20 ms·
A Mysterious Patch Of Light Shows Up In The North Dakota Dark
- detritus 14y agoFrom the article— every day drillers in North Dakota "burn off enough gas to heat half a million homes." I feel sick.
- tjic 14y agoWhy? A trillion times more solar energy lands on the planet every day and is wasted.
- gbog 14y ago> solar energy lands on the planet and is wasted. How do you know? I actually don't see how even one milliwatt of it could be "wasted": Even if it arrives in the midst of the ocean, this milliwatt is still heating the water, which allows for clouds, which gives us rain, and life. The only possibly wasted energy is the rays the Sun sends to the nil, and maybe artificial satellites could grad a piece of it.
- joezydeco 14y agoThat gas is already being fed through pipes to the burn stacks. The cost of doing something with it is a lot less than trying to capture the terawatts of solar falling on the planet.
- detritus 14y agoI presume you're simply being contrary, but in case it needs pointing out, that represents huge and highly-avoidable human-caused carbon emissions. The sun's beat down upon Earth for 4.5Bn years and will hopefully do so for about the same again. Short-termism's just sad and puts a knot in my belly.
- pc86 14y agoAs was said elsewhere in the thread, they are safety fires and the whole operation would be incredibly dangerous without them.
- detritus 14y agoSure, i get that—but thems're free fuels they be wasting. That's the only point I think I've tried to get across, from when I was the first person to comment on this thread...
- dvnlgls 14y agosolar energy is renewable. Natural gas is nonrenewable. Guess that's the sick part - not able to tap a precious resource.
- speculate1 14y agoIs it a UFO?
- ghc 14y agoHow is it that possessing mineral rights underneath land allows companies to violate land rights by putting their drilling pads on a farmer's land? And how did they buy mineral rights underneath someone's land, anyway? The farmers had to have had some say in such a sale, right?
- arethuza 14y ago"energy companies bought "mineral rights" to the land below those farms" Presumably someone (the farmers?) sold those rights in the past?
- taejo 14y agoIn most places mineral rights and land rights are separate. I may own land but if diamonds are found under it by somebody else, I have no particular right to extract them. It appears the US may be different though.
- arethuza 14y agoBut if I start of owning both the land and the mineral rights, surely I can sell off the mineral rights and continue to "own" and farm the land? It would seem a surpising legal requirement that the land and the mineral rights always remain part of the same item. [NB I come from somewhere with quite remarkable land ownership issues, so perhaps I'm introducing complexities where they don't exist].
- sageikosa 14y agoUsually. It depends on the deed titles you possess, which may preclude such actions. Also, sometimes they may not be severable based on jurisdiction.
- superk 14y agoWell, there are ways around it: http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20120427144332/simpsons/images/b/bc/Slant_drilling.jpg http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20120427144332/simpson...
- gambiting 14y agoThis is disgusting. Next time someone publicly says that we should be careful with fossil fuels show them this. This a big FUCK YOU EARTH coming from America.
- jusben1369 14y agoIs this really disgusting? There's very little context given at any point during the article. My understanding is there are around 85,000,000 barrels produced per day globally. Is ND now responsible for 10% more gas being burned globally? 0.5%? It's great that it shows up at night but there's a reason they have to circle the thing. It still pales in comparison to the intensity of Chicago nearby let alone the East Coast or Bay Area. Fracking worries me and the wild west mentality that shows up whenever there are quick riches - be it energy, internet stocks or real estate - always leads to an ugly hangover. I just think it's better to take a step back and wonder about context vs getting sucked straight to this point.
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- ricardobeat 14y agoYou are comparing a drilling operation by ~150 businesses to cities dozens of miles large and housing millions of people. It's HUGE. What if burnt gas is evenly distributed so that no one drill site is burning more than 0.5%? Who's responsibility is it?
- youngerdryas 14y agoWhile it is easy to be disgusted sitting in your fossil fuel heated flat, the world does not run on magic fairy dust.
- thwest 14y agoAssumptions assumptions new poster. Several cities in the US get significant percentage of power from renewables thanks to the power of local politics.
- jere 14y agoI keep hearing about ND all the time. I bet there are some business opportunities there, but I have no idea what they are.
