There are a fair number of benefits that come with utilizing liquid natural gas (LMG) - it burns cleaner than higher length oil derivatives, it is produced by natural processes rather than the VERY slow process of building octane and nonane chain hydrocarbons, and like gasoline, it can be readily processed into a liquid, albeit one under pressure. The problem with LNG (methane, essentially) is that it is a considerably more potent greenhouse gas than CO2 is, and without recapturing it, we're significantly exacerbating climate change.
The growing use of electric vehicles (eVs) shifts the dynamic away from a liquid focused to a battery focused technology for providing motive force. LNG made some sense for heating water (which in turn provides heat to houses in the winter) and for cooking, but the big use case that LNG companies were hoping to make them rich - providing an alternative to gasoline for cars - is now very much threatened by the rise of eVs. At best, LNG might end up being stored as an adjunct to batteries for alternative power, but even that's becoming less of an issue as battery technology is improved.
What the OP failed to make the distinction on was that this is not a supply-side issue - it's another form of peak demand. We have between 85 and 120 years worth of natural gas, more if we want to take advantage of offshore clathrates, but just as with oil, demand for LNG is dropping because we are using less as both the technology improves and the demand drops in response to slowing macroscopic growth (over the next forty years). If, as is possible, we have fusion reactors in place here in the US by 2035 (the CERN tokamak looks to go live in 2024) then demand will drop even more, largely due to the phase out of non-eVs between now and 2050.
= new reply since forum marked as read
