4 ms·

Worse, oil wells frequently flame off natural gas because it's not economical to capture it from those wells. So there are layers of waste.

by wmil 3y ago

jdksmdbtbdnmsm 3y ago
[flagged]
sebmellen 3y ago
It's still better to flare it than to vent it without flaring [0]. In Texas there's a huge problem of wells venting without flaring that's been documented by some groups with IR cameras [1]. [0]: https://www.energy.gov/fecm/articles/natural-gas-flaring-and-venting-regulations-report https://www.energy.gov/fecm/articles/natural-gas-flaring-and... [1]: https://youtu.be/y4eDlG9U25c https://youtu.be/y4eDlG9U25c
- chimeracoder 3y ago
  > It's still better to flare it than to vent it without flaring [0]. Yes, though that's just because methane is itself 2 orders of magnitude worse for the environment than carbon dioxide, not because combustion itself is actually good.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - kragen 3y ago
    if combustion removes 99% of the methane's global warming potential, what would count as 'actually good' in your eyes? (or if you mean combustion in the abstract, not in this particular situation, keep in mind that aerobic respiration is combustion; without combustion the only life forms that would continue to exist would be anaerobic bacteria)
    - TaylorAlexander 3y ago
      This still becomes another CO2 emission that is unnecessary. Depending on the quantity of CO2 being emitted by this combustion compared to simply requiring the methane to be captured, it’s still bad. It’s still CO2 emissions.
      - kragen 3y ago
        be careful about trying to decide what's necessary for other people; they may decide that the carbon dioxide emission of your breathing is unnecessary, and that it would be better to permanently sequester your carbon maybe you think that you, or people like you, are the ones who would be making the decisions about what is necessary and what is unnecessary. that is a dangerously naïve viewpoint; power and coercion have their own logic
        defrost 3y ago
        Maybe they are clearly differentiating deep sequested carbon from gas wells from surface carbon cycles and not making veiled threats and muddy sophistry.
        kragen 3y ago
        it is true that the threat tayloralexander was making was not at all veiled
        TaylorAlexander 3y ago
        The “threat” that a government might regulate the operations of a corporation is not a threat at all, that’s a very normal policy discussion. Your suggestion that I am inviting threats against people is an fantasy and unrelated to this discussion.
        kragen 3y ago
        certainly discussing whether liberalism or authoritarianism is better is a very normal policy discussion, but that doesn't mean that advocating authoritarianism isn't threatening. it's far more threatening than simply pointing a gun at someone. and when governments start prohibiting things because they're not necessary you have descended pretty far into authoritarianism; you're in north korea 'illegal microwave oven' and 'unapproved haircut' territory how many of the things you did today were necessary? even if the answer is more than zero, that's probably only because you interpreted 'necessary' as 'necessary to taylor alexander'. but you can rest assured that an authoritarian government will not interpret it that way unless you are the head of state
- eastbound 3y ago
  Sorry, if they flare it, that means they channel it through a chimney, so why is it expensive to collect it?
  - kombookcha 3y ago
    It's my understanding that harvesting the gasses is a more complex and involved process than burning them off. The gear and infrastructure is expensive, even if you have something in place for flaring, therefore it normally isn't done for smaller wells. There's interesting work being done to make some forms of wellhead capture more feasible though. https://news.berkeley.edu/2023/11/13/capturing-wellhead-gases-for-profit-and-a-cleaner-environment https://news.berkeley.edu/2023/11/13/capturing-wellhead-gase...
  - citrin_ru 3y ago
    Two main reasons AFIK: unstable output (high volume burst but little to no output most of the time) and chemical composition which would require further refining before the gas can be sold.
  - alach11 3y ago
    The challenging is getting the gas from a remote well location to a plant where it can be processed. This requires pipelines, gas gathering facilities, etc. If any of that infrastructure is experiencing an upset condition, the operator has to choose between shutting in the well or flaring the gas. Shutting in the well can be undesirable because it's still producing oil to tanks, and oil is where most of the profit is from. A shut-down well can also be hard to get going again.

