3 ms·
Shouldn'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 p
by jakozaur 14y ago
Shouldn'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.