4 ms·

But you could burn it with a purpose, like in a generator.

bumby 5y ago
That assumes there's use for a generator out near the pump. I don't think that's generally the case, meaning the methane would need to be stored and transported. Considering it's literally these companies' business to store and transport fuel, I'd assume if it were economically viable to do so, they would. That's not to say something like a carbon-tax wouldn't sway the economics toward that side, but it's not just as simple as "burn the fuel in a generator"
- keymone 5y ago
  The generator can power local bitcoin mining farm: no need to store/transport, frees up electricity in other places by making miners there less profitable.
  - bumby 5y ago
    Do you think there are local bitcoin mining in the middle of, say, the Permian Basin? One of the points missed in this conversation is that a lot of oil/gas drilling occurs in remote or inhospitable regions.
    - keymone 5y ago
      I don’t think there is, but then if we’re talking about putting waste flare to use rather than release it into the atmosphere and pay hefty tax, I can totally see remote (even ocean) sites carry a standard container-worth of miners - potentially would pay for itself. Edit: dropped a word
      - bumby 5y ago
        I'm curious why you think they haven't done so already? My guess is that the volatility of crypto creates too much risk for the infrastructure investment.
        keymone 5y ago
        It’s too radical right now, while people mistakenly think that consumption of energy equals production of energy from dirty sources it probably won’t become the norm. But eventually it will.
    - latchkey 5y ago
      There are companies that have solutions: https://ezblockchain.net/ https://ezblockchain.net/
- simion314 5y ago
  For sure if you can transport liquids and gas you can transport some electricity to the nearby villages/city you pollute with your gases. I think you can make profiit but not big profit from this so why bother. It is like tech giants, why bother with a good product with paying customers if it does not make obscene amount of money.
  - bumby 5y ago
    Sure, but this is one of those arguments that only works well in theory. Oil and gas companies are usually distinct from the utilities (regulated monopolies) that provide electricity. If you want the O&G companies to subsidize the local populations energy, it makes more sense for them to do so with their existing infrastructure rather than forcing them to use some inefficient process. It will be cheaper for all involved. The better solution is to just price the externality with regulation.

That assumes there's use for a generator out near the pump. I don't think that's generally the case, meaning the methane would need to be stored and transported. Considering it's literally these companies' business to store and transport fuel, I'd assume if it were economically viable to do so, they would. That's not to say something like a carbon-tax wouldn't sway the economics toward that side, but it's not just as simple as "burn the fuel in a generator"

keymone 5y ago
The generator can power local bitcoin mining farm: no need to store/transport, frees up electricity in other places by making miners there less profitable.
- bumby 5y ago
  Do you think there are local bitcoin mining in the middle of, say, the Permian Basin? One of the points missed in this conversation is that a lot of oil/gas drilling occurs in remote or inhospitable regions.
  - keymone 5y ago
    I don’t think there is, but then if we’re talking about putting waste flare to use rather than release it into the atmosphere and pay hefty tax, I can totally see remote (even ocean) sites carry a standard container-worth of miners - potentially would pay for itself. Edit: dropped a word
    - bumby 5y ago
      I'm curious why you think they haven't done so already? My guess is that the volatility of crypto creates too much risk for the infrastructure investment.
      - keymone 5y ago
        It’s too radical right now, while people mistakenly think that consumption of energy equals production of energy from dirty sources it probably won’t become the norm. But eventually it will.
  - latchkey 5y ago
    There are companies that have solutions: https://ezblockchain.net/ https://ezblockchain.net/
simion314 5y ago
For sure if you can transport liquids and gas you can transport some electricity to the nearby villages/city you pollute with your gases. I think you can make profiit but not big profit from this so why bother. It is like tech giants, why bother with a good product with paying customers if it does not make obscene amount of money.
- bumby 5y ago
  Sure, but this is one of those arguments that only works well in theory. Oil and gas companies are usually distinct from the utilities (regulated monopolies) that provide electricity. If you want the O&G companies to subsidize the local populations energy, it makes more sense for them to do so with their existing infrastructure rather than forcing them to use some inefficient process. It will be cheaper for all involved. The better solution is to just price the externality with regulation.