Gazprom delivers first ‘carbon-neutral’ LNG to Europe–And Shell Believe Them!
By Paul Homewood
If you believe this, you’ll believe anything!
Russian energy giant Gazprom said today it has made the first delivery of what is claimed to be carbon-neutral liquefied natural gas (LNG).
The company said the shipment has been made carbon-neutral by offsetting emissions from its production and transport.
LNG has been delivered to Royal Dutch Shell at the Dragon terminal in Wales.
The delivery is expected to enable Shell to supply further ‘carbon-neutral’ gas to the UK domestic market.
It is estimated an average LNG cargo of about 70,000 tonnes emits approximately 240,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent across the value chain.
Steve Hill, Executive Vice President at Shell Energy, said: “Carbon-neutral LNG cargoes are another choice we are offering our customers as they seek to reduce their net carbon footprint well to wheel and also offer the same choice to their end customers.
“Using nature-based carbon credits to compensate for emissions that cannot be avoided or reduced is an important step as we find more ways to reduce emissions across the LNG value chain.”
https://www.energylivenews.com/2021/03/09/gazprom-delivers-first-carbon-neutral-lng-to-europe/
We know that carbon offsets are little more than a scam, but does anybody seriously the Russians have actually made their gas “carbon neutral”? This after all is a country which has done nothing at all to cut its emissions:
BP Energy Review
And according to Carbon Tracker has no intention of doing:
https://climateactiontracker.org/countries/russian-federation/
Indeed its Paris pledge would actually entail higher emissions than now in 2030. Russia has also declared that this target is subject to the maximum possible accounting of the absorbing capacity of forests, something that can be easily fiddled but not readily independently verified.
My guess is that Gazprom has got hold of some worthless certificates, claiming that new forests have been planted in the back of beyond.
Naturally Shell, who are keen to lower their carbon footprint for political reasons, have been more than happy to take Gazprom’s word for it, no questions asked.
Shell must surely know Gazprom’s carbon neutral claims are worthless, but they are happy to play along with the charade.
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
Almost certainly a scam, just like 100% green electricity we all get now..BUT if it allows gas to continue to be used in heating and electricity generation, then maybe turning a blind eye is not such a bad thing?
“…subject to the maximum possible accounting of the absorbing capacity of forests…”
Forests are all subject to recycling of sequestered CO2 by either wildfires (natural or man-made) or eventual aerobic respiration as they age and die…and are renewed, replaced?
Indeed Paul. Knowing the Russians, I dare say that they have issued ‘carbon credit certificates’ for the same patch of forest multiple times to several different suckers across the west and are having a big chuckle at our expense. And, who can blame them? If companies are stupid enough to to accept these indulgences at face value then more fool them.
The Climate numpties will probably believe it. In that case, does that mean we can still keep our gas stoves and central heating? Ooh! And LPG for our cars?
Technically, this is known as “creative accounting”.
Putting the ‘net’ in net zero.
This is a very wordy document but if you go to page 185 they start talking about climate related measures they take. I don’t know whether I’m misunderstanding but at various points in the document it seems that they regard natural gas as being carbon neutral which is news to me. If I’m correct then the story they have pitched to Shell may be skewed by this. But, as they say, there’s none so blind as those that don’t want to see.
Click to access sustainability-report-en-2019.pdf
It’s interesting. I’ve searched for “carbon” “neutral” “offset” and there’s nothing in the document.
If they really were using carbon offsets, you would have thought it would appear in their Sustainability Report
Yep. Thought that was worth a laugh! But nobody reacted…
I knew somebody tipped me off!!
🙂 My work is done!
This was probably the vessel, discharging 4th/5th March
https://www.vesselfinder.com/vessels/NIKOLAY-URVANTSEV-IMO-9750660-MMSI-477327300
“believe”
If I was Putin (OK, that’s a big leap I’m making, but anyway) then I’d have great fun taking the p-ss remorselessly out of the gullible, insane West.
Our current class of politico’s are THE dumbest bunch I can ever recall. Frankly they deserve to be made to look fools, by whatever means.
Add to that the government is looking closely at the Cumbrian new coal venture and you realise they are not on the nation’s side.
” made to look fools ”
They are fools. All one can do is point that out.
Like others I wondered what the methods were to create this charade could be .
