12 ms·
Why Engineers Can’t Stop Los Angeles' Enormous Methane Leak
- exolymph 11y agothis'll be fine I'm sure :0
- DrScump 11y agohttps://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10796872 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10796872
- eternauta3k 11y agoWhy not light it? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_flare https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_flare
- awjr 11y agoBecause it creates a Door to Hell https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Door_to_Hell https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Door_to_Hell
- vox_mollis 11y agoUnlikely. This is leaking from a storage reservoir, not a field. Eventually the gas runs out.
- ceejayoz 11y ago> Eventually the gas runs out. Well... careful with estimates on that. From the Door to Hell article: > It was estimated that the gas would burn out within a few weeks, but it has instead continued to burn for more than four decades.
- wyaeld 11y agoIn this case its an actual reservoir, reasonable to assume they know exactly how much case is in there.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- Crito 11y ago1) New tourist attraction. 2) From an environmental standpoint, isn't CO2 in the atmosphere better than methane? Lighting it would be admitting defeat. I suspect pride is a factor here.
- maxerickson 11y agoIf we are going to be cynical about it, let's really be cynical and figure that they can best limit their losses by using a recovery well. If it was cheaper and feasible to light it, I think they'd do that over keeping pride.
- HillaryBriss 11y agoIt could start a fire in the nearby brush. With a little wind it could spread rapidly to thousands of nearby dwellings.
- mirkules 11y agoExactly. I used to live near there, and the area is extremely dry and prone to wildfires, for example https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porter_Ranch_fire https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porter_Ranch_fire
- jessaustin 11y agoI thought you had to dig through a vein of adamantine for that?
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- msandford 11y agoAlthough that would be better for the environment, it would make it absolutely obvious to everyone how big of a problem this is. After the BP thing, that's something to be avoided at all costs.
- cma 11y agoIt would keep things canon with the Los Angeles of the Blade Runner opening flyover sequence: http://www.audienceseverywhere.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/bladerunner-full-a-return-to-future-l-a.jpeg http://www.audienceseverywhere.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/0...
- mfisher87 11y agoWhat I really want to know is how they prevent it from getting lit accidentally. I would figure the smallest spark would make it happen.
- drzaiusapelord 11y agoI don't think that's true. Depending on the air/gas mix at the point of the proposed ignition it might require a very deliberate and difficult effort to light it.
- foobarian 11y agoForget about lighting it, why not just blow up the well like they did in Kuwait after Saddam's forces lit up the oil wells while retreating? An obvious solution, that I'm sure there is a reason can't be used, that article didn't even mention despite being titled "why engineers can't stop the leak."
- njharman 11y agoMaybe another process is to really do blow up "the well" but all the uses of explosions I've heard about was to put out the fire (burning oil) by starving its oxygen. So, workers could then go in and cap the well.
- mkaufmann 11y agoOn the topic of what went wrong I think this LA weekly[3] article is a much better source. The main problem why the well can't be shut down is that the security valve was removed about 40 years ago: "He pointed out that the valve was old at that time and leaking. It also was not easy to find a new part, so the company opted not to replace it.". Certainly a bad decision and it should be checked if regulations need to be changed to avoid similar problems in the future. EDIT: The old version had used the wrong conversion factors, now corrected The central number is the exhaust mass of 110,000 pounds per hour. So how much is this really? This is about 50 metric tons of methane per hour. To be able to compare it with other greenhouse emissions we can calculate the CO2 equivalent by multiplying with 0.01133[1] giving the rate of: 1247 metric tons CO2e per hour. Using the EPA Online tool[2] we can relate this to the toal emissions in Calfornia or the US. The total emission of methan measured in CO2e for California in 2014 was: 9,546,270 metric tons CO2e. Converted to a rate per hour this gives: 1089 metric tons CO2e per hour. So while the well is leaking it is releasing 114% of the normal methane emissions of California. Compared to all greenhouse gas emissions the well is causing an increase of 10% in california and 0.3%at the US national level compared to the emissions from large facilities. [1] http://www3.epa.gov/gasstar/tools/calculations.html http://www3.epa.gov/gasstar/tools/calculations.html [2] http://ghgdata.epa.gov/ghgp/main.do http://ghgdata.epa.gov/ghgp/main.do [3] http://www.laweekly.com/news/what-went-wrong-at-porter-ranch-6405804 http://www.laweekly.com/news/what-went-wrong-at-porter-ranch...