- nonamegiven 14y agoProstitution, food, housing, alcohol, cigarettes, construction, car maintenance, used car sales (buy them at auction and bring them in), illegal drugs (there is probably a certain predictable dollar flow per capita anywhere in the US, varying by "class."). Just look at everything you see around you every day and don't really see; there are probably huge pockets of under-served markets for "everything." The operator of a coffee kiosk on the right crossroads would probably be exhausted.
- LargeWu 14y agoMost business opportunities there are currently severely constrained by an insufficient supply of labor and housing. Fast food jobs pay $15/hr. I've heard Menard's (a Home Depot-like chain in the midwest) flys people in from Texas for a week at a time to work at their retail stores because they can't find any local help.
- berberich 14y agoIt's actually Wisconsin (where the Mendard's headquarters is[1]), not Texas, but I don't think that affects your point. Walmart is paying $17/hour, too. With unemployment below 1%, it's going to take awhile before labor supply and demand fall into equilibrium. [1]: http://www.npr.org/2012/12/18/167467703/the-downsides-of-living-in-an-oil-boom-town http://www.npr.org/2012/12/18/167467703/the-downsides-of-liv...
- sawdisk 14y agoI live in Minot, ND, and previously worked at the Menards here in town. Right now, they're flying people in from parts of Michigan, and I believe there are others that are being flown in from a store in Minnesota that's currently being rebuilt. A Taco Johns here in town is starting people at $13/hr. McDonalds is at $10/hr and a $500+ hiring bonus. One of our nicer Italian restaurants in town just closed down as they couldn't find enough people to work. Kohls just built in town (the building has been done since November), but they won't open up until mid-March, as they still haven't found enough workers. There's a lot of potential for businesses here, but the lack of workers and reasonably priced housing really hurts. The housing isn't hurting only because of the influx of oil workers. It's hurting worse since the largest city close to the oil had 1/3 of it flooded in June of 2011. Not everyone has rebuilt.
- JimmaDaRustla 14y agoFracking scares me. Watched the movie Gasland, makes me depressed.
- deelowe 14y agoIs that the same one that shows someone burning gas coming of their faucet, which was debunked a long time ago as a result of poor well construction (or was it ground contamination).
- jbooth 14y agoI didn't see the movie, and I'm sure it sensationalized things as movies have to do (matt damon!). But. You're saying "oh that won't happen unless people screw up". Guess what, in the real world, people screw up all the time. Screwups should be a major part of the math when people make decisions about fracking.
- rapind 14y agoThe gas coming out of his faucet apparently had nothing to do with the natural gas exploration in the area, screw-up or otherwise. From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasland http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasland "Regarding Mike Markham - In a scene from the film, Weld County landowner Mike Markham is shown with director Josh Fox igniting gas from a well water faucet in his home with a cigarette lighter, which the film attributes to natural gas exploration in the area. In 2008, The Colorado Oil & Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC) investigated a complaint made by Markham alleging that nearby natural gas operations impacted his domestic water well. A Colorado Oil and Gas Information System (COGIS) report stated that Markham’s water "appears to be biogenic in origin." The Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission uses the origin of the methane, either biogenic or thermogenic, to determine whether or not the groundwater contamination can be attributed to natural gas drilling. According to the agency, natural gas drilling does not lead to the presence of biogenic methane. The 2008 COGIS report concluded that "there [were] no indications of oil & gas related impacts to [Markham's] water well." Markham’s water well was drilled through four different coal beds containing biogenic methane gas."
- ck2 14y agoevery day drillers in North Dakota burn off enough gas to heat half a million homes Oh that will end well. We should definitely let them drill in the arctic. And note how it's not reducing the cost of gas, it's massively profitable because gas prices are so high. [1] So all those "drill baby drill" chants, well there you have it. Prices as high as ever and destroy the environment as a bonus. Let taxpayers pay to clean it up in a decade after they've burnt out the state, simply dissolve the corporation so there is no responsibility, just like the toxic ash piles the coal industry leaves behind. 1. http://i.imgur.com/FFof4.png http://i.imgur.com/FFof4.png
- joshuahedlund 14y agoMaybe I'm the ignorant one but are you conflating gas from oil with natural gas, which actually has been driven to record low prices[1], so much so that utilities have switched from coal to natural gas at such a fast pace that it reduced our greenhouse gas emissions by a considerable amount in 2012[2]? "Prices as high as ever and destroy the environment as a bonus" may be doubly wrong. [1]http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2011/12/abundant-natural-gas-leads-to-record.html http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2011/12/abundant-natural-gas-lea... [2]http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/02/us-emissions-idUSBRE8710CB20120802 http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/02/us-emissions-idUSB...
