with the agency to respond to their follow-up questions.

• ADM will use separate, dedicated wells for sampling above and below the CO2 confining zone in new deep monitoring wells.

We will also work with U.S. EPA to update the configuration of our two existing deep monitoring wells.

• ADM is a global pioneer in the development of CCS and will continue to invest and advance this critical technology.

 

   CCS reservoir engineer Tahir Chisti made the following comments about the leak for project operators to consider:

𝗞𝗲𝘆 𝗧𝗮𝗸𝗲𝗮𝘄𝗮𝘆𝘀 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗖𝗖𝗦 𝗢𝗽𝗲𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗼𝗿𝘀:

1. Proactive Maintenance: Regular checks and maintenance are vital to identify corrosion and prevent well integrity failures.

2. Material Selection: Corrosion resistant materials for tubing and casing that can withstand CO2 and water interactions is crucial to prevent integrity failures.

3. Emergency Preparedness: Having and following a robust emergency response plan is non-negotiable.

4. Regulatory Adherence: Compliance with all regulations and permits is essential to avoid legal repercussions.

5. Transparent Communication: Keeping open lines with regulatory bodies and stakeholders is crucial for effective incident management.

 

References:

Move underway to protect Illinois aquifer from carbon sequestration leaks. Greg Bishop. The Center Square. October 7, 2024. Move underway to protect Illinois aquifer from carbon sequestration leaks (msn.com)

EPA Announces Proposed Order Requiring Archer Daniels Midland Co. to Take Actions to Ensure Safe Operation of its Carbon Sequestration Well in Decatur, Illinois. September 19, 2024. U.S. EPA. EPA Announces Proposed Order Requiring Archer Daniels Midland Co. to Take Actions to Ensure Safe Operation of its Carbon Sequestration Well in Decatur, Illinois | US EPA

US EPA Permit Number IL-115-6A-001 Follow up Report regarding Preliminary Data. Archer Daniels Midland (ADM). September 27, 2024. Scanned Document (townnews.com)

ADM Monitoring Well Developments: Factual Overview and Timeline. Archer Daniels Midland. October 4, 2024. ccs-monitoring-well-developments-overview_100424-2.pdf (adm.com)

𝗟𝗲𝗮𝗿𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗔𝗗𝗠 𝗗𝗲𝗰𝗮𝘁𝘂𝗿 𝗖𝗢𝟮 𝗟𝗲𝗮𝗸𝗮𝗴𝗲 𝗠𝗼𝗻𝗶𝘁𝗼𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗪𝗲𝗹𝗹 𝗜𝗻𝗰𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗻𝘁. Tahir Chisti. Linked In post. September 2024. (25) Post | Feed | LinkedIn

Carbon Mapper Coalition's Tanager-1 Satellite with NASA-JPL Spectrometer Releases First Detection Plume Images of Methane and CO2 Plumes

 

     The first three images from Carbon Mapper Coalition’s Tanager-1 satellite have been released. The satellite was launched on August 16, 2024. It carries a NASA-Jet Propulsion Lab-designed spectrometer. Tanager-1 was built by Planet Labs PBC. Both Planet Labs PBC and JPL are members of the Carbon Mapper Coalition.

     The first image is a 2.5-mile (4 km) long methane plume over a landfill in Karachi, Pakistan, generated on September 19, 2024. The source emissions rate is more than 2,600 lbs. (1,200 kg) of methane released per hour.

 

     The second image is a nearly 2-mile (3 km) long CO2 plume from a coal-fired power plant in Kendal, South Africa, also generated on September 19. The source emissions rate is estimated at roughly 1.3 million lbs. (600,000 kg) of CO2 per hour.

 

     The third image is from south of the city of Midland, Texas in the Permian Basin oil & gas field. It was generated on September 24, 2024. The preliminary estimate of the source emissions rate is nearly 900 lbs. (400 kg) of methane per hour.

     If we compare the estimated source emissions rates of the three images, we can see that in terms of weight, the coal emissions are 500 times higher than the landfill emissions and 1500 times higher than the emissions of the Texas oilfield emissions. If we adjust that for the higher global warming potential of methane (I simply used 20 times rate) relative to CO2, then the coal emissions are 25 times higher than the landfill emissions and 75 times higher than the oilfield emissions. Perhaps that gives some perspective to the relative emissions of each source.

