12 ms·
Multisatellite data depicts a record-breaking methane leak from a well blowout
- xkgask 2y ago[dead]
- schappim 2y agoOuch! They’re estimating 131 kt of methane! That’s equivalent to approx 3.93 Megatons of CO2 (in terms of its global warming impact over a century) or roughly equivalent to that of a small country like Iceland or Malta annually.
- cjr 2y ago3.93 megatons of CO2 is roughly equivalent to: • About 149,714 short-haul flights, or • About 37,429 long-haul flights.
- GenerocUsername 2y agoso what I am hearing is that short-haul flights are ~24% as far as long-haul flights. Weird use of segmented flight lengths as a comparator
- sebmellen 2y agoShort haul flights use proportionally more fuel per mile flown because taking off is very fuel intensive. That said, no idea what average value the GP comment is basing their numbers off of.
- ductsurprise 2y agoTake off, climb and circles before landng time use considerably more fuel than that of cruising time, so that needs to be considered. Also, as short haul fights generally don't climb as high, they lose the benefits of high altitude cruising.
- SoftTalker 2y agoSo a couple of days' worth?
- flosstop 2y agoAre those figures the wrong way around?
- dartharva 2y agoHow much ∘C of change in global temperature does this translate to?
- HL33tibCe7 2y agoOn the order of 0. From what I read, we can expect a 1 degree increase if we release somewhere in the ballpark of 100 billion tons of CO2. Using those figures, 3.93 megatons is 0.0000393 degrees. As a point of comparison, humans release roughly 40 gigatons of CO2 per year; 3.93 megatons is 0.0098% of that. As another point of comparison, around 550 gigatons of CO2 is released (and absorbed) by the planet "naturally". 3.93 megatons is 0.0007% of that.
- amelius 2y ago> As another point of comparison, around 550 gigatons of CO2 is released (and absorbed) by the planet "naturally". So we are currently within 20% of what the planet does naturally, which seems not that bad actually.
- HL33tibCe7 2y agoUnfortunately it's not that simple, because the planet absorbs that CO2 too. So in reality, the important thing is we're going from a delta of 0 gigatons of CO2 per year, to a delta of +40 gigatons of CO2 per year.
- csomar 2y ago40 / 550 is less than 10%. That's actually a huge number considering that the planet has an "equilibrium". Your actions can affect that balance and the whole planet goes into disarray. Not saying that's what will happen, though. The planet could also just absorb our extra CO2 (which is why it's becoming greener).
- linotype 2y agoWe’re not going to make it are we?
- sdkman 2y agoI don't think so :(
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 2y agoWe will but not at our current numbers. Rich countries will suffer the most.
- sadhorse 2y agoHow so? Huge flooding in Brazil this year, they are not recovering any time soon. Poor countries lack the resources that rich countries literally burn for their luxury.
- ars 2y agoSay Brazil floods this year, and next year, and the year after that. What do you think will happen next? What will happen is Brazil will start planning for it, and then they'll be fine. There will be an adjustment period, and then, life goes on.
- bwestergard 2y agoHuh? Of course life goes on, but it will be a more resource constrained life, and that will make political negotiations more difficult. If those aren't implications worth worrying about, what would be?
- kjkjadksj 2y agoThis is what people don’t get about places like Florida. The people in Florida are in fact aware that it storms and floods, thats why the house is built on stilts with metal storm shutters.
- rzzzt 2y agoThe description says this happened in 2023 June-to-November-ish in Kazakhstan. It sounds like this was a smaller version of Turkmenistan's crater: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darvaza_gas_crater https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darvaza_gas_crater
- swayvil 2y agowhy don't they have a little methane-detector-activated igniter? Burn it up before it gets away.
- jofer 2y agoIt's a blowout. That means what it sounds like. An explosion and a fire. To fix it, you have to put out the fire. Once you put out the fire, you're still releasing methane. Methane is flared instead of released under normal conditions if it's not being captured. A blowout is very much not normal conditions.
- arthurz 2y agoHow much is that in Social Carbon? Pun intended as why one would impose carbon taxes if the other countries so careless?
- thinkcontext 2y agoThe EU is getting ready to impose a carbon border price which will be in proportion to estimates of carbon emissions. So, there will be a price on carelessness if it can be measured by satellites.
- 28304283409234 2y agoDon't worry. They are working on hiding the output of methane from satellites. So you can stay as careless as you want! Yay capitalism! Not diminishing output. Just hiding. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/may/02/methane-emissions-gas-flaring-hidden-satellite-monitors-oil-gas https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/may/02/methane-...
- downrightmike 2y agoSocial Carbon is just marketing from fossil fuel companies to confuse people into thinking that its people's fault and for companies to shirk responsibility.