- ck2 14y agoPrices of gas from oil are at all time high (except irregularities). Draw a line on that chart above to see. Every penny gas goes up extracts millions from the economy. Natural gas prices being so low is why they are burning it off instead of investing in the equipment to capture it - because no-one dares regulate their massive profit from oil.
- whyme 14y agoYou would be correct. Gasoline comes from Oil using a process called cracking which separates out the heavier components from the lighter ones used to fuel cars. Natural gas (not from oil) has prices that are still extremely low in North America. It's still a tragic waste showing gluttonous consumption. If North America were to switch cars/homes over to natural gas then they would solve two problems, 1. Reduce emissions from Oil use 2. Not be so damn wasteful.
- jakozaur 14y agoShouldn't it be forced to store gas for future use instead if burning it? Underground storage wouldn't be that expensive and we will probably need that gas at profitable prices in the next 20 years.
- takluyver 14y agoI guess it simply takes up too much space to practically store. Liquefied gas would take up much less space, but the equipment to condense it and keep it chilled presumably costs a lot more.
- sageikosa 14y agoBetween releasing CO2 (a by-product of the burn) and releasing methane, CO2 is consindered the lesser of the two waste gases. Underground storage would be expensive, volatile gas stored anywhere is a potential liability waiting to happen, especially in areas where there is fuel being moved about. Since the companies have extraction rights, they may also lack the legal capacity to build storage facilities.
- whyme 14y agoToo costly to transport/store it, plus doing so would slow them down getting to all that Oil (and we all know Oil is king). Really governments should mandate that we convert to NG or dual systems such that we can make use of both (I.e. increase the value of natural gas and decrease the value of oil). And then governments could mandate the use of natural gas instead of wasting it.
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- pinaceae 14y agoi wonder how this relates to the numbers behind the peak oil predictions? but, i agree completely that simply burning off excess is amazingly shortsighted and stupid. they could use the natural gas to power their own operations, right there. or just the AC for the workers. have their fleet of vehicles run on it. it's the same with refineries, driving by you always see the large torches blazing. why not use this energy for something?
- saryant 14y agoThose flares are safety releases. Refineries would be extraordinarily dangerous without them.
- Retric 14y agoNot really, you can pipe the same gass to holding tanks. It's just not cost effective to do so.
- saryant 14y agoI'm talking about the flares you see at oil refineries, not drilling sites. Those are pressure relief valves and are essential safety equipment. The flares you see on a day-to-day basis are just pilot flames which are always kept lit in the event a flare is required during an emergency such as an over-pressurization.
- Retric 14y agoThe pressure relief values are essential, what happens after that point is a separate issue. The advantage of Flares is there simple, cheap, can quickly deal with a lot of gas, and render the gas inert. Holding tanks on the other hand need a lot of piping, pumping equipment, and then some system to deal with whatever miscellaneous gas ends up in there. However, if C02 start being taxed expect to see far fewer flares.
- wcoenen 14y ago> i wonder how this relates to the numbers behind the peak oil predictions? +880K barrels/day of production is a significant up-tick in US oil production, but I bet it will end up looking like some fluctuation around the prediction line of Hubberts model[1]. Fracking shale rock 2 km below the surface is just another step towards an EROI of 1:1. The fact that it is considered economically viable now just means that the easier oil sources are gone; not exactly a good sign. [1] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/79/US_Crude_Oil_Production_versus_Hubbert_Curve.png/572px-US_Crude_Oil_Production_versus_Hubbert_Curve.png https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/79/US...
- tocomment 14y agoSpeaking of mineral rights, if say a barn is right over where the company needs to drill, will the pay the farmer for the barn?
- vacri 14y agoOil wells don't have to be plumb: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directional_drilling http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directional_drilling
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- feintruled 14y ago"I drink your milkshake!"
