Blue hydrogen has been making headlines this summer. It’s made from natural gas in a two-part process called autothermal reformation (ATR). The ATR process is different than the steam reformation (SMR) process used to make most hydrogen over the past century. There has never been a market for hydrogen for energy so we learn more & more each year about how to make zero, net zero, and low emission hydrogen for future markets. What distinguishes the ATR process of making hydrogen from the SMR process is a step called partial oxidation. In the first part of the ATR process, methane (CH4) is partially oxidized to create syngas. In the 2nd part of the ATR process, called a water-gas shift reaction, the syngas is mixed with steam to make carbon dioxide & hydrogen.1 The chemical notation for the exothermic ATR process is:
Partial oxidation of methane reaction:
CH4 + ½O2 → CO + 2H2 (+ heat)
Water-gas shift reaction:
CO + H2O → CO2 + H2 (+ small amount of heat)
What makes the hydrogen “blue”, and why the US Department of Energy is talking about this pathway for hydrogen production, is that ~95% of the CO2 from the process is easily separated from the natural gas and can be permanently sequestered such that it will never reach our atmosphere. The reason this hydrogen is being called “net zero” is because the by-products of the process can be used to make the energy required to execute the process as well producing excess energy to power nearby homes & businesses that would otherwise come from burning fossil fuels.
Unfortunately, the anti-hydrogen crowd has been spreading misinformation about blue hydrogen recently and it’s gotten into the internet echo chamber. This misinformation serves its purpose of sowing doubt about a net zero technology that is ready now to help eliminate greenhouse gas emissions and improve air quality in population dense areas. This time the misinformation comes from an old regular, Mark Jacobson, and co-author Robert Howarth. Their recently published study spreads misinformation under the guise of peer reviewed science. Mark Jacobson recently published this anti-hydrogen research paper in August 2021 that will be debunked in this post.
After debunking more misinformation from Mark Jacobson about the benefits of a hydrogen economy, RMP will cover some positive points about how real scientists and real companies are investing billions of dollars into making net zero blue hydrogen here in the USA and also in Canada. The multi-billion dollar investments recently announced to build blue hydrogen plants will create good paying jobs for real scientists and real engineers. As long as we keep speaking out against pseudo-science like the Jacobson/Howarth study, there is a chance to save our climate, have clean water, and breath clean air.
Why It’s Important for RMP to Write About Blue Hydrogen Now
“A lie gets half way around the world before the truth has time to put on its shoes” is a famous quote often attributed to Mark Twain. One hundred years later and with the advent of social media, it could be argued that a lie gets around the world several times over before the truth’s jaw can drop in amazement. If you’re a hydrogen advocate, like the people who volunteer their free time to help RMP protect our freshwater resources, you know about this all too well. There are certain folks that don’t seem to care about landfills and waste water threatening our drinking water & being a larger source of methane emissions than the oil & gas industry2. But, when it comes to net zero hydrogen production that can be made with net zero CO2 / NOx / SOx, these same critics are vehement, vocal, and willing to spread misleading information.
Sulfur Dioxide is much worse for people than CO2 and you will not find a single mention of it in the 13 page Howarth/Jacobson paper. The word sulfur/sulphur shows up exactly zero times in the Howarth/Jacobson paper. The word nitrous oxide shows up only once in the same sentence that mentions the paper is solely focused on carbon dioxide & methane. The word carbon dioxide is spelled out in its entirety 128 times and never once called CO2 which is also a little odd. It is socially irresponsible to be myopic on environmental studies that have broad implications to our economy and well being. This is especially true in a country with poorer folks living near fossil fuel plants & oil refineries that release toxic emissions like SOx into the atmosphere disproportionately impacting people of color; this makes reports like the Jacobson/Howarth study even more socially irresponsible in that it ignores these important factors. We have the technology now to make blue hydrogen to eliminate CO2, NOx, and SOx which can improve the health of every American immediately. It makes standing up for real environmental science ever so more important which is the purpose of this website/organization.