This site https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/Russias-Gazprom-Boasts-First-Carbon-Neutral-LNG-Delivery-In-Europe.html say the 2 methods or paper trails were
the Verified Carbon Standard
Climate, Community and Biodiversity carbon credit standards
The last one is as woolly as it sounds as this little quick reference says
https://www.offsetguide.org/understanding-carbon-offsets/carbon-offset-programs/add-on-standards/climate-community-biodiversity-standards/
However this was interesting
“It does not quantify or verify carbon offset credits nor does it provide a registry. The CCB Standards focuses exclusively on land management projects, and requires demonstration of net-positive social and environmental benefits in addition to robust stakeholder participation.”
So doesnt quantify or verify ! At least according to ‘Offset Guide’ they are merely local good works and other puffery. Something must have changed to provide verifiable offset credits and I bet it has $ or rubles, all of course to improve ‘stakeholder participation’
Duker, there’s probably one lone, and very remote, weather beaten tree in the Siberian tundra that has more certificates attached to it than leaves but is, undoubtedly, the ‘greenest’ tree on the planet.
As Anthony called it, ‘the enchanted Larch of Yamal’. 🙂
“Carbon credits” are the new tulips.
The clever Russians, like the Norwegians, are also probably charging a premium for the “green” gas. Sadly there is not a voice in the UK mainstream press calling out the shysters or appreciating the damage that is being done to the UK by the mad policies where the UK saves 0.5% of current world emissions which are increasing at over 1 %/year.
Click to access sustainability-report-en-2019.pdf
Intetesting spin (on Page 193):
Natural gas is the basis of a low-carbon energy . It represents an effective solution for reducing greenhouse gas emissions in both the short and long term.
Konstantin Romanov Head of Division, Secretary of Coordinating Committee for rational use of natural resources , PJSC Gazprom.
Ensures the implementation of innovative projects to reduce the carbon footprint of production activities, including those related to hydrogen energy. Coordinates international collaboration on climate issues, including technical dialogues with foreign partners. Participant in UN Climate Change Conferences.
I remember when I was young a publicity campaign about petrol ‘putting a tiger in your tank’.
A moments reflection decided me that it was a metaphorical tiger. This is the same idea but changed to ‘putting a unicorn in your tank’.
They’re going to start putting a slug in our tanks from now until September when petrol will be E10, where the 10% ethanol has been proved to increase consumption by 10% in cars with smaller engines. Like most small to medium cars up to Ford Focus size.
The article in Auto about it is, unintentionally, very funny where it has
“…it could reduce CO2 transport emotions by…”
Apparently the supply of E5 for older vehicles will continue…for a while…
https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/industry-news/government-plans-e10-petrol-roll-out-september-2021
The 2014 article about the reduction of fuel economy by 10% is linked, but the link failed.
OT
RSS finally produced its satellite based ‘temperature’ figures for January and February. Basically, the same story as the UAH figure tell.. A big drop in December and small rises in January and February.
http://images.remss.com/msu/msu_time_series.html
The majority of people seem to believe in global warming, that elec. vehicles have zero emissions, that CO2 is a dangerous pollutant, that the oceans are acidic, that the ozone hole is real and dangerous and so on: so why not believe that LNG is carbon neutral ? Makes perfect marketing sense. How many people know that LNG is made of carbon, as are we, and almost all other life forms on the planet.?
Yes , even breathing isnt ‘carbon neutral’ as it produces more in the exhale than the inhale
Inhale is say 450 ppm , while exhale is 38,000 ppm
Harrabin would be even higher !
And hotter!
If you believe in fairies clap your hands. If you believe in carbon offsets, open your wallet.
Perhaps the industry, realising how badly we need the gas, plays along with the charade, fearing a shortage on the horizon. How much Russian gas do we import anyway? I didn’t think we imported any.
Russian Gas to Britain?
2019
“As many as 160 LNG tankers unloaded at terminals in South Wales and Kent, compared to the 76 cargoes received in 2018. [Not all of that is Russian]
More than 18bn cubic metres of gas will have been shipped in this year, compared with 8bcm in 2018, according to data from S&P Global Platts.
The LNG imports fed almost a quarter 24pc of UK gas demand in 2019 – far higher than previous years.”
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2019/12/27/russian-gas-imports-double-amid-global-surge-supply/
Its already keeping the lights on and the domestic boilers running
Date for imports by origin in this chart:
https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/W0qOT/2/
Norwegian pipeline gas, although falling back, still dominates. In 2020, Russian LNG imports were a distant third behind Qatar and the USA. We may need to worry about Biden closing down US exports.
Well the done the Russians for taking the pee out of the Paris charade and the offset scam. I applaud the Russians for treating the ‘carbon neutral’ nonsense with the contempt it deserves. Indeed I’ll copy them.
I’m just declaring my diesel 4×4 carbon neutral cause I’ve offset it by planting some daffodils. job done. I might even write myself a certificate.