- cabinguy 14y agoOne of our company offices is in Detroit Lakes, MN, very close to the ND border. The fact of the matter is that this oil boom has made many, many ND farmers instant millionaires. If oils is found on their land they are receiving huge royalty checks ($500k+ per month). It is true that mineral rights are often not included in the sale of real estate in this part of the country...but the royalty checks they receive for allowing the oil companies to drill create generational wealth.
- cpr 14y agoGenerally, there are set-back limits to how close to existing building they're allowed to drill, in your mineral rights lease. We just signed one last year with 750' setback. Luckily, it looks like they're going to drill on some adjacent land. And, as someone else points out, it doesn't really matter where the pad goes (roughly), as they're covering either 640 or 1280 acres (1 or 2 square miles) with 6-8 horizontal legs from a single well pad, at least in this area of Ohio.
- johnrgrace 14y agoYes they'd pay for the barn, but given directional drilling technology it's almost impossible that they'd have to do that the "holes" can be angled in from sometimes as far away as a few miles. IF they HAD to do it some guy in houston with a spreadsheet would plug in the barns cost and say drill/no drill in a few minutes. Hell, they might have a APP for that.
- martinced 14y agoNo need to go on the space station or in suborbital flights: you can see them from regular commercial planes and the first time you experience it it's a bit frightening, because supposedly most people do not know what's going on. You can see the same while flying over Russia for example. If there are clouds you see lights at night illuminating the clouds from below and it is really impressive.
- madaxe 14y agoFracking is a topic fraught with controversy, and the issues are indeed complicated. If by fracking you're talking about that wonderful process that extracts that bountiful nectar of progress deep from within our mother earth, creating jobs, building commerce and bringing warmth into our family homes, I'm all in favour of it. If by fracking you mean the systematic destruction of our ecosystem, and the wanton waste of our precious resources, while causing earthquakes and the toxification of the water table, then I oppose it. Ladies and gentlemen, we must be strong, and hold our opinions close to our hearts, for the future is in our hands.
- Vivtek 14y agoNicely played.
- jkeel 14y agoGood if-by-whiskey example. For those that weren't on HN yesterday: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/If-by-whiskey http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/If-by-whiskey
- biot 14y agoRecycling old stories, turning them into memes, and posting in other stories for the lulz... I thought this was HN, not Reddit.
- madaxe 14y agoNot "doing a meme", making a point. There are arguments for fracking from both sides - unfortunately the pro side takes a very short term view, and the con side takes a long term view. The length of politicians' terms fundamentally shape the direction policy takes, along with the fact that, whether it's conscious or not, there's the "well, I'll be dead by then" phenomenon. It turned into if-by-whiskey as I wrote it. There's a difference between lolcats and discourse.
- biot 14y agoFor this reader, whatever point you were trying to make was lost. There are arguments on both sides about everything, but there's no value in posting an if-by-prosecution on every Aaron Swartz story. To me, your original post reads as: [generic topic statement] [endorsement via obvious positive traits] [condemnation via obvious negative traits] [trite conclusion] I fail to see how this format furthers discourse since there was nothing clever in its use; it's essentially a search and replace of whiskey terms with fracking terms. What you've said above about long and short term views and how this shapes policies introduced by politicians is what you should have written in the first place. That is interesting and encourages discussion.
- pbrumm 14y agoSounds like a nice place for a data center. cold with plenty of cheap natural gas to power it.
- sageikosa 14y agoThe burn-offs are probably not reliably schedulable or consistently locatable. Not all the bright spots in the infrared visualization are "ablaze" with burn-off flares.
- notatoad 14y agoNot consistently locatable? Do you think this is just oil fields catching fire? The burn offs are a conscious decision to burn off excess, made by the well operator. All you need to do to locate a burn off is to ask the well operator to tell you when they are burning. And as far as scheduling: gas power isn't like wind or solar power. You don't need to schedule it. All you need to store gas is a big tank.
