[ROCKMAN]

coffee - Sounds like a good time to get caught up on the LNG news. Such as Boston getting Russian LNG and the plans to export more LNG out of the Gulf Coast hopefully (for the producers) raising the price of NG for the domestic consumers:

"The tanker carrying Russian natural gas that's been sitting outside of Boston Harbor for days will probably land over the weekend, according to the U.S. Coast Guard."

https://www.rigzone.com/news/united_states/lng_lpg/

"Total said on Wednesday it has acquired the upstream liquefied natural gas (LNG) interests of French power and gas utility Engie for around $1.5 billion, in a deal which is set to make it the world's second largest player in the LNG market, with a 10 percent share."

https://www.rigzone.com/news/wire/franc ... 5-article/

"Italy-based Edison, a major electricity supplier in Europe, has reached a 20-year sales and purchase agreement (SPA) to source liquefied natural gas (LNG) from Venture Global Calcasieu Pass, LLC, Venture Global announced Wednesday. Under the SPA, Edison will purchase 1 million tons per annum of LNG from the Calcasieu Pass LNG export facility that Venture Global is developing in Cameron Parish, La., Venture Global stated. Venture Global, which noted that Edison will purchase the gas on a free on board basis, added that it expects Calcasieu Pass to start commercial operation in 2021."

https://www.rigzone.com/news/oil_gas/a/ ... _customer/

FYI. Free on board contract: In an LNG FOB contract, the buyer lifts the LNG from the liquefaction plant and is responsible for transporting the LNG to the receiving terminal. The buyer is responsible for the shipping, either owning the LNG ships or chartering them from a shipowner. In a FOB contract, the seller requires assurance that the shipping protocols provide a safe and reliable off-take for the LNG to prevent disruption to the sales and purchase agreement.

Just as the contracts Chenier has signed in the past: the LNG is sold at the cost of the NG and the transport cost plus a fixed profit margin. As mentioned before these very expensive LNG plants are built without long term fixed contracts that will assure the infrastructure investment will be profitable.

"LNG deliveries to Trafigura, one of the biggest independent traders of the fuel, will begin in 2019, Cheniere said."

https://www.rigzone.com/news/united_states/lng_lpg/

"The Honghua Group Limited has awarded Wood a $12 million front-end engineering design (FEED) contract for its liquefied natural gas (LNG) platform development in the West Delta area of the Gulf of Mexico, Wood announced Tuesday. According to Wood, the FEED’s primary objective will be to finalize the design of the world’s first offshore platform-based natural gas liquefaction and storage facility. The company noted that it recently completed the project’s pre-FEED work."

https://www.rigzone.com/news/wood_to_de ... 5-article/

"The developer of an LNG export terminal in Oregon that has already twice been denied permits by U.S. regulators is giving it another shot. Veresen Inc. said late Thursday that it filed another application with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission for the $10 billion Jordan Cove LNG terminal that would ship gas to Asia. The agency said the project wasn’t needed in March 2016, and rejected Veresen’s appeal in December. In its latest request, the Calgary-based company proposed route changes for a pipeline to feed the terminal and eliminated plans for a power plant."

https://www.rigzone.com/news/oil_gas/a/ ... ther_shot/

"The United States is proposing to speed up approval of small-scale exports of natural gas, including liquefied natural gas (LNG), the U.S. Department of Energy said in a statement released on Friday. The department said the proposed rule would "expedite the review and approval of applications to export small amounts of natural gas in the emerging small-scale LNG export market," which it said includes the Caribbean, Central America and South America."

https://www.rigzone.com/news/oil_gas/a/ ... tural_gas/

And last but not least: " President Donald Trump’s effort to boost U.S. energy is facing push back from manufacturers who say exporting more natural gas may undercut his “America First” jobs focus."

https://www.rigzone.com/news/oil_gas/a/ ... facturers/

[coffeeguyzz]

Rock

Hope things are going well for you.
Some "stuff" regarding LNG ...

Modularization continues to appear in the construction of LNG plants.
Elba is completely modular and the massive 27 mtpa plant from Tellurian and Bechtel - at a cost of $15+ billion is going to rock their competitors. (Check out cost/capacity for Gladstone, Yamal, Prelude.) Big advantage for Tellurian.

The floaters may well surpass land based with Golnar continuing to innovate.
They are planning to put 4 FLNG plants off Looeezeeannaa with 13 mtpa capacity at $5/6 billion cost.
Huge fit to these units are the floating regassifiers (FSRU) which could set up all over the globe on somewhat short notice with impermanent status.

