30 ms·

Russia Flaring Around 4.34 Mcmd of Gas Normally Bound for Nord Stream 1

30 points by JeanMarcS 4y ago

JumpCrisscross 4y ago
> the flaring at Gazprom’s Portovaya plant is an “environmental disaster," with about 9,000 tons of carbon dioxide being emitted every day This is hyperbole. Venting the gas would be an environmental disaster. Flaring just burns it somewhere different.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- ohiovr 4y ago
  It was going to be burned anyway. It is either this, or cap the wells. Methane is worse for the environment than CO2.
- blibble 4y ago
  you're forgetting the extra gas burnt as a result of that gas not being sold so at least 2x as much carbon is being produced (and even worse if the flared gas is replaced by coal instead of more gas)
- gvb 4y ago
  This is not hyperbole. a) A lot of gas is feedstock for chemical reactions generating products e.g. fertilizer. Russia is burning that gas and creating 100% pollution rather than useful products. b) For all the Russian gas would have been burned in Europe, this effectively doubles the pollution because Europe has to replace the gas that Russia is flaring off from alternate sources.
  - Teever 4y ago
    But isn't that fertilizer then packaged, shipped around the world, stored in warehouses, all of which produces more emissions, until it's finally put into the ground to grow crops which are harvested (again more emissions) which are then packaged, chipped around the world (again more emissions), until they feed mostly animals which produce methane, which are then transported, slaughtered, processed, packaged, distributed to grocery stores (starting to see the pattern here, more emissions) all so we can doot-doot-beep-beep around in our little air conditioned emissions machines to the store to pick up and cook and then throw like a 1/3 of the meal away because left-overs aren't as satisfying?
    - codewench 4y ago
      Yes, but that is still going to happen. Only now we also have this "extra" amount being burned.
      - Teever 4y ago
        But is it? Europeans are talking about not being able to afford their heat this winter, they're talking about food shortages, people are going to have to make due with less.
        KptMarchewa 4y ago
        Afford is something else than not doing anything at all. Govt will finance any real shortages. Food crisis did not materialize too despite widestream doomsaying.
        Teever 4y ago
        Do you think that energy consumption in Europe this winter will be greater/equal/less than energy consumption last winter?
        KptMarchewa 4y ago
        Smaller, by 5-10%. Depends on how many nuclear reactors France will manage to reconnect to grid.
      - opensores 4y ago
        not really. Now there are fertilizer shortages, lower fertilizer usage due to price spikes and shortages. Russia is simply doing almost the best they can, which is flaring it rather than venting it. I was hoping they would plug a lot of wells back in February. But I suppose they didn't have crystal ball and had more priority things to deal with.
- fulafel 4y ago
  Burning it either way is a environmental disaster, even though venting would be worse still. We need to globally ramp down fossils extraction quickly.
- credit_guy 4y ago
  So this increases the global greenhouse emissions by about 0.0066%.
- peanut_worm 4y ago
  Assuming Europe buys gas from somewhere else then yes it is still an environmental disaster double the gas is being burned
  - ohiovr 4y ago
    With any luck.
hedora 4y ago
I find it strange that they don't set a negative price for natural gas, thus giving domestic producers an incentive to pause production. Some natural gas is produced as a byproduct of pumping oil, but is that enough to glut their market on its own?
- mikewarot 4y ago
  >I find it strange that they don't set a negative price for natural gas They did, that's what the flare is. I expected it[1]. >thus giving domestic producers an incentive to pause production. They can't "pause" production, it's either go, or halt forever. If they don't flare off the gas, then pressure builds in their lines, or, worse yet, they have to "shut in" the wells, which means their output is effectively lost for all time. There is a massive, irreplaceable investment in those wells and infrastructure that Russia can't afford to lose. Natural gas contains water, these wells are in permafrost, which means if the flow stops, that water freezes, cracking the wells or the pipes from them. The last time Russia had a supply disruption, during the Soviet Collapse, this happened. They just finished repairing the damage in 2021. If it happened again, they wouldn't be able to hire Western experts to repair it again, at any price. 1 - https://twitter.com/mikewarot/status/1562677637549412355 https://twitter.com/mikewarot/status/1562677637549412355