- sageikosa 14y agoNo, I have no reason to assume the need to burn off at any particular location at any particular time is consistently reliable (it may or may not be; I was a geographer, not a geologist). The decision to make the action may be conscious, but the timing of the implementation may be reactive to conditions either with a stochastic build-up, a pocket of gas being hit, or when the equipment is down for maintenance (the latter of which probably would be schedulable) Even if it were schedulable and constitent in quantity, the catchment area is fairly wide and would require considerable infrastructure to gather, which the oil companies were not geared to do to begin with (they were going for petroleum, not methane). From what another local poster mentioned, there are plans in the works to capture some of that methane, but they require studies, licenses, etc. etc.
- johnrgrace 14y agoActually the natural gas burn offs are very consistent, natural gas is a coproduct of the oil but there isn't the pipeline/infrastructure to actually do anything with it.
- missing_cipher 14y agoNot very mysterious.
- tjic 14y agoFrom the article: > to a disturbing degree I dislike it when government-run media tries to tell me what to think about something.
- alex-g 14y agoNPR is not run by the government, though it is partially supported by government grants. It's not Voice of America.
- tokenadult 14y agoI seem to be one of the few persons commenting so far who actually lives in the region and regularly reads local reporting on issues in North Dakota (a state neighboring my state). Western North Dakota, where the Bakken Shale oil boom is occurring, is very sparsely populated and historically had minimal infrastructure. It takes TIME to build pipelines to move the natural gas brought up by oil drilling operations to natural gas customers. Pipeline proposals are currently in regulatory review. There isn't even pipeline infrastructure in place yet for all of the petroleum production in North Dakota--much of the oil produced there is brought to broader markets in tanker trucks, and the truck traffic volumes are putting a lot of stress on highway roadbeds until the highways can be upgraded. Right now there is a boom economy in western North Dakota, with extremely high wages, low unemployment, a shortage of single women, http://www.twincities.com/national/ci_22382285/north-dakota-oil-boom-unsettles-gender-balance-some http://www.twincities.com/national/ci_22382285/north-dakota-... and established businesses in the region importing workers from as far away as Illinois just to keep up normal operations as workers quit to join oil field crews. There hasn't been time to build infrastructure yet to move away the natural gas to markets that will pay for the gas--especially because the price of natural gas all over the United States has crashed because of the huge increase in production in the last few years. But given time, yes, there will be infrastructure in place to transport Bakken Shale gas to other markets, and I'm sure that we here in Minnesota will be as glad to have North Dakotan natural gas to supplement our nuclear-powered energy grid as we already are to have North Dakotan petroleum brought in by truck. Once more pipelines are built, the entire United States energy economy will become more flexible. Still to be figured out is the economics of converting natural gas deliquefaction terminals (those cost BILLIONS of dollars and years to build or convert) along the Gulf Coast into liquefaction terminals, so that the United States can get into the business of exporting liquified natural gas. It could happen. North Africa and the Arabian Peninsula used to flare off all of their natural gas incidentally brought up during petroleum production--there was no local market for it. It took a long time to develop natural gas liquefaction; now there is international trade in natural gas that was undreamed of when I was growing up.
- api 14y agoToo bad you probably can't get a Honda Civic GX and fill it up for free up there and drive for free. :)
- ssharp 14y ago>>> Decades ago, energy companies bought "mineral rights" to the land below those farms — so the companies can move in, create drilling pads where they please, move in trucks and workers, without the farmers' consent... Huh? Without the farmers consent? When you sell your mineral rights, you're giving consent. What usually happens is that the gas companies lease your mineral rights and in that lease agreement are provisions that give the gas company the right to drill on your property, which includes equipment, trucks, etc. If the mineral rights were actually sold and not leased, I'd suspect the contract included writing in easements on the title for access and equipment. Since the story is painting sort of a doom and gloom scenario, my guess is that whoever owned the property "decades ago" either bought the property without the mineral rights, sold them off, or did a very long-term lease on them. When this happened, the rights probably weren't very valuable because fracking technology didn't exist. Now that the land is worth a fortune, it's a missed opportunity of the farmer. Whatever the case, the owner either initiated the action or the terms should have come up when the property was sold. I live in a part of Ohio that is currently in the early stages of a fracking "boom". Whether or not it comes to full fruition is unknown but the industry is certainly developing. I hear lots of stories about people who missed out on fracking leases because they had leased their mineral rights previously. The old scenario used to be next to no upfront lease money, a modest royalty, and free gas if they put a well on your property. When the fracking technology became available and the shale area was suspected to be ripe with gas, the whole game changed. Leases were being written that gave in the range of $800-$5000 per acre up-front, along with longer-term royalties. These were significantly more valuable than previous leases. I've heard stories of people missing out on upwards of $1,000,000 in upfront lease money because they already had leased their property to someone else. Of course, if gas hits on that land, the up-front money pales in comparison to the long-term royalites. If I were a farmer, I wouldn't buy land knowing that I didn't own the mineral rights to it. You're making a bet that nobody will ever come in and claim those rights, which is unrealistic. If I'm a farmer and I sell of my rights through sale or lease, I'm making a bet that the sale of the rights or the lease and subsequent royalties are worth more than the production of my farm.