I cannot locate the report on some recent serendipitously discovered process to manufacture MOFs way cheaper and WAY higher capacity than before, but some fuzzy heads stumbled across it a year ago.

I'm tellin' ya, RM, with all the talk about EVs, I think the possibility of Addorbed Nat Gas fueling vehicles is a lot closer to happenning than most realize.

There is an incredible amount of research and engineering being applied to this area.

[AdamB]

The natural gas industry received a gold star for performance during the recent cold weather across a large portion of the United States. The Energy Information Administration (EIA) reported recently consumption of natural gas in the residential and commercial sectors set a record for the week ending on Jan. 5. EIA said consumption reached 452 billion cubic feet (Bcf) compared with 348 Bcf during the previous week, according to estimates from PointLogic Energy. Total weekly natural gas consumption in the Lower 48 states increased by 150 Bcf, reaching 961 Bcf for the week ending Jan. 5. Another 50 Bcf was exported by pipeline. EIA also noted natural gas spot prices at the national benchmark Henry Hub in Louisiana averaged $3.01 per million British thermal units (MMBtu) in 2017 about 50 cents per MMBtu higher than in 2016. Overall, natural gas prices at key regional

Natural gas consumption sets record

[ROCKMAN]

coffee - Yes, floaters seem to make a lot of sense especially when source NG isn't very large or political instability is an issue. Sometimes the politicos in Boston get a little pissy about the regasification facility across the harbor from the city. And they need the option more then ever these days.

[kanon]

I am curious whether there are statistics on the amount of natural gas venting. As I understand it, there was a time when natural gas was either vented or flared because the economic product was oil. In particular, what the rate of natural gas venting in the 1930's?

[Plantagenet]

The EPA has outlawed venting of NG because it is a pollutant. It is also a powerful greenhouse gas...about 60X more effective then CO2.

Nonetheless, CH4 emissions from the oil and gas industry have risen rapidly since 2005 to the point that global methane emissions are causing a sharp rise in global atmospheric methane levels. This in turn is contributing to the significant rise in global temperatures we are seeing, with a global T increase of 0.4°C just over the last four years.

nasa-study-methane/

The huge increase in methane from the oil and gas industry partly reflects the increasing use of NG in US power plants, with concomitant leaks of CH4 from fracked wells, pipes, storage containers, etc. all through the US energy system.

One of the first things we need to do to mitigate global warming is to reduce and then end the use of NG.


Methane leaks from a typical urban NG pipeline home delivery system

Cheers!

[KaiserJeep]

-snip-

One of the first things we need to do to mitigate global warming is to reduce and then end the use of NG.

-snip-

Now there's a conundrum. The replacement of coal by NG was the brightest hope during Obama's terms. Now you say it's a problem. Surely less of a problem than dirty coal.

[Plantagenet]

The replacement of coal by NG was the brightest hope during Obama's terms. Now you say it's a problem. Surely less of a problem than dirty coal.

I've made the point many times before that Obama was a moron who didn't understand the science of global warming. While Obama said nice things about being against global warming, many of his actions and decisions have made the problem worse. For instance---Obama's Paris Accords Climate Treaty doesn't even mention methane and there was no effort in Paris to get countries to reduce their CH4 emissions. This kind of thing has helped spread the erroneous idea that NG is somehow not harmful to the environment or the climate. One result of Obama's policies favoring NG use in US power plants is a massive increase in CH4 leaking from US TOS gas fields, pipelines, storage facilities, etc.

CH4 is a significant contributor to the rapid global warming we've seen over the last four years---we've gone up 0.4° C in just the last 4 years. The rate of Greenhouse Warming seems to have kicked into a higher gear---and thats rather worrisome. IMHO we should take steps to mitigate global warming, rather then making it worse as Obama did.

Replacing coal-fired power plants with NG power plants that result in increasing CH4 levels in he atmosphere is a Faustian bargain, since methane is a much much more powerful Greenhouse Gas then CO2.


Obama made a Faustian bargain by pushing the adoption of NG fired power plants in the USA.

[rockdoc123]

The EPA has outlawed venting of NG because it is a pollutant. It is also a powerful greenhouse gas...about 60X more effective then CO2.