     As an exercise, if one were to replace the coal plant with a combined cycle natural gas plant with the most efficient gas turbine technology, that would decrease the emissions by 60%, or down to 240,000 kg/hour. That would bring the adjusted emissions of the gas plant down to 10 times higher than the landfill and 13.35 times higher than the oilfield.

 

     The Phys.org article notes:

 

“…the imaging spectrometer aboard Tanager-1 can measure hundreds of wavelengths of light reflected from Earth's surface. Each chemical compound on the ground and in the atmosphere reflects and absorbs different combinations of wavelengths, which give it a "spectral fingerprint" that researchers can identify. Using this approach, Tanager-1 will help researchers detect and measure emissions down to the facility level.”

 

“Once in full operation, the spacecraft will scan about 116,000 square miles (300,000 square kilometers) of Earth's surface per day. Methane and carbon dioxide measurements collected by Tanager-1 will be publicly available on the Carbon Mapper data portal.”

 

     Looking at the Carbon Mapper Portal I noticed that many of the images presumably from other satellites are fairly similar to the images from the new satellite. I also noticed that the website showed emissions data for some local landfills but not others in my region. Thus, I don’t think the coverage is comprehensive. I am not sure how satellite data is focused on different regions and how many images they can handle so it may just be an issue of the vastness of the database and perhaps how often images are taken for each facility.

 

 

References:

First greenhouse gas plumes detected with NASA-designed instrument. NASA. October 10, 2024. First greenhouse gas plumes detected with NASA-designed instrument (msn.com)

Carbon Mapper Data Portal. Dashboard | Carbon Mapper

 

 

While I Mostly Agree with Conservative Climate Scientist Roy Spencer’s Op-Ed That Climate Change is Not a Crisis, I Also Know His Willingness to Put Politics Ahead of Science by His Embarrassing Denial of Trump’s 2020 Election Loss

 

     Around 2010 or 2011 I read climate scientist Roy W. Spencer’s book, ‘The Great Global Warming Blunder: How Mother Nature Fooled the World’s Top Climate Scientists.’ I also reviewed the book. Spencer is now a fellow of the conservative Heritage Foundation.

     I wrote about Spencer in my 2021 book ‘Sensible Decarbonization: Regulation, Risk, and Relative Benefits in Different Approaches to Energy Use, Climate Policy, and Environmental Impact.’ Spencer is a Christian dominionist, judging by his one-time presence on the board of advisors of the Cornwall Alliance, a Christian dominionist group. A section from my book about religion influencing climate and environmental views is produced below:

     Dominionism is based on a quote from Genesis that says humans should rule over other living creatures. Based on a 2011 article in The Guardian, there is an evangelical group called the Cornwall Alliance. They published a book by James Wanliss called Resisting the Green Dragon: Dominion Not Death that paints environmental movements as a “native evil.” They are motivated by what they call the “dominion mandate” that they interpret from the Book of Genesis. Former NASA climatologist and meteorologist Dr. Roy Spencer, collaborator with climatologist Dr. John Christy who is also a Baptist minister and former missionary, both of whom are responsible for developing the way we estimate temperature in different levels of the troposphere with satellites, is, or at least was, on the board of advisors of Cornwall Alliance. Spencer’s website’s most recent posts after the 2020 election seem to be all about using statistical science to prove election fraud against Trump. The Cornwall Alliance is also closely related to the policy group CFACT and the climate skeptic website ClimateDepot. Spencer also writes books about climate skepticism. I read his 2010 book The Great Global Warming Blunder: How Mother Nature Fooled the World’s Top Scientists which was interesting but unconvincing. He suggested in the book that many climate scientists know that cloud behavior is really a forcing and not a feedback but deny it. He also accused mainstream climate scientists of ignoring natural climate cycles like the 30-year Pacific Decadal Oscillation which he thinks affects global climate not just regional climate. Its cooling phase does match the cooling phase from the 1940s to the 1970s but other scientists relate it to astronomical cycles. By that logic we should have seen another cooling phase in the 2010’s but the reverse happened in surface temperatures, except in the satellite data where the so-called “pause” is documented in Spencer and Christy’s data, but not in other data. The jury is still out I suppose, but not looking good. He exploits real uncertainties in the science, especially around the feedbacks of clouds, which he sees as forcings. Spencer, a meteorologist, notes that weather is chaotic and unpredictable and suggests that climate as statistical averages should be too. Most would disagree with that. As an example, people with solar panels can track their output based on sunlight availability which varies and is unpredictable by the day but is quite predictable in yearly averages. Spencer also argues for lower climate sensitivity. He also thinks, as many meteorologists do, that natural climate variation is underestimated by the IPCC and others. His scientific views are certainly important to consider, but his anti-green views like denying any lowering of emissions is warranted and that coal-burning should continue unabated, and his religious views in light of endorsing environmentalism as a religious enemy of a sort, might betray some conflicts of interest.^{[1] [2]}      