- plorg 11y agoThe figure used for converting metric tons CH4 to metric tons CO2e seems quite low, and I'm not sure what exactly it means in the context of the chart you cite. Indeed, if you plug "110,000" into the calculator [1] references you get 1,247 metric tons CO2e as a result. That calculator uses a figure of 22.7 for conversion from metric tons CH4 to metric tons CO2e. Many other sources use the number 25.
- strommen 11y ago25 is the correct number. 22.7 is used to convert short tons CH4 to metric tons CO2e. (A "short ton" is what we call a "ton" in the US)
- jokoon 11y agoCan't they just capture it and store it instead?
- maxerickson 11y agoWithout looking carefully at it, I suspect the only nearby storage with enough capacity to deal with it (if they could even capture it) is the thing that is leaking.
- talmand 11y agoThen wouldn't capturing it and feeding it back into the same reservoir solve the problem? At least temporarily?
- VLM 11y agoIf they were not extremely careful about removing all the oxygen, then pumping oxygen into the reservoir would eventually be very exciting once the oxygen percentage rises above a certain limit. There is also a circular argument that compressing and pumping natgas takes a fair amount of energy. Of course you could burn the gas in a turbine. But then its simpler to just install 2 or 3 times the turbine capacity and just sell power to the grid. Also see above about explosions, no one is going to rent you a natgas turbine or rent you the money to buy one if the likely lifetime before the big explosion is only a week or two. Also hooking piping up to the reservoir is roughly as difficult as digging the kill well they're already working on, so rather than stopping it in Feb they'd merely be partially recycling by next May or something. So what they're already doing to shut it down, will be done much faster.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- talmand 11y agoYou obviously know more than me, I was just commenting on the capturing idea needing a reservoir to place it after capture. I was also thinking of just storing as much as possible in a series of large inflatable balloons. You'd have to keep some distance between them in case one decides to explode I guess.
- strommen 11y agoTo put this in perspective: the US emits 6,673 million metric tons of CO2e* each year [1]. That's 18.2 million per day. EDIT - I also had some numbers wrong! I was using the total leakage as the daily leakage. This leak is 110,000 lbs CH4/hr, 50 metric tons CH4/hour, 1200 metric tons CH4 per day, 30,000 metric tons per day of CO2e. That's .16% of our nation-wide emissions. Or, about as much as a half-million people. *(CO2-equivalent, abbreviated CO2e, is used to normalize emissions of different gases. They are weighted based on their Global Warming Potential (GWP), which is a measure of how effective they are as a greenhouse gas. CO2 has a GWP of 1; Methane has a GWP of 25.) [1] http://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/usinventoryreport.html http://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/usinventoryre...
- mkaufmann 11y agoI think you are mixing the number up. I could not find a source that said anything close to the 1.7 million metric tons per day emitted by the leaking well you used for your calculation. The leak is emitting 1247 metric tons of CO2e per hour that is 29928 metric tons of CO2e per day. So its 0.17% instead of 9% of nation-wide emissions.
- strommen 11y agoI think I've corrected it, but we're still off from each other :) Can you take another look? I'm not sure what you're using for US-wide methane and CO2e emissions figures.
- mkaufmann 11y agoDamn these numbers! :D Regarding your correction. The percent value is now too low (.002%). I think you used the factor value of ~0.002 as percentage. So you probably meant 0.2% which would be close to my number. Using your numbers 30000/18200000 = .00164835164835164835 = ~0.16% = ~0.2%
- strommen 11y ago
- swayvil 11y agowould setting it on fire dispose of it?
- CodeWriter23 11y agoYes, and probably dispose of most of the San Fernando Valley at the same time.
- exabrial 11y agoYah, it would, normally, in other States. This is called "flaring", but I imagine California has environmental 'protection' laws limiting or preventing these systems from being used. Most wells have emergency flare systems that burn excess gas if a formation surge occurs (faster than it can be captured). Regardless, this situation is unique because the well is very old... and leaking in several places. I don't know of an existing system that can safely pump an Oxygen/Production gas mix to another location and flare it. Hopefully the well casing isn't compromised or the whole town could explode (Hutchison, KS a few years back).
- exabrial 11y agoActually, I'm trying to figure out if this particular disaster is a underground storage facility or if it's actually a production well. Details are scattered about and it's kind of hard to find information.
- HillaryBriss 11y agoThis is a failure of both the So Cal Gas Company and government regulators. And it will be interesting to find out: 1. How much does So Cal Gas have to pay to the people of nearby Porter Ranch (who've evacuated their community). 2. How much does So Cal Gas raise rates on its millions of customers to pay for this (because their $1 billion insurance policy won't cover the damages and because insurance rates will go up for the next term) 3. Which So Cal Gas executives will be disciplined or fired, if any? 4. Perhaps most intriguingly, will anyone in any government regulatory post be disciplined or fired?