Nonetheless, CH4 emissions from the oil and gas industry have risen rapidly since 2005 to the point that global methane emissions are causing a sharp rise in global atmospheric methane levels. This in turn is contributing to the significant rise in global temperatures we are seeing, with a global T increase of 0.4°C just over the last four years.

http://eidclimate.org/methane-emissions-continue-decline-top-oil-gas-basins/

Based on the latest data from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program, EID’s report shows methane emissions from the most productive shale basins in the country have fallen considerably in the past six years. These reductions have been achieved even as oil and natural gas production has increased 54 percent and 16 percent, respectively, during that time thanks to advances in horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing technology.

Despite the fact that production in the Permian doubled from 2011 to 2016, methane emissions have decreased 6.3 percent, according to GHGRP data.

EPA data also show that methane emissions in the Williston Basin — home of the Bakken Shale in North Dakota and Montana — have fallen 8.3 percent from 2011 to 2016. These declines came at the same time that oil and natural gas production in the region has quadrupled, as the following EIA graphics show

[Plantagenet]

global methane emissions are causing a sharp rise in global atmospheric methane levels.

the U.S. ... methane

1. The US is a major source of methane going into the atmosphere. The 6-8% reductions in CH4 leaks from some US oil basins that you are touting sound nice, until you do the math and find that 92-94% of the outrageous amount of CH4 found leaking into the atmosphere is STILL leaking into the atmosphere. And there are more methane leaks from NG infrastructure such as pipelines and storage facilities all around the world.

2. The NASA paper I link to above shows clearly that there isn't any doubt that global methane levels in the atmosphere are spiking. Fur†hermore, isotopic analyses of the methane show it is mainly derived from the oil and gas industry.

3. The increasing CH4 concentration in the atmosphere is an important contributor to global warming.



Cheers!

[KaiserJeep]

Those figures you are quoting just do not correlate with the IPCC data.

The methane you mention as a huge problem is smaller than chloroflourocarbons, for example.

I'll acknowledge that it is a more potent GHG when it is present but both carbon dioxide and chloroflorocarbons remain in the atmosphere far longer before they disperse and disassociate.

That's always the problem with statistics. There are so many and they contradict one another. The IPCC for example has a very poor accuracy record, where does your data in that NASA paper come from? Because NASA and NOAA for example also produce the Earthsat data that shows the globe is cooling not warming.

It's the curse of search engines. You can search out confirmation for about any position, with no way of knowing what is a credible source. That's what peer reviews are for.

[Plantagenet]

Those figures you are quoting just do not correlate with the IPCC data.

The IPCC data is based on old and out-of-date estimates of CH4 emissions rather then on hard data. Basically the IPCC asked various industries how much CH4 they emitted. However, these older estimates have proven to be woefully wrong.

In 2013 a paper published in Nature used newer methods, like FLIR imaging, and they found that virtually all NG pipelines, storage facilities, wellheads, etc. are leaking methane. Other studies have replicated this result. Methane leaks are almost ubiquitous. This required a major increase in estimated CH4 emissions coming from the oil and gas sector.

These studies found that as much as 9% (NINE PERCENT!!!) of all the natural gas produced from wells in some areas eventually leaks into the atmosphere. It is amazing how much CH4 is leaking out---by any standard its an unacceptably huge amount.

NATURE: methane-leaks-erode-green-credentials-of-natural-gas

Some newer data comes from NASA (see my link above) and involves imaging and isotopic analysis of methane in the atmosphere. The isotopic signature of hydrocarbons is distinctive and different from the methane released from other sources. The NASA data definitively shows that over half of the methane in the atmosphere is coming from the oil and gas industry----its still leaking out everywhere from the global natural gas infrastructure system.


Methane leaking from a natural gas pipeline detected with FLIR infrared imaging technology. Leaks like this turn out to be occurring virtually everywhere throughout the natural gas production, transportation, storage, and energy generation infrastructure.

Cheers!

[rockdoc123]

. The US is a major source of methane going into the atmosphere. The 6-8% reductions in CH4 leaks from some US oil basins that you are touting sound nice, until you do the math and find that 92-94% of the outrageous amount of CH4 found leaking into the atmosphere is STILL leaking into the atmosphere. And there are more methane leaks from NG infrastructure such as pipelines and storage facilities all around the world.

You miss the point of the study. The methane emissions over all of the shale basins have been decreasing at the same time production has been increasing. That says there is a serious disconnect. You can see that disconnect by looking at NOAA surface stations in Colorado, Oklahoma and Texas all of which show a disconnect of increasing methane with increasing production.