 

 

 

Spencer’s Op-Ed

 

     Spencer first refutes that there is a crisis and downplays severe weather:

 

“Other than modest warming, there has been little change in any kind of severe weather that can be attributed to global greenhouse gas emissions.”

 

     He cites the IPCCs data and the analysis of Roger Pielke Jr. to back up his statement. Pielke notes:

 

“The IPCC has concluded that a signal of climate change has not yet emerged beyond natural variability for the following phenomena: river floods, heavy precipitation and pluvial floods. Landslides, drought (all types), severe wind storms, tropical cyclones, sand and dust storms, heavy snowfall and ice storms, hail, snow avalanche, coastal flooding, and marine heat waves.”

 

     He also cites a 2024 paper by Pielke Jr. that uses NOAA data and evaluation procedures to debunk the NOAA’s notion that there is an underlying signal that can be attributed to anthropogenic climate change.

 

“This paper performs an evaluation of the dataset under criteria of procedure and substance defined under NOAA’s Information Quality and Scientific Integrity policies. The evaluation finds that the “billion dollar disaster” dataset falls short of meeting these criteria. Thus, public claims promoted by NOAA associated with the dataset and its significance are flawed and at times misleading.”

 

     Pielke Jr. also notes that the dataset, NOAA’s ‘billion dollar disaster time series,’ which began in the late 1990s is often cited to show that extreme events have become more frequent and severe when the data may not show that at all. He derides the use of economic loss data:

 

“Climate data should be the basis for claims of detection and attribution of changes in climate variables, not economic loss data.”

 

Three graphs from the paper are produced below, The first one shows that there certainly have been increases in billion-dollar disasters but the next two show that adjusting for percentage of GDP, the cost trend is actually been going down:

 

 

     Spencer states that virtually all of the IPCC's three dozen climate models have over-predicted global warming from actual warming rates. I am not sure how he concludes this. He could be concentrating more on the satellite temperature data than the surface data. He notes quite correctly that sea level rise has been occurring since the 1800s, before human increases in CO2 output, and that any signal of its acceleration is not very clear, if even present. He also states that tropical reef damage due to higher ocean acidity has also been less than predicted. He refers to Net Zero by 2050 goals as “extremist.” I would not go that far. I would rather refer to them as overly aspirational.

     One might say he ignores other data such as the accelerated warming in the Arctic region, observed changes in warming in other geographic regions, changes in the geographic extent of species due to warming, and increases in extreme heat in some regions. He attributes the extreme heat in cities to the urban heat island effect.

     He also notes the benefits of CO2: the influence of CO2 on the increases in crop yields and increases in growing seasons in high latitudes. For the latter, he cites an article by Jadu Dash that states:

 

“Over the last thirty years, the vegetation growth period has lengthened by around a month.”

 

“It’s a fact: climate change is increasing temperatures, drought frequency and extreme weather events.”   

 

     Thus, Spencer here kind of acknowledges that the ‘modest warming’ he favors as the most accurate assessment, does have some significant effects on climate by extending groweing seasons. He does not address the second quote.

     Finally, Spencer asserts that we have all been misled and there is no climate crisis. Perhaps, but there is certainly a climate situation that certainly has the potential to get worse if there is no curb on anthropogenic CO2. When impacts would occur is not yet clear but as data certainly suggest changes in growing season lengths and species biological ranges, there are clearly signals of warming that is causing those effects or the effects themselves are the signals. Attribution science is notoriously difficult and will likely remain so. Therefore, it will remain easy for each “side” of the climate argument to use the same data to reach opposite conclusions. Climate scientists are not stupid. Spencer may disagree with that since he disagrees with most climate scientists. He may not see them as stupid but clearly, he sees them as misinformed and under the influence of the climate change activism crowd. If more climate scientists agreed with Spencer and other climate skeptics, it would perhaps make it easier for me as well. However, judging by his political and religious leanings and his lack of support among other climate scientists I would say that his op-ed should be taken with a grain of salt, although it is certainly worth considering and pondering.

