4 ms·

From the article: "Ingraffea’s own research has found that a small percentage of wells are responsible for the bulk of methane emissions either through leaks o

by yyyk 7y ago

From the article: "Ingraffea’s own research has found that a small percentage of wells are responsible for the bulk of methane emissions either through leaks or deliberate venting." Sounds like something that can be solved quickly, and without even bothering to debate fracking - hardly anyone could oppose regulating the wells involved.

ojbyrne 7y ago
The US government just finished loosening regulations around methane: https://news.yahoo.com/trump-administration-just-loosened-methane-003207368.html https://news.yahoo.com/trump-administration-just-loosened-me...
- r00fus 7y ago
  Completely irresponsible on the part of this administration. Especially since most of the big industry players complained about said loosening of rules which don’t benefit them. Cui Bono?
  - Ericson2314 7y ago
    Industry unleashed a right wing anti-environmentalism beyond their control or benefit. The actions take place because of the ideology.
- coolgeek 7y ago
  It's not "The US government". It's not the scientists in the regulatory agencies. It's the Trump Administration. It's right there in the URL, the title, and the article body. Shifting the blame - even unintentionally - from the politicians to the regulatory agencies helps further the narrative that government doesn't work, and (the ultimate, freely-acknowledged goal) that it should therefore be made small enough that it can be choked in the bathtub.
DennisP 7y ago
You'd think, but Trump opposes it: https://insideclimatenews.org/news/29082019/methane-regulation-oil-gas-storage-pipelines-epa-rollback-trump-wheeler https://insideclimatenews.org/news/29082019/methane-regulati...
magwas 7y ago
The well operators would oppose. You know, a component of oil-arms lobby, those guys who made the Iraq war.
abernard1 7y ago
"hardly anyone could oppose regulating the wells involved." This issue has been going on for a long time, even without fracking. The issue always is access to natural gas pipelines. The natural gas comes up with oil production no matter what. Absent access to a pipeline, the well is "flared" and the natural gas is burned off. This has been happening in Nigeria and other countries internationally for decades to due to gas rights disputes. The question people should ask themselves is why oil & gas companies would voluntarily leave money on the table, and the answer is "they wouldn't." However, if you look at New York right now, and natural gas policy over the last 10 years, it has been actively hostile to building the pipelines that would prevent this resource from being wasted. The reality is the people "opposed" to fixing this problem are the people who force the oil production to happen without allowing the resource to be consumed.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- sitkack 7y ago
  If they can't store it, they shouldn't be allowed to vent or flare it, plain and simple.
  - abernard1 7y ago
    You are effectively saying oil drilling should be banned in America. Gas is a natural byproduct of drilling, and currently it is the U.S. government preventing this byproduct from being used and exported due to pipeline bans. Gazprom--the Russian gas giant--has no such desire to set perfectly good resources on fire (literally), and has captured the European market because of it. Edit: for those who have not quite made this connection yet, the "natural" in "natural gas" is because there's nothing you can actually do to prevent the gaseous mixture from escaping from the ground (due to depressurization) with liquefied oil drilling. It is just "naturally" there. If it can't be contained under pressure in a pipeline, it either has to be released or set on fire.
  - greglindahl 7y ago
    Venting it and flaring it have wildly different environmental impacts.
Maarten88 7y ago
> Sounds like something that can be solved quickly Then how do you think they could compensate the damage done and extract the methane back out of the air? My definition of "solving" may be a bit different from yours. And most probably, not even your definition of a solution will be implemented. Tragedy of the commons at work.
- ip26 7y ago
  Well, the good news is methane is fairly short lived in the atmosphere. About a decade. So it is very potent but if we stop emitting it, levels will fall on their own.
kaonashi 7y ago
The companies doing the extracting will oppose it, and I'm sure you'll find their voices carry farther.

by yyyk 7y ago

ojbyrne 7y ago

The US government just finished loosening regulations around methane: https://news.yahoo.com/trump-administration-just-loosened-methane-003207368.html https://news.yahoo.com/trump-administration-just-loosened-me...

r00fus 7y ago
Completely irresponsible on the part of this administration. Especially since most of the big industry players complained about said loosening of rules which don’t benefit them. Cui Bono?
- Ericson2314 7y ago
  Industry unleashed a right wing anti-environmentalism beyond their control or benefit. The actions take place because of the ideology.
coolgeek 7y ago
It's not "The US government". It's not the scientists in the regulatory agencies. It's the Trump Administration. It's right there in the URL, the title, and the article body. Shifting the blame - even unintentionally - from the politicians to the regulatory agencies helps further the narrative that government doesn't work, and (the ultimate, freely-acknowledged goal) that it should therefore be made small enough that it can be choked in the bathtub.

DennisP 7y ago

You'd think, but Trump opposes it: https://insideclimatenews.org/news/29082019/methane-regulation-oil-gas-storage-pipelines-epa-rollback-trump-wheeler https://insideclimatenews.org/news/29082019/methane-regulati...

magwas 7y ago

The well operators would oppose. You know, a component of oil-arms lobby, those guys who made the Iraq war.

abernard1 7y ago

"hardly anyone could oppose regulating the wells involved." This issue has been going on for a long time, even without fracking. The issue always is access to natural gas pipelines. The natural gas comes up with oil production no matter what. Absent access to a pipeline, the well is "flared" and the natural gas is burned off. This has been happening in Nigeria and other countries internationally for decades to due to gas rights disputes. The question people should ask themselves is why oil & gas companies would voluntarily leave money on the table, and the answer is "they wouldn't." However, if you look at New York right now, and natural gas policy over the last 10 years, it has been actively hostile to building the pipelines that would prevent this resource from being wasted. The reality is the people "opposed" to fixing this problem are the people who force the oil production to happen without allowing the resource to be consumed.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
sitkack 7y ago
If they can't store it, they shouldn't be allowed to vent or flare it, plain and simple.
- abernard1 7y ago
  You are effectively saying oil drilling should be banned in America. Gas is a natural byproduct of drilling, and currently it is the U.S. government preventing this byproduct from being used and exported due to pipeline bans. Gazprom--the Russian gas giant--has no such desire to set perfectly good resources on fire (literally), and has captured the European market because of it. Edit: for those who have not quite made this connection yet, the "natural" in "natural gas" is because there's nothing you can actually do to prevent the gaseous mixture from escaping from the ground (due to depressurization) with liquefied oil drilling. It is just "naturally" there. If it can't be contained under pressure in a pipeline, it either has to be released or set on fire.
- greglindahl 7y ago
  Venting it and flaring it have wildly different environmental impacts.

Maarten88 7y ago

> Sounds like something that can be solved quickly Then how do you think they could compensate the damage done and extract the methane back out of the air? My definition of "solving" may be a bit different from yours. And most probably, not even your definition of a solution will be implemented. Tragedy of the commons at work.

ip26 7y ago
Well, the good news is methane is fairly short lived in the atmosphere. About a decade. So it is very potent but if we stop emitting it, levels will fall on their own.

kaonashi 7y ago

The companies doing the extracting will oppose it, and I'm sure you'll find their voices carry farther.