- thinkcontext 2y agoBetter satellites and other aerial survey data has determined that oil and gas related methane emissions are far, far higher than industry reports. Everywhere independent researchers look along the production, transmission, distribution and end use pipeline they find more leakage than has been assumed because industry has provided the numbers the assumptions are based on for years. Along some particularly leaky production paths methane emissions are so great that the impact is greater than coal over 100 year timescale. For example, some parts of NM Permian have a 9% (!) leakage rate. When combusted methane releases about half the amount of CO2 that coal does. The eGHG potential of methane is 20x CO2 over 100 year timescale, so you have to add 180% to the total GHG potential, making it 40% worse than coal w/o even considering other leakage along the pipeline. https://sustainability.stanford.edu/news/methane-leaks-are-far-worse-estimates-least-new-mexico-theres-hope https://sustainability.stanford.edu/news/methane-leaks-are-f...
- Retric 2y agoThose 100 year timescale numbers are misleading as the impact is so front loaded. They only make sense when talking about an emissions that are constant through long timescales.
- thinkcontext 2y agoI've heard people argue that its both too aggressive and too conservative. I'm in the too conservative camp, we need to figure things out sooner than 100 years and the risk of a feedback loop is high with methane. Its fine to assert that a single number doesn't capture the nuances of the situation. But we have to keep in mind that 1) the heat trapped by the methane stays trapped even after it has decayed 2) methane concentrations in the atmosphere are increasing significantly faster than co2 3) the more methane in the atmosphere the slower its rate of decay
- thfuran 2y ago>1) the heat trapped by the methane stays trapped even after it has decayed Not really. It would be present, but not trapped. Absent other factors, that would mean earth is above its equilibrium temperature and would cool once methane loss permits it to radiate heat more effectively. Either that or it shoots us in the face with a clathrate gun. There's really only one way to find out.
- idontknowtech 2y agoIf you want to get really scared about methane leaks, sinkholes are forming across the tundra as global warming melts the permafrost, creating gigantic methane bubbles as the previously frozen organic material now rots. Those bubbles explode once big enough, creating massive pockmarks which fill in with water. The amount of methane they leak is estimated to be gigantic, but without full coverage we'll never know.
- blueflow 2y agoThe methane plume is 2 km off from the blowout location: https://satellites.pro/Kazakhstan_map#A45.338220,52.376976,13 https://satellites.pro/Kazakhstan_map#A45.338220,52.376976,1... It is probably a pipeline leak.
- kjkjadksj 2y agoThere is going to be a point in the climate change phenomenon where we have to start taking aggressive measures and actually go after the biggest polluters no matter what nation they hide behind. Especially considering there will probably be forces working to undermine all of these climate goals. Maybe the US could throw some of that military budget around and use Seal team sappers to disable these polluting industrial plants? Now before people get guarded at that idea, just consider the US already does the same to kill actual people with such operations. Merely disabling infrastructure not only has some precedent, but also seems far more benign to me.
- thinkcontext 2y agoTrade wars are more likely than shooting wars, but I suppose its not impossible for the former to provoke the latter.
- chidli1234 2y agoI wonder if these types of events were taken into account in those models for climate change.
- bamboozled 2y agoI really hope so. So glad I'm installing solar this year, I'm thinking about building a car port and adding even more panels too.
- thinkcontext 2y agoSingle events just aren't that big against the background of global oil and gas production emissions, let alone overall global methane emissions. Its true that O & G emissions are higher than most governments report but most models take this into account in some fashion. Its also a big topic of research to account for methane emissions because the measured amount is larger than models are predicting from known inventories. But its not thought to be from events like this.
- metadat 2y agoMeanwhile, the Centralia coal mine fire in Pennsylvania is projected to continue burning for another 250 years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centralia_mine_fire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centralia_mine_fire This is all concerning.
- dvh 2y agoIs carbon the Great filter?
- euroderf 2y agoMaybe on Venus. I've read a convincing case that Venus can never be terraformed, simply because there is too damned much carbon.
- openrisk 2y agoIt is deeply ironic that the modern technological era provided both the means for destroying the planet and monitoring that destruction to minute detail.
- czbond 2y agoLet's say I have free time on my hands. How could I maximally remove methane from the atmosphere?
- whall6 2y agoWalk down your street lighting matches every five feet
- consp 2y agoEat a cow, do not replace it, and wait for it to escape the atmosphere or decompose naturally. And lighting a methane leak on fire can also help. (sarcasm tag)
- SoftTalker 2y agoMethane breaks down pretty quickly in the atmosphere, half-life is under 10 years. We don't need to remove it so much as stop leaking it.
- dpkirchner 2y agoThe fact that we haven't solved the methane leak problem, despite methane being valuable, makes me think that carbon capture that involves pumping CO2 into caves or whatever will have zero chance of success. Anyone promoting such tech is, IMO, a fraud.
- rkagerer 2y agoIt was in Kazakhstan. Fined <$1M (or <$10/tonne).
- ornornor 2y ago> leaked 131kt +/- 34kt of methane > The eGHG potential of methane is 20x CO2 over 100 year timescale It’s hard to not feel hopeless. Keep recycling your single use plastics, I guess we’ll be fine.