  - spywaregorilla 4y ago
    > they have to "shut in" the wells, which means their output is effectively lost for all time. What does this mean? Like the physical well asset is no longer useable? Or that the resource itself is forever unuseable even if you just make another well, if that concept even makes sense at all?
    - mikewarot 4y ago
      My understanding is that you effectively have to drill a new well, because of the permafrost, and the water in the gas, the well casing will get fractured, and thus leak, plus all the other fiddly details. I do know that drilling through permafrost requires a level of expertise that Russia doesn't have in house in sufficient numbers.
Normille 4y ago
>much of this gas would have been used to feed into the pipeline grid and sold on to Europe. Because Russia has sharply cut supply to Europe... More of this Orwellian spin that Russia 'cut the supply'. The EU sanctioned Russia and cut off their access to the global banking system and to their foreign currency holdings. They also announced that they'd be stopping buying any Russian gas at all by 2023. So Russia demanded Europe pay for their gas in Roubles. Because why wouldn't they in those circumstances? Most of Europe refused to pay in Roubles so Russia [and again, why wouldn't they?] said "If you don't pay, you can't have the gas" The fact that this series of events is being constantly spun across multiple western media sources now as an arbitrary 'Russia turned off the taps' --in attempt to divert anyone from asking whether the west [and the EU in particular] has spectacularly shot itself in the foot here-- is disgraceful. And we have the gall to criticise countries like China for the dishonesty of their press!
- brnt 4y ago
  Does Russia have to invade Ukraine? Does it have to keep killing civilians? They could put an end to this today, but they won't, because the loss of face is worse than the loss of life.
  - eshch 4y ago
    The last sentence is applicable to both sides by the way. Especially because of https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2022/08/ukraine-ukrainian-fighting-tactics-endanger-civilians/ https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2022/08/ukraine-ukrai... But both sides are hostages of their own politics and narratives of who's good and who's bad.
    - kadoban 4y ago
      Russia is the aggressor, and appeasement is a generally unsuccessful strategy.
      - eshch 4y ago
        It depends on the purposes of the actor and the purpose of the strategy.
lizardactivist 4y ago
It's done out of necessity, not to spite anyone or to hurt the whole world. The gas has to go somewhere, but if the regular receiver (EU) doesn't want it or denies the seller the ability to charge for it (sanctions) then you can't just keep compressing and piping it somewhere else forever.
- barbazoo 4y ago
  > Rystad said that Russia is burning gas that would otherwise have been exported to Europe through the pipeline, which usually accounts for more than a third of Europe’s gas imports but where flows have been throttled back to just 20% of normal levels. Doesn't seem to be a black and white situation given that the pipeline delivers gas at 20% its capacity. AFAIK it's Russia throttling on their end, is that not correct? Russia itself isn't even claiming it's payment related. Do you have different information?
  - nickff 4y ago
    Russia claims that it cannot deliver gas due to sanctions-related parts and maintenance issues with the pumping equipment. It is likely that the Russian strategy is to drive down EU gas reserves to the point where the EU drops its sanctions in exchange for gas this winter.
    - tharkun__ 4y ago
      Which is actually a "funny" game being played as well. Germany got Canada to send the turbine back anyway despite sanctions, creating an outcry in Canada actually but now Russia doesn't want it and it sits around in Germany gathering dust. And on top now Russia says all remaining turbines are having issues too and stopped even the one turbine that was still operational.
      - eshch 4y ago
        Just to clarify for those who doesn't track this game. The part "despite the sanctions" is important here. The turbine was sent not back to Russia, but to Germany. And Russia tells there is no exemption to get this turbine to Russia, it was given only for Germany. Besides this turbine they refer to a few others not being fixed or sent for repair, so this one is even not the biggest issue, but for some reason it's commented the most.
MomoXenosaga 4y ago
Short term Europe is fucked. Long term Russia is fucked. Ten years from now Europe will be importing gas from Quatar and Gabon. And even if hypothetically Russia conquers half of Ukraine it won't offset the loss of gas contracts. There's a reason why OPEC only tried that oil embargo stunt once- alternatives are found.

