4 ms·

Is it? Would it be better that the demand for gas was satisfied by exploring and drilling new gas fields rather than using the ones we already have more efficie

Is it? Would it be better that the demand for gas was satisfied by exploring and drilling new gas fields rather than using the ones we already have more efficiently?

tempestn 3y ago
Or by burning coal instead of NG.
- defrost 3y ago
  [flagged]
- elric 3y ago
  Apparently that one isn't quite so clear cut. At least in the case of LNG, its greenhouse gas emmissions are pretty awful when you look at how much methane leaks out into the atmosphere (e.g. during processing and transport). At least with coal, it's unlikely to end up in the atmosphere unless its burnt. Liquefying and transporting natural gas across an ocean by ship seems like a pretty stupid thing to do. But here we are, doing just that.
  - GeoAtreides 3y ago
    Methane from coal mines is actually a problem: "Methane (CH4) emissions from coal mining and abandoned coal mines accounted for about 8% of total U.S. methane emissions in 2019. It was the fifth-largest methane-emitting sector" https://www.epa.gov/cmop/about-coal-mine-methane https://www.epa.gov/cmop/about-coal-mine-methane
    - elric 3y ago
      Thanks for pointing that out. Even if it is depressing that even abandoned coal mines are still contributing to greenhouse gas emmissions. There are thousands of operational coal mines. Probably hundreds of thousands of abandoned ones. How we are ever going to curb climate change is beyond me.
      - blooalien 3y ago
        > "How we are ever going to curb climate change is beyond me." At this point, we're simply not going to "curb climate change", sadly. We've left the lunatics in charge of the asylum for entirely too long, and they've set the place ablaze. All that's left to do now is stand back and watch it burn while the lunatics blame all of us for the fire they started.
defrost 3y ago
It would be better to put less C02 into the atmosphere. Currently exploration for new fields and exploitation of current fields takes place in parallel, and extraction is continuously increasing. Global C02 output is still increasing. It would be better to reduce | stabilise consumption while bringing other renewable resources to peak rather than "greenwashing" LNG fields with falsehoods about carbon capture and offsets. Yes, I understand the numbers, I have ~ 4 decades in exploration geophysics about the globe.
Voultapher 3y ago
Your framing suggests that only a solution that does the same thing, i.e. produce X amounts of power is valid. This the core of the climate crisis. As long as we cling to our ways of life this will only get worse. Physics doesn't care about our arguments. As long as we keep using finite resources, it will make the problems worse.
- refulgentis 3y ago
  Other humans exist and crying about how they don't get it like you do and won't do the radical solutions like you recommend will get you nowhere Exhausted of your type. Other people care too. Just not to the point we're delusional Natural gas producer capture carbon good. Sorry that breaks you.
  - Voultapher 3y ago
    I'd love to hear what exactly I said that you classify as delusional.
    - refulgentis 3y ago
      It's actually good that natural gas displaces coal and it's actually good that this natural gas producer captures CO2. Full stop. The delusional part is wishing we'd forgo gas and coal and just explain to people the power is out for the planet.
      - Voultapher 3y ago
        Please carefully re-read what I've written in the parent comment. I do not talk about wishing, nor suggesting we should change. My point was, if we add more CO2, we make the situation worse. Maybe natural gas and carbon capture make the situation worse less fast than before. But they are still making the situation worse. There is no bargaining with physics. These "solutions" also involve mining and manufacturing, which in itself are extractive practices, further advancing the use of limited resources. As an example, take a serial murderer. Now they say they plan to reduce their murdering from 3 people a month to 1. You argue that is good, full stop. I say it's less bad, but I wouldn't call the new situation good.

Is it? Would it be better that the demand for gas was satisfied by exploring and drilling new gas fields rather than using the ones we already have more efficiently?

tempestn 3y ago

Or by burning coal instead of NG.

defrost 3y ago
[flagged]
elric 3y ago
Apparently that one isn't quite so clear cut. At least in the case of LNG, its greenhouse gas emmissions are pretty awful when you look at how much methane leaks out into the atmosphere (e.g. during processing and transport). At least with coal, it's unlikely to end up in the atmosphere unless its burnt. Liquefying and transporting natural gas across an ocean by ship seems like a pretty stupid thing to do. But here we are, doing just that.
- GeoAtreides 3y ago
  Methane from coal mines is actually a problem: "Methane (CH4) emissions from coal mining and abandoned coal mines accounted for about 8% of total U.S. methane emissions in 2019. It was the fifth-largest methane-emitting sector" https://www.epa.gov/cmop/about-coal-mine-methane https://www.epa.gov/cmop/about-coal-mine-methane
  - elric 3y ago
    Thanks for pointing that out. Even if it is depressing that even abandoned coal mines are still contributing to greenhouse gas emmissions. There are thousands of operational coal mines. Probably hundreds of thousands of abandoned ones. How we are ever going to curb climate change is beyond me.
    - blooalien 3y ago
      > "How we are ever going to curb climate change is beyond me." At this point, we're simply not going to "curb climate change", sadly. We've left the lunatics in charge of the asylum for entirely too long, and they've set the place ablaze. All that's left to do now is stand back and watch it burn while the lunatics blame all of us for the fire they started.

defrost 3y ago

It would be better to put less C02 into the atmosphere. Currently exploration for new fields and exploitation of current fields takes place in parallel, and extraction is continuously increasing. Global C02 output is still increasing. It would be better to reduce | stabilise consumption while bringing other renewable resources to peak rather than "greenwashing" LNG fields with falsehoods about carbon capture and offsets. Yes, I understand the numbers, I have ~ 4 decades in exploration geophysics about the globe.

Voultapher 3y ago

Your framing suggests that only a solution that does the same thing, i.e. produce X amounts of power is valid. This the core of the climate crisis. As long as we cling to our ways of life this will only get worse. Physics doesn't care about our arguments. As long as we keep using finite resources, it will make the problems worse.

refulgentis 3y ago
Other humans exist and crying about how they don't get it like you do and won't do the radical solutions like you recommend will get you nowhere Exhausted of your type. Other people care too. Just not to the point we're delusional Natural gas producer capture carbon good. Sorry that breaks you.
- Voultapher 3y ago
  I'd love to hear what exactly I said that you classify as delusional.
  - refulgentis 3y ago
    It's actually good that natural gas displaces coal and it's actually good that this natural gas producer captures CO2. Full stop. The delusional part is wishing we'd forgo gas and coal and just explain to people the power is out for the planet.
    - Voultapher 3y ago
      Please carefully re-read what I've written in the parent comment. I do not talk about wishing, nor suggesting we should change. My point was, if we add more CO2, we make the situation worse. Maybe natural gas and carbon capture make the situation worse less fast than before. But they are still making the situation worse. There is no bargaining with physics. These "solutions" also involve mining and manufacturing, which in itself are extractive practices, further advancing the use of limited resources. As an example, take a serial murderer. Now they say they plan to reduce their murdering from 3 people a month to 1. You argue that is good, full stop. I say it's less bad, but I wouldn't call the new situation good.