6 ms·

While this was going on, there was another smaller methane gas leak just north of Porter Ranch. Whats interesting about this one, is the intentional effort to

While this was going on, there was another smaller methane gas leak just north of Porter Ranch. Whats interesting about this one, is the intentional effort to conceal it. An airplane pilot using an infrared camera to record methane levels of the main leak noticed the second leak. Employees of The Termo Company snaked a 2.5-inch pipe away from oil pumping equipment to hide its opening under a tree. http://www.scpr.org/news/2016/03/18/58697/during-porter-ranc-stealthy-oil-workers-hid-anothe/ http://www.scpr.org/news/2016/03/18/58697/during-porter-ranc...

hanniabu 11y ago
That's fucked up, this stuff is so frustrating and pisses me off.....this stuff will keep happening until stronger fines are in place. Rather than setting petty fines, the fines should instead be something like 0.5% of the company's revenue. That'll get them listening because it's a substantial enough amount that the risk of getting caught isn't worth it.
- jacobolus 11y ago
  If there were some kind of general carbon tax, I assume the fee for "greenhouse equivalent of 1.7 million cars for a year" would be pretty big.
  - Retric 11y ago
    Methane breaks down in around 10 years into CO2. So, it's not quite that bad.
    - InclinedPlane 11y ago
      And then CO2 is removed from the atmosphere by plants and algae, so it's really not bad at all! /s
      - im3w1l 11y ago
        My understanding is that if you release an extra tonne of CO2 today, there will be an extra tonne in 10 years, in 20 years and in 100 years, because the systems you mention are already working at full capacity.
        Xylakant 11y ago
        The problem is that we're mostly releasing CO2 that has been captured by plants millions of years ago and turned to coal/oil/gas. Releasing the same amount of CO2 from freshly grown plants would be neutral.
      - adrianN 11y ago
        CO2 stays in the atmosphere for a very long time. A large part of the released CO2 will stay basically forever. http://www.nature.com/climate/2008/0812/full/climate.2008.122.html http://www.nature.com/climate/2008/0812/full/climate.2008.12... While Methane is bad, releasing the equivalent amount of CO2 would be way worse.
        InclinedPlane 11y ago
        http://www.internetslang.com/_2FS-meaning-definition.asp http://www.internetslang.com/_2FS-meaning-definition.asp
    - quanticle 11y ago
      Yes, but in the meantime, methane retains heat 84 times as efficiently as CO2, to the point where even though there is still 200x as much CO2 as methane in the atmosphere, methane still accounts for roughly a quarter of all global warming.
      - Retric 11y ago
        If global warming was a short term problem or if this was going to continue indefinably then sure. But, in 10 years this is the same as an extra 2,000 cars for 10 years. 2,000 * 10 * 84 = 1.7 million cars for 1 year. Methane basically forces you to see future climate change effects today. But, it's the ever compounding release of CO2 that's the long term problem without an obvious solution. PS: IMO diluting focus is an issue. If two things are bad there is a tendency to stop thinking a that point. Even if knowing which one is 100x worse is very important.
        sitkack 11y ago
        Meanwhile the extra 10 years of 84x heat capture has powered the warming positive feedback cycle. Elevated temps put more moisture into the air, raise the temp, the raised temp causes trapped methane in the arctic to enter the atmosphere. The atmosphere (and the oceans) aren't a balance sheet.
        Retric 11y ago
        Your vastly overstating effects. At 84x this may cause the next year to be ~1 hours worth of extra CO2 ahead, but that delta is going to drop down over time. (980 million cars in the world / 1.7 = 1:576, transportation is 30% of CO2, not sure what % is cars but 50% = 1:6,405 = 44 minutes:1year ) It's like saying a stunt jumper hit the ground sooner because they carried a camera on the trip. Yes, they might have been 'ok' for a few extra Nano seconds, but that's not why the parachute failed to deploy. PS: For scale, if everyone in the US drove a Prius it would help and be useful, but not stop global warming.
        11y ago
  - madaxe_again 11y ago
    There is, carbon credits, but they're a joke that are used to further line pockets rather than reduce emissions.
    - drjesusphd 11y ago
      They won't reduce emissions until they're mandated by law. And yes, one would expect lots of people to get rich off them. That's kind of the point; it's a market solution.
- PhasmaFelis 11y ago
  That, or prison sentences.
  - sologoub 11y ago
    That AND prison sentences.
andremendes 11y ago
What I find also very interesting is that the headline of the article states it as it was workers fault, while I'm pretty sure it was a top-down order to hide. Owners/management doesn't seem to get the blame.
emp_zealoth 11y ago
It is fun watchimg USA literally eat itself alive. Almost as fun as watching Titanic crash right from it's bow

hanniabu 11y ago

That's fucked up, this stuff is so frustrating and pisses me off.....this stuff will keep happening until stronger fines are in place. Rather than setting petty fines, the fines should instead be something like 0.5% of the company's revenue. That'll get them listening because it's a substantial enough amount that the risk of getting caught isn't worth it.