30 points by JeanMarcS 4y ago

> the flaring at Gazprom’s Portovaya plant is an “environmental disaster," with about 9,000 tons of carbon dioxide being emitted every day This is hyperbole. Venting the gas would be an environmental disaster. Flaring just burns it somewhere different.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
ohiovr 4y ago
It was going to be burned anyway. It is either this, or cap the wells. Methane is worse for the environment than CO2.
blibble 4y ago
you're forgetting the extra gas burnt as a result of that gas not being sold so at least 2x as much carbon is being produced (and even worse if the flared gas is replaced by coal instead of more gas)
gvb 4y ago
This is not hyperbole. a) A lot of gas is feedstock for chemical reactions generating products e.g. fertilizer. Russia is burning that gas and creating 100% pollution rather than useful products. b) For all the Russian gas would have been burned in Europe, this effectively doubles the pollution because Europe has to replace the gas that Russia is flaring off from alternate sources.
- Teever 4y ago
  But isn't that fertilizer then packaged, shipped around the world, stored in warehouses, all of which produces more emissions, until it's finally put into the ground to grow crops which are harvested (again more emissions) which are then packaged, chipped around the world (again more emissions), until they feed mostly animals which produce methane, which are then transported, slaughtered, processed, packaged, distributed to grocery stores (starting to see the pattern here, more emissions) all so we can doot-doot-beep-beep around in our little air conditioned emissions machines to the store to pick up and cook and then throw like a 1/3 of the meal away because left-overs aren't as satisfying?
  - codewench 4y ago
    Yes, but that is still going to happen. Only now we also have this "extra" amount being burned.
    - Teever 4y ago
      But is it? Europeans are talking about not being able to afford their heat this winter, they're talking about food shortages, people are going to have to make due with less.
      - KptMarchewa 4y ago
        Afford is something else than not doing anything at all. Govt will finance any real shortages. Food crisis did not materialize too despite widestream doomsaying.
        Teever 4y ago
        Do you think that energy consumption in Europe this winter will be greater/equal/less than energy consumption last winter?
        KptMarchewa 4y ago
        Smaller, by 5-10%. Depends on how many nuclear reactors France will manage to reconnect to grid.
    - opensores 4y ago
      not really. Now there are fertilizer shortages, lower fertilizer usage due to price spikes and shortages. Russia is simply doing almost the best they can, which is flaring it rather than venting it. I was hoping they would plug a lot of wells back in February. But I suppose they didn't have crystal ball and had more priority things to deal with.
fulafel 4y ago
Burning it either way is a environmental disaster, even though venting would be worse still. We need to globally ramp down fossils extraction quickly.
credit_guy 4y ago
So this increases the global greenhouse emissions by about 0.0066%.
peanut_worm 4y ago
Assuming Europe buys gas from somewhere else then yes it is still an environmental disaster double the gas is being burned
- ohiovr 4y ago
  With any luck.

hedora 4y ago

I find it strange that they don't set a negative price for natural gas, thus giving domestic producers an incentive to pause production. Some natural gas is produced as a byproduct of pumping oil, but is that enough to glut their market on its own?

mikewarot 4y ago
>I find it strange that they don't set a negative price for natural gas They did, that's what the flare is. I expected it[1]. >thus giving domestic producers an incentive to pause production. They can't "pause" production, it's either go, or halt forever. If they don't flare off the gas, then pressure builds in their lines, or, worse yet, they have to "shut in" the wells, which means their output is effectively lost for all time. There is a massive, irreplaceable investment in those wells and infrastructure that Russia can't afford to lose. Natural gas contains water, these wells are in permafrost, which means if the flow stops, that water freezes, cracking the wells or the pipes from them. The last time Russia had a supply disruption, during the Soviet Collapse, this happened. They just finished repairing the damage in 2021. If it happened again, they wouldn't be able to hire Western experts to repair it again, at any price. 1 - https://twitter.com/mikewarot/status/1562677637549412355 https://twitter.com/mikewarot/status/1562677637549412355
- spywaregorilla 4y ago
  > they have to "shut in" the wells, which means their output is effectively lost for all time. What does this mean? Like the physical well asset is no longer useable? Or that the resource itself is forever unuseable even if you just make another well, if that concept even makes sense at all?
  - mikewarot 4y ago
    My understanding is that you effectively have to drill a new well, because of the permafrost, and the water in the gas, the well casing will get fractured, and thus leak, plus all the other fiddly details. I do know that drilling through permafrost requires a level of expertise that Russia doesn't have in house in sufficient numbers.