 

 

 References:

---

[1] Spencer, Roy W., 2010. The Great Global Warming Blunder: How Mother Nature Fooled the World’s Top Climate Scientists. Encounter Books.

[2] Hickman, Leo, May 5, 2011. The US Evangelicals Who Believe Environmentalism is a ‘Native Evil.’ The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2011/may/05/evangelical-christian-environmentalism-green-dragon

Commentary: Climate change: The science doesn’t support the heated rhetoric. Opinion by Roy W. Spencer, The Heritage Foundation. Tribune News Service. October 10, 2024. Commentary: Climate change: The science doesn’t support the heated rhetoric (msn.com)

What the IPCC Actually Says About Extreme Weather. I promise, you'll be utterly shocked. Roger Pielke Jr. The Honest Broker. July 19, 2023. What the IPCC Actually Says About Extreme Weather (substack.com)

Scientific integrity and U.S. “Billion Dollar Disasters”, Roger Pielke Jr. npj Natural Hazards volume 1, Article number: 12 (June 2024). Scientific integrity and U.S. “Billion Dollar Disasters” | npj Natural Hazards (nature.com)

What impact does climate change have on the seasons? Institute Polytechnique De Paris. Jadu Dash. April 16th, 2024. What impact does climate change have on the seasons? (polytechnique-insights.com)

Climate Change is Making Atlantic Hurricanes Wetter and Faster to Gain Strength but Not Stronger, Bigger, or More Frequent: Models Predict Wetter Hurricanes

     It’s no secret that the waters in the Atlantic Ocean and the Gulf of Mexico are hotter than they have ever been in recent history. Climate modeling predicts that storms moving through those areas will pick up more moisture allowing for bigger and wetter storms. Sea level rise, partially from global warming but also due to other factors, means that storm surges will be maximized.

     When I see some of my energy industry colleagues posting about how climate change is overblown, often using data that is irrelevant, I think they are just rationalizing their own political views against any kind of climate action. While what policy and adaptation actions we should pursue is quite debatable, it is not rational to do nothing. We know that population and development have grown faster than the national average in areas vulnerable to hurricanes and prone to wildfires. That is simply not smart. It may be warm in Florida, but it is a dangerous place in terms of storms. Helene’s jaunt through the Southern Appalachian Mountain region was unprecedented and unexpected. The size of the storm was massive and the amount of rain it carried and released was massive. The models predict hurricanes with higher rainfall amounts.

     I remember 15 or 20 so years ago when climate models were predicting more hurricanes but that failed to happen. It seems that warm waters may not influence the early development of storms as much as they influence storms already developed and on the move. We saw it with Hurricane Harvey dumping record amounts of rainfall along the Texas Gulf Coast and far inland in 2017. Several other hurricanes were noted to be carrying higher moisture levels and with Helene, we are reminded again of the power of hurricanes to cause inland flooding, hundreds of miles from the coast. We have had hurricane flooding in Ohio many times. However, the moisture carried by hurricanes has gone up in recent years.

     Looking at data from the NOAA’s National Hurricane Center, I plotted Category 4 and 5 hurricane hits. The data show that storms of this intensity remained consistent in number. From 1950-1987 the number of Cat 4 and 5 hurricanes was roughly the same as between 1987-2024. Thus, I would conclude that hurricanes are not becoming more intense.

Data Source: NOAA National Hurricane Center

     Hurricanes are not getting more numerous as early climate models erroneously predicted. According to Wikipedia:

“The 1990s were the most active decade for the United States, with a total of 31 hurricanes affecting the nation. By contrast, the least active decade was the 1860s and 1970s, each with a total of only 15 hurricanes affecting the United States. A total of 33 seasons on record passed without an Atlantic hurricane affecting the country — the most recent of which was the 2015 season. Seven Atlantic hurricanes affected the country in the 1886 season, which was the year with the most United States hurricanes.”