Mark Jacobson first wound up on RMP’s radar in 2016 as a spreader of hydrogen misinformation. His situation is unique as a person in a position of influence at a prestigious university (in this case Stanford) and also because he purports to dedicate his life to saving the planet. Instead of objectively supporting all clean energy technologies, Mark seems focused on attacking clean energy solutions like hydrogen as he has for several years now. I remember subscribing the Stanford Energy Newsletter in April of 2017 just so I could follow along with the University’s research and follow Mark’s exploits after I became alarmed after reading some of his published work. I have been subscribed to Stanford’s Energy Newsletter ever since. Every once in a while, like this past August 2021, Mark publishes something misleading to further an anti-hydrogen agenda and it gets wide traction with media outlets and lawmakers. The tweet below from congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez reaches her audience of 12.7M Twitter followers and most likely uses Mark Jacobson’s junk science to support her false claims. When coal is burned, it releases CO2, NOx, SOx, particulates, and mercury into the air. What AOC tweets below is wrong & alarming.
You know where Blue hydrogen comes from? Fracked gas. Blue hydrogen has worse emissions than coal, locks in more powerful climate destruction than what we’re doing now.
Blue is bad. (Grey too)
Guess which one bipar bill finances? Blue. So we need to mitigate that BIF alone harm
— Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) October 28, 2021
RMP feels it’s important to carve time out of our very busy lives and away from our day jobs to debunk this kind of junk science in order to fight for the protection of our drinking water and the air we breathe. Let’s start the debunking and then move on to some good news regarding those who are making multi-billion dollar investments in blue hydrogen in the face of misleading detractors like Mark Jacobson. Everywhere blue hydrogen production is employed, it will result in net zero carbon dioxide as well as reduced cases of asthma [especially] in poorer communities where coal & natural gas are currently combusting CO2, NOx, & SOx into our atmosphere.
Debunking the Howarth/Jacobson Study
The first major flaw in the Jacobson/Howarth paper is that the study employs a 20-year window to assign a greenhouse gas equivalency to methane instead of the 100-year window the IPCC uses3. While it’s true methane is a powerful GHG that’s 100 times more potent than CO2, it goes away in about 12 years. Integrating methane’s warming potential over a 20-year window gives it a CO2 equivalency of 86 which is the figure that Howarth & Jacobson use in their study. Over a 100-year window, however, it’s only 28 which is 1/3 of the figure Howarth and Jacobson employ. The 20-year equivalency exaggerates the overall impact of methane emissions because over most of the 100-years, the methane would be long gone from the atmosphere.4
The next major flaw in the report conflates fugitive methane emissions from oil production rather than natural gas production. RMP has been tracking oil & gas production in the Michigan Basin since 2011. We’ve mapped every single oil, gas, disposal, and storage well in Michigan and I have personally visited 100s of these wells over the past decade. RMP’s environmental research & watchdog work in the Michigan oil patch has been covered in Ecowatch, Bridge Magazine, and several other well-known media outlets like MLive. One thing you learn when you track the brass tacks production operations of the oil industry closely for several years is that natural gas is a nuisance gas at oil wells.
Natural gas is often vented or flared at oil wells because there is no way to get it to market and it’s therefore unwanted. We need to eliminate the use of oil for so many reasons and natural gas emissions is just one more reason to add to the list. We need to eliminate the use of oil as soon as humanly possible. Oil wells are responsible for releasing more methane emissions from subsurface wells than natural gas wells or any other type of well. This point is conflated in the Jacobson/Howarth study further eroding is credibility. Oil also threatens our drinking water in a much more substantial way than natural gas which is a point that doesn’t get much attention. It’s RMP’s stated mission to protect our drinking water.
RMP would love to see all oil wells plugged and never used again in order to curb their methane emissions and we’ve fought as hard as anyone over the past decade with this website as our body of work to back that statement up. Natural gas emissions at natural gas wells, however, are not the same. Natural gas wells have the specific purpose of getting gas to market and operators don’t want that product to leak. It’s disingenuous to compare leakage rates at oil wells -vs- gas wells which is what the Howarth/Jacobson study does. This means the 2.6% figure for upstream emissions the Howarth/Jacobson study employs grossly overstates the emissions associated with use of natural gas.
Make no mistake, RMP supports green hydrogen over blue hydrogen from natural gas wells, but blue hydrogen technology can reduce current emissions substantially now from gas wells that are already in use. Blue hydrogen will remain very important for RNG long after every natural gas well in the world has been plugged & forgotten because of more economical green hydrogen. So blue hydrogen’s importance is not directly tied to natural gas wells. Blue hydrogen can be employed for 100s of years after all subsurface wells are plugged.