Normille 4y ago

>much of this gas would have been used to feed into the pipeline grid and sold on to Europe. Because Russia has sharply cut supply to Europe... More of this Orwellian spin that Russia 'cut the supply'. The EU sanctioned Russia and cut off their access to the global banking system and to their foreign currency holdings. They also announced that they'd be stopping buying any Russian gas at all by 2023. So Russia demanded Europe pay for their gas in Roubles. Because why wouldn't they in those circumstances? Most of Europe refused to pay in Roubles so Russia [and again, why wouldn't they?] said "If you don't pay, you can't have the gas" The fact that this series of events is being constantly spun across multiple western media sources now as an arbitrary 'Russia turned off the taps' --in attempt to divert anyone from asking whether the west [and the EU in particular] has spectacularly shot itself in the foot here-- is disgraceful. And we have the gall to criticise countries like China for the dishonesty of their press!

brnt 4y ago
Does Russia have to invade Ukraine? Does it have to keep killing civilians? They could put an end to this today, but they won't, because the loss of face is worse than the loss of life.
- eshch 4y ago
  The last sentence is applicable to both sides by the way. Especially because of https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2022/08/ukraine-ukrainian-fighting-tactics-endanger-civilians/ https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2022/08/ukraine-ukrai... But both sides are hostages of their own politics and narratives of who's good and who's bad.
  - kadoban 4y ago
    Russia is the aggressor, and appeasement is a generally unsuccessful strategy.
    - eshch 4y ago
      It depends on the purposes of the actor and the purpose of the strategy.

lizardactivist 4y ago

It's done out of necessity, not to spite anyone or to hurt the whole world. The gas has to go somewhere, but if the regular receiver (EU) doesn't want it or denies the seller the ability to charge for it (sanctions) then you can't just keep compressing and piping it somewhere else forever.

barbazoo 4y ago
> Rystad said that Russia is burning gas that would otherwise have been exported to Europe through the pipeline, which usually accounts for more than a third of Europe’s gas imports but where flows have been throttled back to just 20% of normal levels. Doesn't seem to be a black and white situation given that the pipeline delivers gas at 20% its capacity. AFAIK it's Russia throttling on their end, is that not correct? Russia itself isn't even claiming it's payment related. Do you have different information?
- nickff 4y ago
  Russia claims that it cannot deliver gas due to sanctions-related parts and maintenance issues with the pumping equipment. It is likely that the Russian strategy is to drive down EU gas reserves to the point where the EU drops its sanctions in exchange for gas this winter.
  - tharkun__ 4y ago
    Which is actually a "funny" game being played as well. Germany got Canada to send the turbine back anyway despite sanctions, creating an outcry in Canada actually but now Russia doesn't want it and it sits around in Germany gathering dust. And on top now Russia says all remaining turbines are having issues too and stopped even the one turbine that was still operational.
    - eshch 4y ago
      Just to clarify for those who doesn't track this game. The part "despite the sanctions" is important here. The turbine was sent not back to Russia, but to Germany. And Russia tells there is no exemption to get this turbine to Russia, it was given only for Germany. Besides this turbine they refer to a few others not being fixed or sent for repair, so this one is even not the biggest issue, but for some reason it's commented the most.

MomoXenosaga 4y ago

Short term Europe is fucked. Long term Russia is fucked. Ten years from now Europe will be importing gas from Quatar and Gabon. And even if hypothetically Russia conquers half of Ukraine it won't offset the loss of gas contracts. There's a reason why OPEC only tried that oil embargo stunt once- alternatives are found.