     As I understand it (October 8, 2024) Hurricane Milton is the fastest storm ever to go from tropical storm to Category 5. That is thought to also be due to the warmer Gulf waters.

     The intensity and wind speed of a hurricane at landfall do not always equate to the impacts. Path relative to population, population vulnerability, preparation, amount of rain, rate of rain, and storm surge are other factors. Category 1 to 3 hurricanes have also had bad impacts.

     A 2022 study in Nature Communications concluded that 2020 tropical storms and hurricanes carried up to 10% more water due to climate change:

 

“…human-induced climate change increased the extreme 3-hourly storm rainfall rates and extreme 3-day accumulated rainfall amounts during the full 2020 hurricane season for observed storms that are at least tropical storm strength (>18 m/s) by 10 and 5%, respectively. When focusing on hurricane strength storms (>33 m/s), extreme 3-hourly rainfall rates and extreme 3-day accumulated rainfall amounts increase by 11 and 8%, respectively.”

    

     Rainfall amount comparisons are difficult to compare as the graph below from the paper shows, comparing rainfall amounts and hurricane tracks. Hurricanes carrying higher amounts of moisture also carry higher amounts of risk since flooding is second only to storm surges in hurricane fatalities.

 

     Some evidence suggests that hurricanes are maintaining strength longer after landfall and that they may move slower over land. That seemed to be the case with Hurricane Harvey in 2017. It moved very slowly, causing severe flooding in Southeast Texas.

     I looked for evidence that hurricanes may be becoming bigger but that does not seem to be the case. The biggest storm ever recorded in the Atlantic was Typhoon Tip in 1979. It was in the North Atlantic and did not make landfall. Its diameter was about 1250 miles (2000km). This Category 5 hurricane was also the most intense hurricane ever recorded.

     There is evidence that hurricanes have gotten slightly more intense in terms of wind speed but the overall change has not been that much and is not a definite trend that can be definitively associated with climate change.  

     Other research shows that large and extreme floods have been increasing in frequency from 1985 to 2020 as the graph below confirms. According to a Phys.org article about the DFO Flood Observatory (formerly the Dartmouth Flood Observatory):

 “It's not the case that the world is getting wetter. In fact, many places are becoming more arid. Rather, really big floods, which were previously rare, are happening more often.”

“According to Kettner, the reasons behind this are hard to parse out. In some cases, it could be that warmer air temperatures allow the atmosphere to hold more moisture. In other cases, extreme flooding might be driven by urban infrastructure that lacks adequate drainage. Most of the underlying causes of catastrophic floods boil down to two categories: climate change and human changes to the landscape.”

"Flooding is both a derivative of precipitation and the area where that precipitation is landing," Kettner explained.

 

References:

 

Tropical Cyclone Climatology: NOAA. National Hurricane Center. Tropical Cyclone Climatology (noaa.gov)

List of United States hurricanes. Wikipedia. List of United States hurricanes - Wikipedia

Historical Changes in Atlantic Hurricane and Tropical Storms. Gabriel A. Vecchi and Thomas R. Knutson. Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory. 2008-2011. Historical Atlantic Hurricane and Tropical Storm Records – Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (noaa.gov)

Are hurricanes getting worse? Here’s what you need to know. Rachel Waldholz and Alyson Hurt. NPR. Climate. October 8, 2024. How climate change makes hurricanes worse : NPR

Hurricanes may not be becoming more frequent, but they’re still more dangerous, Carolyn Gramling. Science News. July 13, 2021. Hurricanes are getting more dangerous, but may not be more frequent | Science News

A Force of Nature: Hurricanes in a Changing Climate. NASA Science Editorial Team. June 1, 2022. A Force of Nature: Hurricanes in a Changing Climate - NASA Science

Attribution of 2020 hurricane season extreme rainfall to human-induced climate change. Kevin A. Reed, Michael F. Wehner & Colin M. Zarzycki. Nature Communications volume 13, Article number: 1905 (April 2022). Attribution of 2020 hurricane season extreme rainfall to human-induced climate change | Nature Communications

Hurricanes are maintaining their strength farther inland as the planet warms, study finds. Drew Kann, CNN. November 11, 2020. Hurricanes are maintaining their strength farther inland as the planet warms, study finds | CNN