Time to throw another log on the fire. With this warmer weather I can heat the house with only 2 of my 3 wood burners running – they’re carbon neutral of course. As is the sack of coal my neighbour uses.
I’m going to start selling forests as carbon offsets, I’m going to be a billionaire!!!!
Of course, this is exactly where the UK’s Fracking industry went wrong.
Instead of attempting to meet Ed Davey’s lunatic restrictions on seismic events (about on the level of a sparrow farting), they should have stuck their chests out and lied that British methane was Super Carbon Negative Methane, especially beneficial for Unicorns.
Of course, the hardline GangGreen leadership (who were and are mainly interested in supporting Putin and People’s Leader Xi, anyway) would have disputed this claim. But it would have confused the rank and file GangGreenies.
O, what a tangled web we weave,
When first we practise to deceive!
The mainstream promoted renewable energy sources (wind and solar) only work under fair weather conditions. The growing impact caused by random nature of energy output from these sources and the phasing out of other sources means the grid operators are entirely dependent on gas to make up the shortfall caused by unreliable nature.
Gas is used for electricity generation, heating, cooking, manufacturing and construction. More than any other energy source in the late 20th and early 21st centuries it is responsible for better air quality in many urban areas during Winter where it is available.
The hierarchy (politicians and bureaucrats) know they need gas, Gazprom knows this, fraudsters know this, with indulgences (carbon credits), it can charge a premium mark-up to its congregation for the blessed (carbon neutral) gas. Best of all, few believers can expose the lie in public or they will be cast out (cancelled) and labelled climate denier.
On whose door do I nail my 95 theses?
And another nail about to be driven:
Beginning of end for North Sea as ministers consider exploration ban
(£) https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2021/03/13/ministers-considering-ban-north-sea-exploration-licences/
Absolutely crazy!!!
The very same people who believe Russia interfered in the Trump election and Brexit also believe Russia is going along with all their climate nonsense. Russia’s economy would completely collapse without fossil fuels.
This also gets tied up in geopolitics. Crimea is short or water and power and it is costing Russia a small fortune to hold it.
The government in Kiev is weak and corrupt and is likely to escalate the current stalemate in Eastern Ukraine, perceiving they have backing of the American dministration and NATO, American administrtions have been trying to shut down the Nord Stream 2 pipeline that Germany and much of Western Europe need. Anticipating that green politics will be used against them, the carbon neutral ruse is try any get ahead of this line of attack.
Unlikely?? maybe but see comment-175282 on turcopolier
https://turcopolier.com/is-biden-dangerously-unwell/#comment-175282
I love the idea of an “escalated stalemate”.
As crazy as this may seem it isn’t any crazier than “net zero” and not any crazier than national climate action plans that are not global.
Link#1: Net Zero
https://tambonthongchai.com/2020/02/25/net-zero/
Link#2: The Carbon Credits Market.
https://tambonthongchai.com/2019/09/30/cer/
Link#3: National level climate action heroism
https://tambonthongchai.com/2020/05/22/climate-catch22/
Damn it. I have just signed up for British Gas for a year. I can only hope that some Shell gas gets mixed up with my carbon non- neutral stuff in the pipeline and that I don’t have to feel guilty.
You’ll get the gas you’re given, regardless of who your contract is with. It will depend entirely on where you are in the gas supply network.
Indeed.
‘Carbon-neutral LNG cargoes are another choice we are offering* our customers as they seek to reduce their net carbon footprint well to wheel and also offer the same choice to their end customers.’
No mention how they are going to change their distribution piping so that the customers who choose to ‘reduce their net carbon footprint’ will get just The Good Stuff. I do hope they’ll give them signs to put in their yard that say, “We only use The Good Stuff. We are the good people.”
A few years ago, a neighbor of mine put a sign, produced by the local utility, in his yard declaring that he used renewable electricity. You could pay extra to “get renewable.” I asked him if they changed the wiring to his house.
“No.”
“So you get your electricity from the same substation I do?”
“Uhhh.”
Next day, sign was gone.
*Notice the double good-good. Russia takes credit for carbon neutral. Shell takes credit for carbon neutral, for the same gas. You know the local seller will too. And the buyer will too. That gas will warm many times.
The Russians only signed the Kyoto agreement because there was money in it for them. They were given masses of carbon credits for their creaking industry which they knew would be closing down so they could sell the credits to gullible suckers.
On the carbon credits scam, the latest edition of the Quarterly Journal of Forestry has an article on claiming cash for growing trees.
The Russians have a secret weapon: they know what they are doing.
The Russians have a secret weapon: they know what they are doing.