The third and most deceptive flaw of the Howarth/Jacobson paper is the sleight of hand of basing calculations on old school steam methane reforming (SMR) rather than autothermal reformation (ATR). The acronym SMR is used 69 times in the 13 page paper. This is a classic hydrogen detractor technique that is used by all the famous detractors that spout scientific misinformation about hydrogen: claim the historical use of hydrogen for the past 85 years is representative of what blue hydrogen will be or can be. It is disingenuous to conflate hydrogen made for oil refining as representative of our ability to make zero emission hydrogen for FCEVs that will replace gasoline & diesel cars . Can you guess how many times the word autothermal is used in Jacobson’s paper? If you guessed zero, you’re absolutely correct.
One final flaw in the report is section 2.2 of the study calling out the extra power it would take to run the SMR process. This is actually how blue hydrogen achieves its ‘net zero’ claim through the ATR process. In section 2.2 of the Jacobson/Howarth study, Mark calculates 31.8g of CO2 are generated to create 1 MJ of hydrogen. The math is correct, but the irony again is sleight of hand in that this is the amount of CO2 saved because it will be sequestered. By capturing the CO2 that would otherwise be necessary to create the hydrogen while also having surplus power for nearby homes & businesses, the blue hydrogen produced earns its “net zero” claim.
For the past 100 years hydrogen has been used predominantly in ammonia production (55%), oil refining (25%), methanol production (10%), and ten percent “other”. Hydrogen has never had a market other than to make our food & make dirty gasoline. We never had the technology to use it for hydrogen fuel cells as the technology has been incubating in its infancy for over 50 years. Well guess what? Hydrogen fuel cell technology has blossomed in the past decade to bear fruit for a clean energy future. We don’t need to use hydrogen for refining oil in a future state economy, and we don’t need to make it like our fathers, grandfathers, and great grandfathers used to in the early 1900s. It’s misleading to use century old backward looking stats as the basis for a forward-looking study when new blue hydrogen investments will be using autothermal reformation (ATR) and carbon sequestration.
The math and chemical equations in the Howarth/Jacobson paper are not scientifically accurate as laid out above. But the bigger problem is the way the study uses sleight of hand tricks to get you to look backward instead of forward. Howarth and Jacobson go to lengths calculating the chemical mole weights of carbon dioxide from making hydrogen from steam reformation. On page four of the study there’s a table to summarize how much carbon dioxide is released as flue gas in the SMR process. Let me say the same thing I said when I debunked Dr. Bossel’s pseudo-scientific paper: I don’t dispute the Howarth/Jacobson chemical calculations per se, but by plugging the wrong numbers into his equations, Mark arrives at the wrong results. Let me hang RMP’s thesis on this important point: new multi-billion dollar investments in blue hydrogen will not use the SMR process to make hydrogen. Blue hydrogen investments will employ autothermal reformation (ATR) in which 95% of the carbon dioxide will be captured and sequestered forever. “Net zero” blue hydrogen will be achieved by eliminating the need to generate an external power source to execute the ATR process and the process itself will feed excess power to the grid. Even staunch anti-hydrogen critic Michael Liebreich poured cold water on the Jacobson/Howarth study by basically saying “garbage in / garbage out”.
I'm not tweeting the whole "Blue hydrogen worse than natural gas" thing because, well, it's Mark Jacobson. If you make implausible assumptions, you get implausible results. Even if those results fit your desired narrative, honest folks are duty bound to either dig in or stay out. https://t.co/wST9kjDZEn
— Michael Liebreich (@MLiebreich) August 12, 2021
There’s no reason to spend any more time debunking the Howarth/Jacobson paper. Our time is too valuable to rehash these incessant attempts to stifle good technologies like blue hydrogen with misleading information. Let’s instead focus on what real scientists and engineers are doing to combat climate change. They’re putting their money where their mouth is and they’re investing their money in ATR plants with CCS to create net zero blue hydrogen and good paying jobs.