2. The NASA paper I link to above shows clearly that there isn't any doubt that global methane levels in the atmosphere are spiking. Fur†hermore, isotopic analyses of the methane show it is mainly derived from the oil and gas industry

I scanned the paper but did not find this reference. The analysis done uses a satellite-based analysis of CH4 from global forest fires to try and come up with a mix of 3 different potential sources based on box models. They did not measure directly CH3 emissions from oil and gas. The isotope signature for the 3 different sources merely helps them put together possible mixing models for testing in the box models. Please show us where they stated that “methane levels in the atmosphere are spiking”. That is certainly not backed up by the NOAA ESRL data which shows the rise in methane has been at a constant rate since 2008.

[Plantagenet]

. The US is a major source of methane going into the atmosphere. The 6-8% reductions in CH4 leaks from some US oil basins that you are touting sound nice, until you do the math and find that 92-94% of the outrageous amount of CH4 found leaking into the atmosphere is STILL leaking into the atmosphere. And there are more methane leaks from NG infrastructure such as pipelines and storage facilities all around the world.

You miss the point of the study. The methane emissions over all of the shale basins have been decreasing at the same time production has been increasing.

Actually you are missing the point. Decreasing methane emissions just slightly from an unacceptably high level means methane leaks from the oil and gas biz remain at unacceptably high levels.

Fur†hermore, isotopic analyses of the methane show it is mainly derived from the oil and gas industry

I scanned the paper but did not find this reference..

How could you read it and not see the discussion of isotopes? Are your reading comprehension skills really that poor?

OK, that was a cheap shot, but this isn't the first time you haven't been able to understand what you read in a link. OK--as usual I'll help you out. I'll quote the relevant sections from the paper below since you can't read well enough to find them yourself.

Carbon isotopes in the methane molecules are one clue. Of the three methane sources examined in the new study, emissions from fires contain the largest percentage of heavy carbon isotopes, microbial emissions have the smallest, and fossil fuel emissions are in between. Another clue is ethane, which (like methane) is a component of natural gas. An increase in atmospheric ethane indicates increasing fossil fuel sources. Fires emit carbon monoxide as well as methane, and measurements of that gas are a final clue.

Worden's team used carbon monoxide and methane data from the Measurements of Pollutants in the Troposphere instrument on NASA's Terra satellite and the Tropospheric Emission Spectrometer instrument on NASA's Aura to quantify fire emissions of methane. The results show these emissions have been decreasing much more rapidly than expected.

Combining isotopic evidence from ground surface measurements with the newly calculated fire emissions, the team showed that about 17 teragrams per year of the increase is due to fossil fuels, another 12 is from wetlands or rice farming, while fires are decreasing by about 4 teragrams per year. The three numbers combine to 25 teragrams a year — the same as the observed increase.

I'll explain it to you again, since you probably still don't get it, even after I copied this section out for you. I recommend you read slowly and look up the words you don't understand.

First I'd better explain to you what a teragram is....One teragram equals about 1.1 million U.S. tons —

The isotopic data allows the NASA scientists to identify which components of the methane in the atmosphere come from the oil and gas biz. The data shows that about 17 teragrams of the observed 25 teragram increase in methane comes from fossil fuels, i.e. the oil and gas biz. Since 17 teragrams is more than half of 25 teragram, it means that over half the observed increase....or a majority of the new increase...is coming coming from the oil and gas biz. Get it now?


Methane leaks from oil wells, pipelines and storage tanks are bad. They are responsible for the majority of the observed increase in methane to the atmosphere.

Cheers!

[rockdoc123]

Look dipshit, you clearly don't understand what is being done, but for some reason that never stops you from pretending, you are smarter than everyone else. They have a measurement of total global CH4 and it's isotopic components from satellites. As the authors stated previously any attempt to tie emissions from various sources resulted in way more CH4 than has been measured.
The isotopic mixture cannot tell them how much has come from any one of the three simply because it is a mix and different combinations can result in a very similar mix.
This is what they say in the Introduction:

However, determining the relative contributions of anthropogenic, biogeochemical, and chemical drivers of methane trends has been extremely challenging and consequently there is effectively no confidence in projections of future atmospheric methane concentrations. The striking disagreement from several recent studies explaining the changes to atmospheric methane since 2006 is likely due to the assumptions (and extrapolations) involved in attributing source variability to the observed changes in atmospheric methane. For example, surface measurements of CH4 and its isotopic composition suggest a shift of methane sources toward increasing tropical biogenic (BG) sources. However, this explanation appears to directly conflict with observations of increasing FF sources that range between 5 and 25 Tg CH4 per year based on ethane/CH4 ratios as well as studies based on satellite-based total column methane measurements. Other studies show that we cannot rule out inter-annual variations in the hydroxyl radical (OH) chemical methane sink as the cause; however, these studies do not directly show changes in atmospheric OH or provide a mechanistic reason for a change.