“You can’t value what you can’t measure”: a critical look at forest carbon accounting:
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-020-02653-1
“At the American Association of Anthropology conference in Denver in winter 2015, Jerome Whitington enthusiastically told a panel audience, “It is possible to buy and sell atmospheric carbon!” “How is it,” he asked, “that an institutional and informational assemblage can claim the ability to quantify and trade in an ethereal, gaseous atmospheric chemistry? What is actually being traded?”
It is important to note that carbon accounting is a broad phenomenon which serves both as a form of environmental governance, and a means to render the climate governable.
Many land managers use carbon projects specifically as a new funding stream and care little about the climate change mitigation aspects.
The reliance on offsets has created capital flows maintained more for their role as funding mechanisms for sustainable development and conservation than as a means to lower carbon emissions. In fact, engagement with offset projects is often motivated less by an interest in mitigating climate change and more by the revenue streams made possible by managing carbon sinks.”
AON Re-insurance 2003:
The Indemnity of Absence: Carbon Credit Insurance
“…it takes a lot of money to validate, register, monitor, verify, and certify a carbon offset project on both compliance and voluntary markets. A small-scale project faces anywhere between $40,000 and $200,000 in total transaction costs, which in turn, can represent over 40 percent of the total value of a certified reduction.
One of the central difficulties involved in the commodification process of carbon offsets is the fact that for every offset project, consultants have to create a unique storyline describing a hypothetical world without the project, and then assign a number to the greenhouse gas emissions associated with that imagined world.”
Carbon credits have to be insured in case they are at some point invalidated because they don’t create “additionality.”
It has been a lucrative field: AON in 2019: https://www.aon.com/unitedkingdom/products-and-services/risk-services/environmental/our-approach.jsp
“…we help identify environmental exposures and assess liability potential.
This includes: Carbon emissions, carbon foot-printing, carbon credit verification and other greenhouse gas and global warming topics.
How much CO2 did the consultants capture?
It sounds like the risks are the same as chartering, insuring and running an oil tanker…except the risks of piracy are far greater
I have this lovely reverie where I imagine those buying carbon credits are offsetting them with the profits they are reaping from BitCoin investments. Then, one day…..
How about working with alternative media groups such as @StevenCrowder (check him out on You Tube) doing one of his public events. We would call it :
‘ Net Zero (Green New Deal) will crush Western Civilisation and Enrich a Global Elite: Change my Mind ‘ (his format as an example)
….and run it at COP26 Glasgow UK. COP26 will be SHOVED DOWN OUR THROATS, un-opposed. Unless we stop that or use it to our advantage.
We should coordinate with some other groups such as Heartland / Global Warming Policy Foundation (UK) Tony Heller / OTHERS…. conservatives need to RESIST the lunacy.
With Trump cheated out of Whitehouse Boris being operated by his girlfriend etc, the lunatics are going to roll COVID into permanent vaccine and energy (CO2) tyranny.
Let’s unite and plan to make a noise to wake up normal people….or we are f@@ked.
I fear we renegades are losing the war whilst we remain spectators of embedded Groupthink, C02 warming theory, that will place the reins of the world manufacturing economies firmly in the hands of the massive Asian economies whilst the Western economies wither on the vine. Crippling energy poverty the destruction of manufacturing capability that follows and all the hardship that will bring is an inevitability. And a minor point how will the UK government fill the almost £30 biiion per annum raised by taxes on petrol when the combustion engine is abolished. Surely the time has come to put our heads above the parapets because talking to each other will not cut the mustard .No one out there is listening if truth be told. The media is only interested for instance in.radical on the street action as per Extinction Rebellion. We have an opportunity to make our voices heard in the world out there with COP 26 coming to the UK. Any ideas about how we will use this once in a lifetime opportunity to hit back?
What is the opportunity at COP26 that we have to show it’s all a load of baloney? We wouldn’t be allowed on stage/on camera by a margin. It’s their party and there won’t be any gatecrashing permitted. The last chance we had, even that was slim, was the 2005 GE when the BNP were at their strongest and understood this green madness. Today there is no political avenue to travel down, no mainstream politico will push the issue let alone the MSM which is bereft of investigative journalism, though perhaps the odd one will make the odd noise on our behalf, but politicos being what they are, like turkeys, they don’t vote for Christmas, thus destroying their ‘careers’. As you conclude, ‘Any ideas about how we will use this once in a lifetime opportunity to hit back’? Sadly, no.
Now we can get all the carbon neutral gas we want from Gazprom does this mean we won’t have to do away with our gas boilers and cookers?
That would knock a few bob off our net zero bill