Extreme floods, like those caused by Hurricane Helene, are becoming more frequent. Gabe Allen. Phys.org. October 10, 2024. Extreme floods, like those caused by Hurricane Helene, are becoming more frequent (msn.com)

LNG-to-Power Can Help South African Energy Grid, Improve Reliability, Support Industry, and Decrease Emissions Relative to Coal

     Perhaps it would have been better if South Africa built LNG-to-power infrastructure five or ten years ago but it there is still time. This post started out mainly as a rebuttal to an article in The Conversation by Richard Callahan, Director, Africa Programme, University of Cambridge Institute for Sustainability Leadership that argues against gas replacing coal in favor of wind, solar, and green hydrogen. I believe a combination approach including natural gas would be better and offer a more stable grid. Hydrogen can still be developed but alongside natural gas. Hydrogen can be blended in and co-fired with natural gas at power plants. Green hydrogen is very expensive and will be significantly limited in its ability to replace coal for power. H2 is less energy-dense than hydrocarbons, and this would be a big problem as well. In fact, the idea of wind, solar, and green hydrogen replacing any hydrocarbon for grid power is rather far-fetched. Energy storage of some sort (besides the H2) would also be required in high amounts and high costs.

     Callahan argues that if South Africa wants to develop natural gas it should adopt UN-style pledges such as the Global Methane Pledge to keep gas sector methane emissions at an absolute minimum. This is probably OK. I disagree with Callahan’s notion that the development of a natural gas industry and LNG import industry in South Africa will result in stranded assets. It will be more than 30 years before such infrastructure would be threatened by the likes of wind, solar, and green hydrogen. The infrastructure and power plants could also be designed to accommodate some hydrogen so that any transition toward hydrogen will be seamless and will utilize existing natural gas infrastructure.

     Highly efficient combined-cycle natural gas power plants can replace coal and offer 60% or higher emissions reduction. LNG-to-power is likely the best means to replace coal with gas in South Africa. The current grid as shown below is almost entirely powered by coal. Even with the high amounts of baseload power from coal the country still needs more power and has been plagued for years with load-shedding issues resulting in rolling outages which I wrote about last year. I wrote that delays in building new power plants, corruption in coal-supply contracts, sabotage and over-regulation of renewable energy projects, and a lack of grid maintenance and investment were some of the main issues. The bottom line is simply that the power supply is inadequate to meet demand. Couple that with an energy transition that is not cheap and does not provide reliable power. The country has goals to reduce coal’s share on the grid from 84.4% (2021) to 60% in 2030. With a grid that is already inadequate, there is a need to add more generation capacity, including more baseload capacity.  Utilizing coal for backup power or as demand response also means more emissions and pollution since idling coal plants on stand-by for demand spikes still emit both. Natural gas is a much cleaner demand response resource than coal and those plants can start up and ramp up quickly compared to coal plants.

Data Source: Statista

     There are many factors that still favor coal production in South Africa, including employment in the industry. A 2022 paper in Energy for Sustainable Development explored South Africa’s energy transition. Factors are included in the graphics below. South Africa developed an Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) in 2019, considering their Paris Accord commitments. The country is entrenched in coal production and export, which provides good-paying jobs. Thus, loss of employment is a big concern with the energy transition. Renewable energy jobs generally do not pay as well as coal mining and coal power plant jobs.

    

     The 2023 Integrated Resource Plan includes bullish support for the development of a South African LNG and local natural gas industry. The IRP includes significant natural gas development and LNG-to-power projects. Remember, the graphs below are by capacity, and since combined cycle natural gas has much higher capacity factors, or utilization rates, than wind or solar, the numbers should be adjusted accordingly. I tend to cringe when I see intermittent renewables and baseload supply like gas and coal being compared by capacities since it is generally misleading to anyone who does not understand how they really compare, even though capacity comparisons are common.  

 

 

South African Gas and Oil Exploration

     Two gas condensate fields discovered offshore South Africa were in the process of being developed by TotalEnergies but they decided at the end of July 2024 to abandon the project. Apparently, deep water and fast ocean currents made the project non-viable. Total is still involved in other offshore South African projects including in the Orange Basin. Significant Orange Basin discoveries offshore Namibia are encouraging.