Worse, oil wells frequently flame off natural gas because it's not economical to capture it from those wells. So there are layers of waste.

by wmil 3y ago

Worse, oil wells frequently flame off natural gas because it's not economical to capture it from those wells. So there are layers of waste.

jdksmdbtbdnmsm 3y ago

[flagged]

sebmellen 3y ago

It's still better to flare it than to vent it without flaring [0]. In Texas there's a huge problem of wells venting without flaring that's been documented by some groups with IR cameras [1]. [0]: https://www.energy.gov/fecm/articles/natural-gas-flaring-and-venting-regulations-report https://www.energy.gov/fecm/articles/natural-gas-flaring-and... [1]: https://youtu.be/y4eDlG9U25c https://youtu.be/y4eDlG9U25c

chimeracoder 3y ago
> It's still better to flare it than to vent it without flaring [0]. Yes, though that's just because methane is itself 2 orders of magnitude worse for the environment than carbon dioxide, not because combustion itself is actually good.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- kragen 3y ago
  if combustion removes 99% of the methane's global warming potential, what would count as 'actually good' in your eyes? (or if you mean combustion in the abstract, not in this particular situation, keep in mind that aerobic respiration is combustion; without combustion the only life forms that would continue to exist would be anaerobic bacteria)
  - TaylorAlexander 3y ago
    This still becomes another CO2 emission that is unnecessary. Depending on the quantity of CO2 being emitted by this combustion compared to simply requiring the methane to be captured, it’s still bad. It’s still CO2 emissions.
    - kragen 3y ago
      be careful about trying to decide what's necessary for other people; they may decide that the carbon dioxide emission of your breathing is unnecessary, and that it would be better to permanently sequester your carbon maybe you think that you, or people like you, are the ones who would be making the decisions about what is necessary and what is unnecessary. that is a dangerously naïve viewpoint; power and coercion have their own logic
      - defrost 3y ago
        Maybe they are clearly differentiating deep sequested carbon from gas wells from surface carbon cycles and not making veiled threats and muddy sophistry.
        kragen 3y ago
        it is true that the threat tayloralexander was making was not at all veiled
        TaylorAlexander 3y ago
        The “threat” that a government might regulate the operations of a corporation is not a threat at all, that’s a very normal policy discussion. Your suggestion that I am inviting threats against people is an fantasy and unrelated to this discussion.
        kragen 3y ago
        certainly discussing whether liberalism or authoritarianism is better is a very normal policy discussion, but that doesn't mean that advocating authoritarianism isn't threatening. it's far more threatening than simply pointing a gun at someone. and when governments start prohibiting things because they're not necessary you have descended pretty far into authoritarianism; you're in north korea 'illegal microwave oven' and 'unapproved haircut' territory how many of the things you did today were necessary? even if the answer is more than zero, that's probably only because you interpreted 'necessary' as 'necessary to taylor alexander'. but you can rest assured that an authoritarian government will not interpret it that way unless you are the head of state
eastbound 3y ago
Sorry, if they flare it, that means they channel it through a chimney, so why is it expensive to collect it?
- kombookcha 3y ago
  It's my understanding that harvesting the gasses is a more complex and involved process than burning them off. The gear and infrastructure is expensive, even if you have something in place for flaring, therefore it normally isn't done for smaller wells. There's interesting work being done to make some forms of wellhead capture more feasible though. https://news.berkeley.edu/2023/11/13/capturing-wellhead-gases-for-profit-and-a-cleaner-environment https://news.berkeley.edu/2023/11/13/capturing-wellhead-gase...
- citrin_ru 3y ago
  Two main reasons AFIK: unstable output (high volume burst but little to no output most of the time) and chemical composition which would require further refining before the gas can be sold.
- alach11 3y ago
  The challenging is getting the gas from a remote well location to a plant where it can be processed. This requires pipelines, gas gathering facilities, etc. If any of that infrastructure is experiencing an upset condition, the operator has to choose between shutting in the well or flaring the gas. Shutting in the well can be undesirable because it's still producing oil to tanks, and oil is where most of the profit is from. A shut-down well can also be hard to get going again.