This is why after describing their analysis of emissions from fires dropping they went to a box model in order to test various combinations of emissions to arrive at what could best describe the current breakdown of methane isotopes assuming they are correct with the analysis of a significant drop in fire sources. They did not measure directly how much oil and gas contributed because as they stated there are a number of possibilities to come up with the mix. Their results fall out of their box model.

As to your claimed reference....what you said was they claimed methane was spiking....they did not.. They pointed out what the measurement is now but did not show how this was a "spike" from anything measured previously. The output based on NOAA data from various stations around the world demonstrate that and given it is a well-mixed gas the measurements at Mauna Loa are all you need. Please show us all where there is a recent spike in methane. IT isn't there.



Their argument is about attribution, not an overall increase in emission.

[Plantagenet]

Look dipshit......

Get a grip on yourself, crockdoc.

You're acting like a petulant child.....no need to get so wee-wee'd up over nothing.

Cheers!

[rockdoc123]

Get a grip on yourself, crockdoc.

I suggest you need to read your first post and then read the EID study based on actual measured emissions from the oil and gas producing areas.

If there was a huge problem the increased drilling and production should have resulted in a significant increase in methane emissions. The opposite is happening, production is increasing and measured emissions are decreasing. This is not the significant problem you would like everyone to believe regardless of your misunderstanding of papers you link to.

And that is backed up by a previous paper:

Schwietzke, S, et al, 2016. Upward revision of global fossil fuel methane emissions based on isotope database. Nature. 538, pp 88-91

In a similar manner these researchers use box models to attempt to breakdown contribution of CH4 from various sources. What they found was that although their analysis suggested the percentage contribution to total CH4 was higher than estimated in other studies that there had been virtually no increase in CH4 from fossil fuels from the mid-eighties through to 2014.

Accounting for previously neglected FFgeo, our correction of 20%–60% higher CH4 emissions from natural gas, oil and coal production and use implies a greater potential for industry efficiency improvements to mitigate anthropogenic climate forcing. Yet, this study does not confirm an upward trend of FFind emissions in global CH4 inventories despite the large increase in natural gas, oil and coal production and use over the past three decades. Instead, this study finds that natural-gas CH4 emissions per unit of production have declined from about 8% in the mid-1980 s to about 2% in the late 2000s and early 2010s.

[Plantagenet]

If there was a huge problem the increased drilling and production should have resulted in a significant increase in methane emissions.

Is your little potty mouth shut tight and the temper tantrum is over now? You've got control of yourself again? Good.

Then lets discuss this topic once last time.

First lets consider your claim that increased drilling must inevitably mean increases in methane production. Can't you figure out why this hasn't happened? Do I have to explain everything to you three times?

Ok [sigh]. Here it is for the THIRD time.

The reason there hasn't been an increase in methane emissions in some oil producing regions is that there has been an aggressive effort to track down and stop the methane leaks. As I've already explained to you, FLIR thermal IR imaging and other modern methods can spot the methane leaks. Then the oilcos can fix them. Thats the good news. However, as your own links said, the effort hasn't been totally successful as methane leaks in US oil basins continue at high levels just 6-8% below where they were a few years ago. Thats the bad news.

production is increasing and measured emissions are decreasing.

While your statement is true for some individual basins in the USA, on a global basis emissions from fossil fuels are INCREASING. Consider the facts:

1. There has been a recent increase in atmospheric methane. I know you dispute this, but the NASA report I linked to above begins: A new NASA-led study has solved a puzzle involving the recent rise in atmospheric methane, a potent greenhouse gas Surely even you, in spite of your reading comprehension problems, can can understand that sentence. It says there has been a "recent rise in atmospheric methane."

Do you understand that now?

2. OK...if you are capable of understanding point #1, i.e. that there has been a recent rise in atmospheric methane, then the next question is---where is the new methane coming from? Again, the new NASA report has the answer---the new methane is mainly coming from fossil fuels, i.e. the oil and gas sector. The NASA report says: Methane emissions are increasing by about 25 teragrams a year, and it also says that fossil fuels account for about 15 teragrams of this increase. That means about 60% of the global increase in atmospheric methane is coming from increased methane losses from the oil and gas industry.