Blue Hydrogen Investments Are Happening Now
Blue hydrogen has certainly jumped into the lime-light recently it seems since a key date this summer. On June 9th, 2021 Lehigh Valley, Pennsylvania based Air Products announced in conjunction with the Government of Canada and the Province of Alberta, a multi-billion dollar plan to build a landmark new net-zero hydrogen energy complex in Edmonton, Alberta.5 Edmonton is the heart of western Canada’s hydrogen economy and this news release set the stage for the Canadian city to operate an economically competitive and low-carbon-intensity network of energy. It was just 47 days after the multi-billion dollar Canadian blue hydrogen project was announced that the Jacobson/Howarth paper denouncing blue hydrogen with misleading pseudo-science was accepted at www.researchgate.net on July 26th, 2021.
When the Edmonton, Alberta blue hydrogen project was announced, Air Products CEO Seifi Ghasemi said “By being a first mover and investing in this innovative landmark project, we are paving the way for hydrogen from Edmonton to meet industrial and transportation needs throughout western Canada. Our highly integrated project will be a model for net-zero atmospheric gas, hydrogen and power production consistent with our announced growth platforms.”
The info-graphic used as this post’s featured image was adapted from the Air Product’s page that explains the details of the Edmonton, Alberta project. One of the interesting things about the graphic is that it shows a 55 km hydrogen pipeline and indicates multiple ATR/CCS plants could be built along the pipeline scaling up net zero blue hydrogen production to 1,500 tons per day. If 1,500 tons of blue hydrogen was produced per day, it would be enough for 2,000,000 FCEVs like a Toyota Mirai. Just imagine two million drivers with zero emissions and zero impact on the electricity grid. In fact, each plant would put additional energy into the grid at zero emissions to help charge BEVs. This will be a great way to help Canada achieve their goal of zero emissions energy.
The Jacobson/Howarth study was published with just enough time to malign the narrative around blue hydrogen because less than two months after the Jacobson/Howarth study was published, Air Products was back with another announcement on October 14th, 2021. This time it was Louisiana Governor John Bel Edwards and Air Products CEO Seifi Ghasemi announcing a $4.5 billion clean energy complex to be built in Louisiana that will make the state a leader in the United States (U.S.) clean energy transition.
The Louisiana blue hydrogen project practically dwarfs the Edmonton project with some very impressive statistics: 750 million SCF of blue H2 per day, 2000 construction jobs over a period of three years, 170 permanent jobs with an annual payroll of $15.9M per year, and all of this at net zero emissions. If you convert 750 million SCF of H2 to tons, it’s nearly 2,000 tons per day or enough to service approximately 2.7 million FCEVs. Again, this is nearly 3 million cars with zero emissions, and zero impact on the grid other than adding additional energy to the grid that can be used to charge BEVs. The October 14th, 2021 announcement represents Air Products largest ever investment in the USA in the company’s history.
A large portion of the net zero blue hydrogen created in Louisiana will be for making blue ammonia so the 2.7M car equivalency is just to show scale. The neat thing about hydrogen is how it scales because there is enough for our cars, trucks, boats, and ammonia. Hydrogen can be used for everything from energy to fertilizer to steel with zero emissions; and you can never run out of it.
The blue hydrogen in Louisiana will be able to connect to Air Product’s recently upgraded 700 miles of hydrogen pipeline that stretches all the way from New Orleans to Galveston Texas. Additional ATR/CCS hydrogen production facilities can be built from New Orleans to Baton Rouge to Lake Charles and all the way over to Houston along the largest hydrogen pipeline system in the world. As RMP has said before, Texas could come on the scene and possibly surpass California in registered FCEVs on the road in the next decade.
About 95 percent of the carbon dioxide generated at the Louisiana Air Products facility will be captured, compressed and transported by pipeline to multiple inland sequestration sites located along a pipeline corridor extending up to 35 miles to the east of the complex. More than five million metric tons per year of carbon dioxide will be permanently sequestered in geologic pore space secured from the State of Louisiana about a mile below ground. Air Products has received approval from the State Mineral and Energy Board for the permanent sequestration of the carbon dioxide.6
The Edmonton Alberta and Ascension Parish Louisiana blue hydrogen locations have been added to RMP’s map of North American hydrogen infrastructure you can find by clicking here. The Edmonton Alberta location on RMP’s map is exact while the Air Products location at 8013 Ashland Road in Geismar Louisiana is a real location but only a guess as to the location where the blue hydrogen plant will be built. The Ashland Road location makes sense as Air Products has a lot of vacant property on the west end of their parcel between the railroad tracks & the Mississippi River. None of the websites announcing the Ascension Parish location have information on the exact location of the planned blue hydrogen facility. When RMP learns the exact location of the planned facility, our map will be updated or confirmed as accurate.