- scurvy 11y agoSadly, the government will go along with the rate increase; just as the PUC allowed PG&E to raise rates after razing San Bruno with a pipeline explosion.
- HillaryBriss 11y agoI guess you're right. Then, it's just a question of how much. And I suspect that question will be hard to answer. They'll probably bury the actual number with some accounting slight of hand in customer bills.
- polytap 11y agoHere's a little taste of how things have turned out since SCE and SDGE decided to give up fixing and maintaining San Onofre: http://www.kpbs.org/news/2015/aug/03/counting-customer-costs-san-onofre-closure-95-bill/ http://www.kpbs.org/news/2015/aug/03/counting-customer-costs...
- 1024core 11y agoThe San Bruno gas pipe explosion investigation found a very cosy relationship between the CPUC (the commission meant to regulate the gas industry (among others) and be a watchdog) and PG&E. The tiny city of San Bruno has been pushing to get the regulators punished, but no dice. The regulators were literally in the pockets of PG&E, consulting with PG&E over decisions and bending over backwards for PG&E. http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/San-Bruno-says-PG-E-too-cozy-with-CPUC-6671191.php http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/San-Bruno-says-PG-E-to...
- ck2 11y agoapparently HN doesn't stop dupes anymore https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10801167 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10801167
- dang 11y agoThat doesn't count as a dupe because it didn't receive any discussion. Please see the FAQ. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html
- ars 11y agoI wonder if they could dump huge amounts of liquid nitrogen on it - that would freeze the methane from the inside and might stop the leak.
- sparky_ 11y agoThere seems to be a common narrative in all of the recent (~5 years or so) environmental disasters in the US - subjectively, most of them seem to have been caused, at least in part, due to corporate negligence: either an antiquated safety component in disrepair, or a safety component completely omitted contrary to regulations. I'm not sure what the solution is, certainly dispatching an army of inspectors is not cost effective. Just something that stood out in my mind.
- bagels 11y agoWhy is the title of the post "Why Engineers Can’t Stop Los Angeles' Enormous Methane Leak"? Title of the article is: "WHAT WENT WRONG AT PORTER RANCH?" Smells like clickbait, and the claim doesn't seem to be supported by the source. The article says "The gas company expects it to continue for up to another three months." Sounds like they can stop the leak by drilling a relief well.
- IvyMike 11y agoAs dang mentioned (search the comments), they redirected the link, and the original did in fact have that title: https://motherboard.vice.com/read/why-we-cant-stop-the-enormous-methane-leak-flooding-la https://motherboard.vice.com/read/why-we-cant-stop-the-enorm...
- bagels 11y agoThanks. It was buried in a discussion about arithmetic. Dunno why he didn't change the title though, no big deal.
- ck2 11y agoMainstream news completely failed on this one. I guess it is not as "sexy" as the BP spill since it is not very visual and you can't transmit "stink". They are too busy covering whatever nonsense Trump is spewing each week.
- dguaraglia 11y agoCompletely tangential, but: what's the deal with those people shots? I can't tell if it's my mind playing tricks but they look heavily photoshopped (the second one, with the couple on the street even looks like it was green-screened.)
- lolc 11y agoIt does look unnatural. I don't know whether it was actually shopped. Sometimes a strong flash is enough to get this effect.
- BIair 11y agoGuessing the photos are composites. The background is HDR, but HDR looks horrible on people, so they were shot without HDR and layered in Photoshop. In the second shot you can clearly see how the shadows are at different angles.
- bkeroack 11y agoTo really grasp the full impact of this leak, you need to watch the infrared video (since methane is invisible): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rnbcsm0VzQM&feature=youtu.be https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rnbcsm0VzQM&feature=youtu.be It's been literally spewing out of the hillside for weeks.
- hindsightbias 11y agoSo, where was all this gas in 2002 or so when CA was being held hostage by gas suppliers? I never heard of any reservoirs at the time.
- gcb0 11y agowhy they have so much more gas that they have to store in old oil fields?
- Marcomasino 11y agoIllogical Captain .. http://www.laweekly.com/news/what-went-wrong-at-porter-ranch-6405804 http://www.laweekly.com/news/what-went-wrong-at-porter-ranch... 'Southern California Gas .. tended to be conservative, and to do things rigorously and by the book' .. 'Asked about the safety valve' .. "We removed that valve in 1979," he said.'