- nmcfarl 14y agoI've been told that in northern New Mexico most of the mineral rights where sold off long ago, in the 20's and 50's, and sold off pretty comprehensively. Meaning there are parts of the state you just couldn't live in if you refused to live on land that no longer had its mineral rights. Also meaning those people there now where not directly compensated for them, thus have not thought of the issue. (Presumably, this is priced into the market and land values are lower, but with real estate pricing being so dynamic people probably don't consider this either) --- It should be noted that my sources are people I vaguely knew about 10 years ago, who where whinging about oil men. So not reliable. But if true, it makes a more compelling story for people complaining about oil men. Also it must be said - oil men are probably going to elicit complaints where ever they move in as their personalities, and manners, are not, as a rule, refined...
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- mmphosis 14y agoPan north into Canada. I believe that northern-most bright dot is the tarsands in Fort McMurray. http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/712130main_8246931247_e60f3c09fb_o.jpg http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/712130main_8246931247_e60...
- bct 14y agoIt is. The two joined dots just east of the mountains are Edmonton and Calgary.
- scott_s 14y agoThis is the third time in a week I've heard a story about Williston, ND. First was Planet Money, "Turning a Boom Town into a Real Town": http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2013/01/08/168871212/episode-428-turning-a-boomtown-into-a-real-town http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2013/01/08/168871212/episode-... Second was an NY Times story about how the overwhelming number of single men in Williston makes, in the best case, dating difficult, and in the worst case, has caused an increased in reported sexual assaults: "An Oil Town Where Men Are Many, and Women are Hounded": http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/16/us/16women.html http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/16/us/16women.html And when I searched Google to find the article I read yesterday, I discovered several stories on Williston from last year: http://www.google.com/search?q=ny+times+williston+north+dakota http://www.google.com/search?q=ny+times+williston+north+dako...
- zecho 14y agoThe pay at McDonald's in Williston is around $18/hour starting. Kids keep leaving for the fields, though, because if they have a skill, they can make twice as much. It's not without problems, though. Public school teachers in Dickinson are being bunked in community housing because the rent has skyrocketed. Most people will building skills aren't building houses, either, so many of these men working the fields are living in their trucks or in temporary housing or in RVs at Walmarts.
- davidw 14y ago> The few ranchers who lived here produced wheat, alfalfa, oats and corn. I think "farm" is technically more accurate. Ranchers are the ones with cows or other animals.
- zecho 14y agoIt depends on where you are in western ND. Ranching is a big industry there. Much of the alfalfa and oats are grown to sustain the ranching. The "farms" as you'd more traditionally think of them are more to the central and eastern portion of the state, where wheat, soy, canola and some corn is grown. As you get toward the Red River, you'll find a lot of sugar beets, too.
- clarky07 14y agoI for one am not sick about this at all as others here are. Cutting our energy dependence by 20% and unemployment under 1% when the nation is at 8%. There are trade offs in life, and this is a good one. I'm sure they are working on the infrastructure needed to capture the gas, but its not like that can be done in a day. Give it time.
- ricardobeat 14y agoIn a decade the jobs will be gone, the energy will be gone, and you're left with large areas of f* up land, pollution and health issues. It's not worth it in the long term.
- wissler 14y agoThis will make your grandchildren happy with you: "When oil comes to the surface, it often brings natural gas with it, and according to North Dakota's Department of Mineral Resources, 29 percent of the natural gas now extracted in North Dakota isn't captured. Gas isn't as profitable as oil, and the energy companies don't always build the pipes or systems to carry it off. For a year (with extensions), North Dakota allows drillers to burn gas, just let it flare. There are now so many gas wells burning fires in the North Dakota night, the fracking fields can be seen from deep space."