Michigan has had several CO2 sequestration projects underway for several years now that RMP has written about in the past. We also recall in 2014 when representative Rick Outman sponsored Michigan legislation (HB5254) that Governor Snyder signed into law April 1, 2014 which modified wording so it was legal to transfer carbon dioxide by pipeline in Michigan. Michigan has had several wells drilled into geologic formations that could sequester CO2 in the Detroit area. Several wells have been drilled into the Salina formation in Detroit in the 1970’s7 as well as several wells drilled through the Bass Islands & Traverse formations into the Niagaran formation at about 3,400 feet depth throughout the metro Detroit area. West Bay has drilled into the Niagaran formation in the Plymouth Canton area as recently as 2009.8
Michigan has all the tools to begin sequestering CO2 now, just like Louisiana. All the pieces are in place for us to create net zero energy and create good jobs right now here in Detroit. We can make green hydrogen too, but we have an obligation to reduce CO2, NOx, and SOx in the River Rouge & Zug Island area now which is the armpit of Detroit’s worst emissions and pollution.
We can make Blue Hydrogen here in Michigan just like Lousiana & Edmonton are doing. Across the river in Sarnia, Air Products already has a hydrogen liquefaction facility that could be upgraded to make net zero Blue Hydrogen. While ATR/CCS will be for new hydrogen manufacturing plants, it’s true that most hydrogen today is made for the petroleum industry where the goal is cheap even if dirty. Several coal plants will keep burning coal and oil refiners will continue to use tons of hydrogen to refine oil for our cars & trucks. The hydrogen used to make gasoline will largely come from SMR with all carbon dioxide vented to atmosphere. This does not make FCEVs the culprit of gray hydrogen, it makes gasoline & diesel vehicles the culprit of gray hydrogen. FCEVs running on blue hydrogen or green hydrogen are net zero CO2, NOx, and SOx. Let’s not conflate the problems of the past with our options for the future. FCEVs have nothing to do with historical hydrogen manufacturing & distribution over the last 100 years; they need to be judged on their ability to have net zero emissions looking forward.
In 2020, Americans used about 123 billion gallons of motor gasoline—or about 337 million gallons per day—and about 166 million gallons of aviation gasoline. Gasoline is one of the major fuels consumed in the United States and is the main product that U.S. oil refineries produce.9
Final Thoughts on Blue Hydrogen
Green hydrogen is the best. We can make enough green hydrogen for all in the future. But, we would be foolish to think we could make enough green hydrogen to replace consumers deeply entrenched reliance on a fossil fuel economy overnight. Our hospitals, our industry, our military, and our consumers all expect to have all the energy they need on demand to keep America running. Blue hydrogen is a technology we can use now to start tipping the scales of our fossil fuel reliance toward a green hydrogen future. After every gas well in the whole world has been plugged and forgotten, the use of blue hydrogen will still play an important part in the hydrogen economy to help create clean energy and good jobs at our landfills, animal farms, and waste water treatment facilities. Even if the fossil fuel industry disappeared overnight, natural gas will still need to be managed to protect our environment.
Much of the oil refining infrastructure and fossil fuel infrastructure in place today has decades of useful life remaining. Gasoline powered vehicles are still being sold today with average useful lives of 12.1 years10. The oil refining industry and gasoline powered cars are connected to how hydrogen is made now. FCEVs and how hydrogen can be made with zero emissions of CO2, NOx, and SOx is the future. It is bad science and economics to look at historical hydrogen tied to gasoline cars and say that it’s representative of green & blue hydrogen for hydrogen fuel cell cars in the future.
Much of the coal burned in the USA happens in the same places SMR is being used to make hydrogen for oil refining. Detroit’s Zug Island & River Rouge area is a great example of a location where coal is burned, oil is refined, and steel gets made. Zug Island in Detroit is similar to many other places where energy is made in a concentrated area in order to feed America’s hungry energy consumers & industrial processes. It is in these industrial areas where energy is made that property values are the lowest because of the toxic emissions these locations belch into our atmosphere. It is also in these places where Americans below the poverty threshold live and raise their children.
