JohnBennetts
I never said the LNG was stored at -100 oC. Nor does the Chevron material I quote. The boiling point of methane is -161 oC, and this turns out to be the most efficient temperature at which to store and transport it – at atmospheric pressure, as I have said all along.

The Gorgon project’s gas is high in CO2, but it is required to extract most of that CO2 and geosequester it. I’m not sure how much energy that takes. Anyway, that has little bearing on the article’s main argument, which rests on the difference between LNG and piped natural gas.

I’m more familiar with the WA gas industry so can’t comment on the potential to geosequester coal seam gas, or the CO2 content of Qld gas projects. It strikes me, though, that your objecitons to CSG would apply equally to gas exported by pipeline, as Stewart is advocating.

More great comments!

I'm glad we're getting to the meat of the matter here -- the LIFECYCLE emissions of various energy sources.

It amazes me that the energy industry here in Australia (Woodside's Don Voelte in particular) got away for so long with saying things like LNG is the best default option for Australia because NATURAL GAS burns cleaner than coal -- conveniently leaving out all the other emissions in the LNG production and trasnport chain.

Look at the gas industry's studied syntax and you'll see this particular construction used again and again. This indiciates to me that they get this…and opt for evasion.

Moving on, LNG is a SINGLE-PURPOSE, SINGLE-GENERATION technology.

Gievn that natural gas is a transition fuel to renewables, LNG has technological obsolescence built in. That's no good.

What's needed is an energy distribution network in Asia that can carry the fuels of the future -- like hydrogen, biofuels and even waste carbon.

LNG can't do that. Pipelines can. This inherent flexibility has value. This is being left out of current equations. That's dumb.



The point here is to develop the networks of the future that can adapt. Pipelines MAY cost more to build than LNG. My research indicates they're about the same, based upon comparables.

If this is right, the net present value of pipeline fliexibilty is an IMMENSE additional positive that needs to be taken into consideration. Quantifying this is now the subject of my ongoing research.

About the tectconic argument. The tectonic risk in the Timor and Savu Seas is about 5 on the Richter Scale. That's roughly the same tectonic risk as Bangka Island, located just a few hunded kilomaters south of Singapore where Indonesia plans two build TWO nuclear plants. Enough said.

Apart from the evident trolls, excellent points are being raised all around.

Thanks everybody!

Anyone (apart from the trolls) who'd care for additional bilateral contact can reach me at info@grenatec.com.