- tnvaught 14y agoThe Eagle Ford formation is similarly lit up in an arc south of San Antonio, TX. Cool stuff.
- mncolinlee 14y agoIf the gas is simply being flared, wouldn't it be more profitable to bring in some large gas turbines (converted 747 engines would work) and generate power to sell to the grid and neighboring states until pipelines are ready? If transport is likely to be a recurring problem, it seems obvious that an entrepreneur could step in and arbitrage the price gap between energy and the glut of natural gas in the region by generating power and upgrading power lines. Even when more natural gas production goes to pipelines, those power lines could later be used to transport North Dakota's wind power.
- Schwolop 14y agoA closely related thing is happening in the Western Australian desert: http://www.quora.com/Australia/What-is-going-on-in-the-Western-Australian-desert-to-have-all-these-lights-so-visible http://www.quora.com/Australia/What-is-going-on-in-the-Weste... Mining companies operate 24hrs a day with huge lighting rigs illuminating the pits. One of the motivating reasons for the automation work I did for Rio Tinto was that autonomous trucks can drive perfectly happily in the dark, saving a fortune in energy bills.
- genuine 14y agoGood for ND. At least they are providing jobs.
- malbs 14y agoThe video shows Australia. Particularly curious to me was the abundance of light in Western Australia, given a lot of it is unpopulated (sure a bit is mining operations). Turns out it's bush fires.
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- zecho 14y ago> This time it's corn folks versus oil folks. Ugh. I'm from North Dakota. That's cattle country out there, primarily, with soy, wheat and canola as the main crops. City folk don't know their head from their ass on a farm. Anyway. If we're flaring off 29% of our gas, a fairly good reason is that we've got nowhere to put it and nobody wants to invest in more infrastructure at the moment because 1) Natural gas (which we've also got in abundance) is meeting needs at already low prices and 2) The oil development isn't anywhere near completely built out.
- JumpCrisscross 14y agoIf one could get the gas from the flare towers to a combined cycle natural gas reactor for under 0.9 cents per cubic foot, or, about $170 per well per annum, there could be room for a small profit ($900k/year less operating costs). Note that I assumed you're paying the well owner market price for the natural gas they're presently flaring off, a conservative assumption. Gas flared per annum (MM cubic feet) = 150 [1]; 100 cubic ft gas in MWh = 0.0302 [2]; »Natural gas flared (MWh) = 45,300 Plant efficiency = 61% [3]; »Available energy (MWh) per annum = 27,633 North Dakota electricity price (kWh) = $0.0681 [4]; Value of available energy ($ million) = $1.882 [5]; »Value per cubic foot gas = $0.0125 Market price of gas ($/MMBTU) = 3.48 [6]; BTU/cubic foot natural gas = 1020 [7]; »Market cost of gas ($ million) = $0.532 Excess value of gas in fields = $1.349; »Excess value per cubic foot gas = $0.0090 Number of wells = 8,000 [8]; Mean gas per annum per well (cubic ft.) = 18,750; »Expected excess value per well per annum = $168.67 [1] http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5073583 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5073583 [2] http://www.convertunits.com/from/hundred+cubic+foot+of+natural+gas/to/megawatt+hour http://www.convertunits.com/from/hundred+cubic+foot+of+natur... [3] http://gigaom.com/2011/05/25/ge-to-crank-up-gas-power-plants-like-jet-engines/ http://gigaom.com/2011/05/25/ge-to-crank-up-gas-power-plants... [4] http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/state-regs/pdf/North%20Dakota.pdf http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/state-regs/pdf/Nor... [5] Expected revenues per annum if you burnt all the gas flaredin Bakken & Three Forks in a combined cycle reactor [6] http://www.bloomberg.com/energy/ http://www.bloomberg.com/energy/ [7] http://www.onlineconversion.com/forum/forum_1038451235.htm http://www.onlineconversion.com/forum/forum_1038451235.htm [8] http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203707504577010463934234498.html http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405297020370750457701...