In most cases the communities subjected to America’s nastiest emissions are disproportionally communities of color. Blue hydrogen and IGCC with CCS technology are ways to cut America’s emissions now, improve air quality for those suffering the most from NOx, SOx, and particulate emissions. The actions of reducing pollution need to happen in conjunction with the build out of green energy infrastructure. We need to capitalize on every solution available to create a pathway for thousands of American workers to transition from dirty energy to a clean hydrogen economy. To deny this is to continue to relegate so many American’s to breathe dirty air for years to come. Why? What is someone’s true agenda when they badmouth solutions that will eliminate CO2, NOx, & SOx without showing us any alternative solutions that scale to the 101 quadrillion BTUs America uses each year which is only 17% of the 599 quadrillion BTUs the world uses each year? 11
Blue hydrogen is an excellent investment for the USA & Canada to reduce GHG emissions to pre-industrial levels now. We can scale production of green & blue hydrogen to serve every single energy situation as well as steel, concrete, and fertilizer; no other solution can say that. We can scale up green hydrogen while blue hydrogen helps to descale the fossil fuel industry. This is the way.
Thanks for reading. If you like our maps and our posts, please consider making a secure and tax deductible donation to RMP by clicking here. We have very little revenue to cover web hosting services and appreciate your support.
Footnote #1 – “Hydrogen Production: Natural Gas Reforming” U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy https://www.energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/hydrogen-production-natural-gas-reforming
Footnote #2– Andrew Benedek, CalMatters.org, “Why we must turn food waste into a renewable fuel” Published October 21, 2021 https://calmatters.org/commentary/2021/10/why-we-must-turn-food-waste-into-a-renewable-fuel/
Footnote #3 – Allen, M.R., Shine, K.P., Fuglestvedt, J.S. et al. “A solution to the misrepresentations of CO2-equivalent emissions of short-lived climate pollutants under ambitious mitigation” npj Clim Atmos Sci 1, 16 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41612-018-0026-8
Footnote #4 – Roger Arnold, Natural Gas World, “Bashing Blue Hydrogen: False Numbers, Flawed Models [Gas in Transition]” published October 13, 2021 https://www.naturalgasworld.com/bashing-blue-hydrogen-false-numbers-flawed-models-gas-in-transition-92613
Footnote #5 – Press Release, Air Products Corporation, “Air Products Announces Multi-Billion Dollar Net-Zero Hydrogen Energy Complex in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada” published June 9, 2021 https://www.airproducts.com/news-center/2021/06/0609-air-products-net-zero-hydrogen-energy-complex-in-edmonton-alberta-canada
Footnote #6 – Press Release, Office of the Governor of the State of Louisiana “Gov. Edwards, Air Products Announce $4.5 Billion Blue Hydrogen Clean Energy Complex” published October 14, 2021 https://gov.louisiana.gov/index.cfm/newsroom/detail/3421
Footnote #7 – Well file Michigan Department of Environment, Energy, and Great Lakes “Permit 32883 – State of Michigan Department of Natural Resources Geological Survey Division ” published February 9, 1979 http://www.deq.state.mi.us/GeoWebface/GeoWebface/WF/163/32883_WF.pdf
Footnote #8 – Well file Michigan Department of Environment, Energy, and Great Lakes “Permit 59922- Michigan Department of Environmental Quality – Office of Geological Survey ” published May 6, 2009 http://www.deq.state.mi.us/GeoWebface/GeoWebface/WF/163/59922_WF.pdf
Footnote #9 – U.S. Energy Information Administration “Gasoline Explained – Use of Gasoline” published 2020 https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/gasoline/use-of-gasoline.php
Footnote #10 – Mathilde Carlier, Statista.com “U.S Vehicle Age from 2018 to 2021 (in years)” published September 29, 2021 https://www.statista.com/statistics/738667/us-vehicles-projected-age/
Footnote #11 – U.S. Energy Information Association “FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS (FAQS), What is the United States’ share of world energy consumption?” Last updated November 5, 2021 https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=87