3 ms·
> 2.6% of the raw carbon (-> CO2) It seems barely anybody is concerned by this. Sure if it's 2.6%, 97.4% will be released in some form at some point, but those
by lloeki 14y ago
> 2.6% of the raw carbon (-> CO2)
It seems barely anybody is concerned by this. Sure if it's 2.6%, 97.4% will be released in some form at some point, but those 2.6% are lost with a utility/greenhouse ratio of effectively zero. That's 150 million cubic feet per day flared into heat+CO2 for naught. I don't know how this stacks up against other means of getting oil.
FWIW, France could economically benefit from fracking, but it has been decided at the political level to ban the practice until it can be made provably safe and sound.
- uvdiv 14y agoSure if it's 2.6%, 97.4% will be released in some form at some point, but those 2.6% are lost with a utility/greenhouse ratio of effectively zero. But the marginal utility of capturing that gas is negative: less than zero. (By the way it's 4.2%, not 2.6%; my post has an error and I can't edit it. There's a mismatch between the gas flaring and oil production figures: one is from 2011 (NYT article), the other 2012 (WSJ). It's a large error because oil production doubled in the space of a few months).
- ekianjo 14y agoSo what? Since when is French Politics any indicative of good decisions? France has the tradition for like 20-30 years now to ban stuff out of "precautionary principle", meaning that they do not even consider the possibility of doing anything if there is any single risk involved, instead of thinking of how to manage the risks.