3 ms·

I was ready to be angry. However using gas that would have been burned or vented anyway doesn't seem so bad. Of course this makes it so there is no incentive

I was ready to be angry. However using gas that would have been burned or vented anyway doesn't seem so bad. Of course this makes it so there is no incentive to close these vents completely.

toss1 5y ago
Yup, they could add that it is taxable at higher rates after enough cryptocurrency was earned to pay for the permanent cap
rch 5y ago
Unless it's now more profitable to burn everything on site, skipping the infrastructure cost of capture and delivery, while also producing more hydrocarbons for longer than they normally would have.
- quantified 5y ago
  Skipping any incentive to let it vent away. Probably an incentive to declare more gas as “flare off” Incentives to just burn baby burn for bitcoin power are growing. Already was there for power plants, more money to be made in bitcoin than powering hospitals and tv sets.
dyndos 5y ago
>Of course this makes it so there is no incentive to close these vents completely. Are you sure that follows from HB 189? To avoid tax the gas just needs to be certified that it would have been vented. I don't see anything that would encourage keeping small leaks. >Natural gas that is consumed on the site and would have otherwise been vented or flared under the authority of the Wyoming oil and gas conservation commission has no value and is exempt from taxation as long as the natural gas is certified by the Wyoming oil and gas conservation commission as to have originated from a qualifying well.
PragmaticPulp 5y ago
The article says they're also using wells that would be shut-in. They're basically buying up wells that are too low pressure to continue using for mainstream production, and then instead of closing them off they're extracting all of the remaining gas and burning it. Seems like a terrible idea to give them a tax break for burning more natural gas that would otherwise be left in the ground. I'd be okay if it was just the flare-off from refineries, but that's not all they're doing.
- rattlesnakedave 5y ago
  > Seems like a terrible idea to give them a tax break for burning more natural gas that would otherwise be left in the ground. Good thing that’s not what they’re doing.
  - aluminum96 5y ago
    The linked references in the article say this is what they're doing.
    - rattlesnakedave 5y ago
      No. They are giving them a tax break for using gas that would have been flared or vented.
dagnabbit 5y ago
The article states that they’re using gas that would not have been extracted, burned, or vented. It’s just a tax break for some “entrepreneurs” who are making climate change worse. Bitcoin remains an environmental disaster, defended exclusively by horrible people.

I was ready to be angry. However using gas that would have been burned or vented anyway doesn't seem so bad. Of course this makes it so there is no incentive to close these vents completely.

toss1 5y ago

Yup, they could add that it is taxable at higher rates after enough cryptocurrency was earned to pay for the permanent cap

rch 5y ago

Unless it's now more profitable to burn everything on site, skipping the infrastructure cost of capture and delivery, while also producing more hydrocarbons for longer than they normally would have.

quantified 5y ago
Skipping any incentive to let it vent away. Probably an incentive to declare more gas as “flare off” Incentives to just burn baby burn for bitcoin power are growing. Already was there for power plants, more money to be made in bitcoin than powering hospitals and tv sets.

dyndos 5y ago

>Of course this makes it so there is no incentive to close these vents completely. Are you sure that follows from HB 189? To avoid tax the gas just needs to be certified that it would have been vented. I don't see anything that would encourage keeping small leaks. >Natural gas that is consumed on the site and would have otherwise been vented or flared under the authority of the Wyoming oil and gas conservation commission has no value and is exempt from taxation as long as the natural gas is certified by the Wyoming oil and gas conservation commission as to have originated from a qualifying well.

PragmaticPulp 5y ago

The article says they're also using wells that would be shut-in. They're basically buying up wells that are too low pressure to continue using for mainstream production, and then instead of closing them off they're extracting all of the remaining gas and burning it. Seems like a terrible idea to give them a tax break for burning more natural gas that would otherwise be left in the ground. I'd be okay if it was just the flare-off from refineries, but that's not all they're doing.

rattlesnakedave 5y ago
> Seems like a terrible idea to give them a tax break for burning more natural gas that would otherwise be left in the ground. Good thing that’s not what they’re doing.
- aluminum96 5y ago
  The linked references in the article say this is what they're doing.
  - rattlesnakedave 5y ago
    No. They are giving them a tax break for using gas that would have been flared or vented.

dagnabbit 5y ago

The article states that they’re using gas that would not have been extracted, burned, or vented. It’s just a tax break for some “entrepreneurs” who are making climate change worse. Bitcoin remains an environmental disaster, defended exclusively by horrible people.