jacobolus 11y ago
If there were some kind of general carbon tax, I assume the fee for "greenhouse equivalent of 1.7 million cars for a year" would be pretty big.
- Retric 11y ago
  Methane breaks down in around 10 years into CO2. So, it's not quite that bad.
  - InclinedPlane 11y ago
    And then CO2 is removed from the atmosphere by plants and algae, so it's really not bad at all! /s
    - im3w1l 11y ago
      My understanding is that if you release an extra tonne of CO2 today, there will be an extra tonne in 10 years, in 20 years and in 100 years, because the systems you mention are already working at full capacity.
      - Xylakant 11y ago
        The problem is that we're mostly releasing CO2 that has been captured by plants millions of years ago and turned to coal/oil/gas. Releasing the same amount of CO2 from freshly grown plants would be neutral.
    - adrianN 11y ago
      CO2 stays in the atmosphere for a very long time. A large part of the released CO2 will stay basically forever. http://www.nature.com/climate/2008/0812/full/climate.2008.122.html http://www.nature.com/climate/2008/0812/full/climate.2008.12... While Methane is bad, releasing the equivalent amount of CO2 would be way worse.
      - InclinedPlane 11y ago
        http://www.internetslang.com/_2FS-meaning-definition.asp http://www.internetslang.com/_2FS-meaning-definition.asp
  - quanticle 11y ago
    Yes, but in the meantime, methane retains heat 84 times as efficiently as CO2, to the point where even though there is still 200x as much CO2 as methane in the atmosphere, methane still accounts for roughly a quarter of all global warming.
    - Retric 11y ago
      If global warming was a short term problem or if this was going to continue indefinably then sure. But, in 10 years this is the same as an extra 2,000 cars for 10 years. 2,000 * 10 * 84 = 1.7 million cars for 1 year. Methane basically forces you to see future climate change effects today. But, it's the ever compounding release of CO2 that's the long term problem without an obvious solution. PS: IMO diluting focus is an issue. If two things are bad there is a tendency to stop thinking a that point. Even if knowing which one is 100x worse is very important.
      - sitkack 11y ago
        Meanwhile the extra 10 years of 84x heat capture has powered the warming positive feedback cycle. Elevated temps put more moisture into the air, raise the temp, the raised temp causes trapped methane in the arctic to enter the atmosphere. The atmosphere (and the oceans) aren't a balance sheet.
        Retric 11y ago
        Your vastly overstating effects. At 84x this may cause the next year to be ~1 hours worth of extra CO2 ahead, but that delta is going to drop down over time. (980 million cars in the world / 1.7 = 1:576, transportation is 30% of CO2, not sure what % is cars but 50% = 1:6,405 = 44 minutes:1year ) It's like saying a stunt jumper hit the ground sooner because they carried a camera on the trip. Yes, they might have been 'ok' for a few extra Nano seconds, but that's not why the parachute failed to deploy. PS: For scale, if everyone in the US drove a Prius it would help and be useful, but not stop global warming.
        11y ago
- madaxe_again 11y ago
  There is, carbon credits, but they're a joke that are used to further line pockets rather than reduce emissions.
  - drjesusphd 11y ago
    They won't reduce emissions until they're mandated by law. And yes, one would expect lots of people to get rich off them. That's kind of the point; it's a market solution.
PhasmaFelis 11y ago
That, or prison sentences.
- sologoub 11y ago
  That AND prison sentences.

andremendes 11y ago

What I find also very interesting is that the headline of the article states it as it was workers fault, while I'm pretty sure it was a top-down order to hide. Owners/management doesn't seem to get the blame.

emp_zealoth 11y ago

It is fun watchimg USA literally eat itself alive. Almost as fun as watching Titanic crash right from it's bow