13 ms·
This is so sad. Any ideas on how stuff like this could realistically be fixed? Are there any incentives that could be put in place? What would be the incentive
by ta1234567890 8y ago
This is so sad. Any ideas on how stuff like this could realistically be fixed? Are there any incentives that could be put in place? What would be the incentive for the people that have that power to make those changes?
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- hanniabu 8y agoRemoving lobbyists, removing buyable politicians, electing politicians that believe in science
- jjoonathan 8y agoRemove the mandatory bribe quota first and the politicians will follow.
- mac01021 8y agoMandatory bribe quota?
- jjoonathan 8y agoYou need X amount of money to run a campaign and you get money primarily by accepting campaign contributions from completely charitable wealthy donors and interest groups whose objectives just happen to align with your political ideology. If you chop out the euphemisms and rationalization, it's a mandatory bribe quota.
- mac01021 8y agoWhat is the order of magnitude of X?
- jjoonathan 8y agoA few million for a senate or house seat. The total cost of the election is several billion. Peanuts in comparison to what lobbyists get in return. It would be extremely economical for us taxpayers to fund it ourselves. https://www.opensecrets.org/overview/index.php?cycle=2018&display=A&type=M https://www.opensecrets.org/overview/index.php?cycle=2018&di...
- sremani 8y agoThere is already incentive for the private operators to not lose these gases during production or transmission as it cuts into their margins. This is like leaving money on the table.
- ceejayoz 8y agoThat's not necessarily true, though, if capturing it costs more than just letting it leak.
- sremani 8y agoI am not saying there are really no bad or incompetent actors.. but it costs the industry $2 billion per year because of these loses. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/21/climate/methane-leaks.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/21/climate/methane-leaks.htm...
- ceejayoz 8y agoAnd if they could fix that for $1B/year, they'd do so. Instead, you can find industry groups quoted in that article complaining about the study.
- mirimir 8y agoThe problem is that, given the greenhouse forcing, those leaks will arguably cost society much more than a few $billion per year. It's just that the gas industry isn't legally responsible for that. And that's why they don't want to stop the leaks.
- dmichulke 8y agoMany companies don't do shit as long as they operate with a profit. What happens often is that s small player seizes the opportunity and then gets bought. Maybe there are regulations that keep smaller and / or separate entities from acting in this regard.
- st26 8y ago
- cascom 8y agomore aggressive surveillance - there is a ton of gas leak detection technology out there, but its use is optional in most places...
- pdubs 8y agoCarbon tax
- sgc 8y agoMethane tax.
- thaumasiotes 8y agoMethane contains just as much carbon as carbon dioxide does. (By volume; by weight it would be a lot more.)
- pjc50 8y agoFracking ban.
- daxorid 8y agoFracking and horizontal drilling are the only things that have kept us out of a global energy crisis. Without their application to tight oil and gas fields, the world would be firmly on the downslope of the global Hubbert peak right now. Ban it at your peril.
- sremani 8y agoI really feel really bad you are getting down voted. There is lack of understanding of how shale revolution reshaped America and its energy independence here in this forum.
- phragomax 8y agoWhat has energy independence actually done for America? We are still fighting wars in the Middle East. For decades people were saying we need to end reliance on foreign oil. Well, we've ended it. What has that gotten us besides underpriced gasoline?
- pretendscholar 8y agoCheap energy inputs make everything else cheaper.
- st26 8y agoIt's mostly political. The conservatives argue no regulation of any kind is needed because the industry will self-regulate and capture all the leaking methane because it's lost money. (Mysteriously, the methane continues to leak, and oil & gas continues to lobby against requirements to fix the leak) As a secondary improvement, cheaper monitoring equipment might make the political fight easier to win. Another improvement, the gas is owned by the public, and I don't believe royalties are paid at the pad but rather further down the line- after the leaks. O&G has little incentive to avoid wasting resources that "belong" to someone else that they have not paid a dime for. Just pump more.
- privacypoller 8y ago>> I don't believe royalties are paid at the pad but rather further down the line That's not true in any regime I'm aware of. Ownership and royalties are accounted for at the zone, which is well before the wellhead, let-alone downstream. Any loss between where the gas is produced and the final sale is known as "shrinkage" which can be allocated to different buckets, most commonly fuel and flaring. I'm not sure where leakage would be accounted for, probably "Transmission" or "Distribution". What's criminal is that unaccounted for gas (known as UAF) is widely measured on the end-user distribution network, so I'd be very surprised if Oil Co. didn't have all the information they need to figure out loss from the wellhead. They either can't be bothered to amalgamate the data or just don't want to know the answer (or do and keep it secret).
- deepinsand 8y agoFounded rigup.com to try address this issue. Improving the quality of the cement casing is a huge factor, along with hiring competent workers and scheduling inspections. It all comes down to creating financial incentives. IIRC, Obama's proposed fracking regulation (that most presumed Hilary would run with) called for regular visits of sites. Sadly it never passed. Once Trump undid the only thing Obama got through, federal land methane restrictions, companies had no incentive to worry anymore. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/12/climate/trump-methane-rule-repeal.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/12/climate/trump-methane-rul...
- forapurpose 8y ago> companies had no incentive to worry anymore I know what you are saying, but I want to add that it's insane: The owners of the companies have to live in this world, as do their decedents. Also, they are not all sociopaths who don't care if people die and suffer. I think it's a mistake to think they cannot be persuaded otherwise. Perhaps it's the powerful propaganda machine that runs through the WSJ and other business publications, but whatever the cause, it's a problem that I think can be overcome.
- arbitrary_name 8y agoDon't be so naive, my friend. There is ample evidence to show that either a) those people believe in their ability to avoid consequences (see the difference between responses to rising sea levels between poor and wealthy florida neighbourhoods) or b) are heavily incentivised to believe there are no consequences (the old saw of a man being able to believe or disbelieve anything if his paycheck depends on it). I work with Oil and gas execs. They are almost uniformly very conservative and do not believe in any aspect or climate change, or taking activity to mitigate the effects. They are not the receivers of propaganda, they are the creators of propaganda.