     South Africa’s Karoo Basin is currently being explored via seismic surveys. The work by Shell was put on hold by the government due to opposition from environmental groups and local residents. The country’s Mineral Resources Minister Gwede Mantashe is in favor of the project and seismic exploration has recently resumed. Mantashe is quite bullish on South African gas production. I think they need to hash out issues with environmental groups and local residents to advance these projects which could have positive economic impacts and positive emissions impacts relative to coal and even LNG.  The Karoo Basin may even have significant shale gas reserves.

 

     Rhino Oil and Gas Exploration South Africa (Rogesa) announced plans to drill up to 20 gas exploration wells in the Highveld region targeting biogenic methane, helium, and geologic hydrogen. The company says they will not use hydraulic fracturing. Local farmers are very suspicious of the project, noting damage to adjacent land by coal mining.

 

     In September 2024, South African public power company Eskom and petrochemicals company Sasol signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) to “collaboratively explore and research potential future liquified natural gas (LNG) requirements. The collaboration will also enable the country to find a solution for gas users who require longer term certainty of supply beyond this decade.”

 

“The collaboration aims to determine the potential volumes that South Africa requires to establish a viable LNG import market along with the enabling infrastructure, and will be facilitated by government-to-government relations where necessary. This initiative focuses on using gas for power generation to provide essential base load electricity and position gas as a key enabler of re-industrialisation, while also ensuring continued supply to the market by unlocking global LNG resources. Furthermore, the collaboration will contribute to enhancing South Africa’s energy mix and enable the country’s energy transition and decarbonisation.”

 

“We have made it clear that we are serious about LNG solutions for the country, and that our demand for gas across both industrial and energy frontiers will unlock these solutions,” said Minister Ramokgopa. “This collaboration between our two energy champions – one public, one private – will provide a data-driven and commercially sound basis for gas-fed industrialisation and for us to explore the well-worn path to lower carbon energy that the global north has already taken by scaling gas to power. Gas has emerged as the second-largest contributor to global electricity production, experiencing rapid growth as many countries shift from coal to gas in their energy mix to enable positive implications for climate change, as gas typically emits less CO2 per unit of energy.”

 

     Thus, it appears South Africa is ready to develop gas-to-power, gas-to-chemicals, and gas-to-industrialization. The graphic below from the Cambridge Institute for Sustainability Leadership shows the gas fields, pipelines, and other gas infrastructure along with the levels of complexity of each area and project.

 

 

 

    

 

LNG and Onshore Gas from Mozambique

     Gas fields, mostly offshore but some onshore in Mozambique are being developed. The floating offshore LNG Coral South project is an $8 billion project led by Eni, ExxonMobil, and a few other companies that came online at the end of 2022. These Coral South offshore gas fields in the prolific Rovuma Basin have recoverable reserves of around 16 TCF (if I am correct), which is more than enough to supply natural gas to southern African countries like South Africa as well as exporting it elsewhere.

     In 2019 TotalEnergies bought from Anadarko their LNG project onshore NE Mozambique in the Cabo Delgado area. Unfortunately, the area has been plagued through the years with an insurgency that includes many elements, including the worst of Islamic extremists like Al Shabaab and ISIS. It has abated somewhat in recent years. TotalEnergies project was suspended due to an upsurge of violence in the Cabo Delgado region in 2021. It consists of two gas fields set to feed two LNG liquefaction trains under construction. TotalEnergies announced in March 2024 that they hope to restart the project. Total CEO Patrick Pouyanné is planning to visit the country at the end of this month to meet with the new president, who is being elected or likely re-elected today (October 9). The country’s dominant political party has been in power for decades. Pouyanné may announce the resumption of the project then with construction to resume in early 2025.

     The Pande and Temane gas fields in Southern Mozambique continue to be developed by Sasol. Southern Mozambique borders South Africa. These fields are currently powering a natural gas power plant, building an LPG plant in Mozambique, and helping the area to develop. The country has a goal of universal energy access by 2030. Here is proof that natural gas can both alleviate energy poverty and spur economic development and do so quickly. The power plant is currently producing 450 MW and Sasol hopes to double that by the end of 2024. In an August 2024 interview Sasol VP Ovidio Rodolfo spoke about Sasol’s projects in Mozambique:

 

“Besides supplying gas for power generation stations, we are constructing an LPG plant in Temane that will be the first in the country dedicated to the domestic market. It will produce close to 30,000 tpy of LPG that can be used as cooking gas, replacing almost 70% of current imports and enabling the massification of LPG utilisation in the country.”