Can you understand those sentences? Do you understand the math now? Do you get now that global methane flux to the atmosphere from fossil fuels is going up at ca. 15 teragrams a year?


Really, when you control your emotions and think about these things in a rational way its not so very complicated, is it?

Cheers!

[rockdoc123]

While your statement is true for some individual basins in the USA, on a global basis emissions from fossil fuels are INCREASING. Consider the facts:

where has the greatest increase in production occurred in the past few years? It is the US. And your argument originally was focussed on natural gas wells in the shale basins in the US. This is what you said:

The huge increase in methane from the oil and gas industry partly reflects the increasing use of NG in US power plants, with concomitant leaks of CH4 from fracked wells, pipes, storage containers, etc. all through the US energy system.

And as usual you pivot when trapped in an incorrect assumption and now turn it into "global emissions". As far as I am aware nobody has gone around measuring CH4 leaks from wells around the world as EPA has done in the US. Just try and do that in a place like Algeria or Qatar two countries with huge natural gas production.

There has been a recent increase in atmospheric methane. I know you dispute this, but the NASA report I linked to above begins: A new NASA-led study has solved a puzzle involving the recent rise in atmospheric methane, a potent greenhouse gas Surely even you, in spite of your reading comprehension problems, can can understand that sentence. It says there has been a "recent rise in atmospheric methane.

there is only one person in this argument with a reading comprehension problem and it sure isn't me. A "recent rise in atmospheric methane" just means it is higher than it was last year, not that the rate has increased or "spiked" as you stated.

The NASA paper I link to above shows clearly that there isn't any doubt that global methane levels in the atmosphere are spiking.

Once again this is demonstrated by the NOAA data which everyone uses as their reference point. If you have data to show it spiked or if you can show a quote where they said spiked then fine. They didn't. Methane actually rose at a much higher rate than it has recently from the start of the instrumental record to the nineties, flattened for a number of years and then continued to rise from the eighties onward. It is a fairly consistent rate with no "spikes". Just look at the Mauna Loa data, it is what everyone else refers to.

You also said this:

Nonetheless, CH4 emissions from the oil and gas industry have risen rapidly since 2005 to the point that global methane emissions are causing a sharp rise in global atmospheric methane levels

sharp rise infers an increased rate not just an increase in pbb....please demonstrate this for all of us. As I've shown the rate of increase in methane prior to the nineties was greater than the period of 2008 onwards and the US oil and gas industry was not booming at that time. When you look at the CH4 NOAA records for TX, Oklahoma and Colorado they are not matched at all with the increased oil and gas activity in those areas. That needs to be explained as well, perhaps you will invoke aliens having abducted too many cows from those particular states?

Really, when you control your emotions and think about these things in a rational way its not so very complicated, is it?

I think you need to read your own pedantic verbal salad which seems to almost always be based on misunderstanding either the topic published what you have actually claimed or, in general, the English language. Much like your ridiculous claim about water flooding being EOR and how you were absolutely sure about this, even misquoting from the Schlumberger dictionary the level of your claims are not only incorrect but delivered with an exceedingly annoying self-satisfied tone.

[Plantagenet]

As far as I am aware nobody has gone around measuring CH4 leaks from wells around the world as EPA has done in the US. Just try and do that in a place like Algeria or Qatar two countries with huge natural gas production.

You still don't understand what I've posted, even after I've repeated it three times now. You really do have a reading comprehension problem, you know.

Lets try one more time. Hopefully the FOURTH time will do it.

The NASA data isn't based on data from individual wells in separate oilfields---that was in a different paper. Do you get that? OK---let try the next thing.

The NASA report I linked to is discussing the total amount of methane in the atmosphere. Got that now as well?

The NASA report says they can determine that the methane in the atmosphere comes from different sources because it has different isotopic characteristics. In particular, they can determine how much atmospheric methane comes from fossil fuels. Thats three different ideas so far---do you have them all in your mind. If so, lets go for the conclusion:

OK---here comes the most important thing---the data: NASA reports that the amount of methane in the atmosphere is increasing by 25 teragrams per year, with 15 teragrams or 60% of the annual increase in methane in the global atmosphere coming from fossil fuels.

OKAY---hope you got all that. Three times is the charm, they say, and now I've repeated it for you FOUR TIMES! Wow!

CHEERS!