 

“Sasol is in Mozambique for the long term, and while our current focus is to make the most of our reserves in the south, the long-term conversation revolves around how Sasol can best partner with Mozambique to monetize the gas reserves in the Rovuma Basin gas reserves, both domestically and regionally, be it through LNG production, transportation or other means.”

 

 

References:

 

Gas isn’t a good alternative to coal – South Africa should focus on solar, wind and green hydrogen. Richard Callan. The Conversation. October 7, 2024. Gas isn’t a good alternative to coal – South Africa should focus on solar, wind and green hydrogen (theconversation.com)

South Africa's energy transition – Unraveling its political economy. Jonathan Hanto, Akira Schroth, Lukas Krawielicki, Pao-Yu Oei, and Jesse Burton. Energy for Sustainable Development. Volume 69, August 2022, Pages 164-178. South Africa's energy transition – Unraveling its political economy - ScienceDirect

Farmers push back against Highveld gas-drilling exploration plan. Tony Carnie. Daily Maverick. September 18, 2024. Farmers push back against Highveld gas-drilling exploration plan (dailymaverick.co.za)

Eskom and Sasol sign agreement on exploring LNG to unlock Gas to Power and mitigate imminent gas shortage for South Africa. Sasol. September 20, 2024. Eskom and Sasol sign agreement on exploring LNG to unlock Gas to Power and mitigate imminent gas shortage for South Africa |

South Africa: TotalEnergies exits from offshore Blocks 11B/12B and 5/6/7. TotalEnergies. July 29. 2024. totalenergies_communique-de-presse-TotalEnergies-se-retire-des-blocs-offshore-11B12B-et-567-2407_en_pdf.pdf

Viewpoint: Mozambique holds elections amid renewed hopes for LNG projects. GZERO Staff. GZERO. October 7, 2024. Viewpoint: Mozambique holds elections amid renewed hopes for LNG projects - GZERO Media

Coral South project in Mozambique ships first LNG cargo, helps meet global demand. ExxonMobil. November 14, 2022. Coral South project in Mozambique ships first LNG cargo, helps meet global demand (exxonmobil.com)

AfDB gives green light for Total's Mozambique LNG Project. Riviera Nes. November 28, 2019. Riviera - News Content Hub - AfDB gives green light for Total's Mozambique LNG Project (rivieramm.com)

TotalEnergies in Mozambique. TotalEnergies. TotalEnergies in Mozambique | TotalEnergies.com

Mozambique: TotalEnergies publishes its response to Le Monde French Newspaper. TotalEnergies. March 1, 2024. Mozambique : TotalEnergies publishes its response to Le Monde French Newspaper | TotalEnergies.com

Mozambique's Oil And Gas Market To Benefit From Pande, Temane And Inhassoro Project. Oil & Gas / Mozambique. April 21, 2021. Mozambique's Oil And Gas Market To Benefit From Pande, Temane And Inhassoro Project (fitchsolutions.com)

From gas to power with Sasol in Mozambique. Mozambique. August 6, 2024. From gas to power with Sasol in Mozambique - Ovidio RODOLFO - The Energy Year

Courts temporarily halted Shell’s exploration but fracking in Karoo gets Mantashe’s nod.  Sanele Khakhu. Mail & Guardian. October 3, 2024. Courts temporarily halted Shell’s exploration but fracking in Karoo gets Mantashe’s nod – The Mail & Guardian (mg.co.za)

Africa: South Africa's Potential for Oil and Gas 'Significant' – Mantashe. AllAfrica. October 8, 2024. Africa: South Africa's Potential for Oil and Gas 'Significant' - Mantashe - allAfrica.com

Integrated Resource Plan. December 2023. Department of Mineral Resources and Energy. Republic of South Africa. IRP-2023-for-Public-Comments-User-friendly.pdf (dmre.gov.za)

Africa’s Gas Road to Nowhere. South Africa’s policy debate on using gas to accelerate the energy transition. Sikho Luthango. Cambridge Institute for Sustainability Leadership. cisl_gas_paper_on_clg_africa.pdf (cam.ac.uk)