I realize there is an oil boom going on, but is it possible that this resource could be managed in such a way that a massive amount of energy resource is not wastefully squandered and burned off? Especially considering that fracking is controversial and allegedly threatens to destroy this land for any other use… do you [North Dakota] think you could not squander the end for which this land is potentially being destroyed? How about we don’t destroy natural resources regardless of the destruction of the surrounding lands?!?11!
If we were trying to keep the armies of General Erich Ludenforff away from the fields of Rumania, sure, I could probably understand it even if I still didn’t like it. If we were the Soviets plotting to sabotage Baku if the Nazis threatened to take it, yah sure it is a strategic move no matter how tragic. If we were Saddam Hussein setting aflame the oilfields of Kuwait just to be the dick who proves he can destroy them, it is bullshit but still at least an act of war.
So buy it. All you have to do is pay enough for the gas to make it worth collecting. If, on the other hand, you’re suggesting that other people ought to go a great deal of trouble to soothe your butthurtedness at their own cost in time and money, then I suspect you won’t get much sympathy.
More than we used to. More every day. But so far, its still business as usual. They’re giving us the business, as usual. We could all die rich, but just a lot sooner
Yeah, from what I understand, natural gas pipelines are very prone to leakage, and that, combined with the safety concerns, makes it very difficult (relative to petroleum pipelines) to efficiently and economically build the necessary infrastructure to distribute it over long distances.
If the gas were to be captured and used for heating/some other purpose, would the environmental effect be the same? Lessened?
Assuming the answer is yes, this kind of things, where the benefit is for ALL of us, and the environment, can only be accomplished with the government stepping in and telling the oil companies that they have to use some sort of capture method so that the gas can be used.
As evident from some of the comments on this thread already, corporations don’t give a damn about the environment or helping their communities. All they care about is money.
Not necessarily. Of course the main driver for oil and gas companies is money, but you think they *like *wasting all that natural gas? As said, there isn’t the infrastructure to handle those volumes of natural gas in the U.S., and things are just starting here in Canada. But it’s not going to be used here - it’s headed for Asia, where natrual gas is (or will soon be) a prime hydrocarbon.
Most of the major players have associated gas recovery plans, which minimizes flaring and venting of natural gas (although imo, venting should be 100% banned, like it is or almost is in most regions of Canada), however, what do they do with it? They’re producing oil, here comes the natural gas, but…where’s the pipeline to put it in? There is none. So they have to flare it. If they could sell it, they would.
I don’t know where this came from. There are few issues with transporting natural gas. It’s put under pressure and transported as a liquid (LNG). Yes, there are safety concerns (explosions), but they are similar to safety concerns with sour oil and gas, which we transport everywhere. LNG is also less of an environmental concern than oil because it just dissipates rather than runs in to creeks and oceans.
That is why you hear all the uproar about things like Keystone and Northern Gateway (both oil pipelines) but nothing about the Pacific Trail Pipeline, which parallels the Northern Gateway through British Columbia. We just have to find the market for it. This is not a case of ‘if you build it, they will come’.
Everyone is just trying to cash in as fast as they can and not giving a shit about the long-term effects on the environment - or the economy when the resources run out.
Don’t mind me, I’m just a butthurt 20-something that is pissed at being priced out of everything at home because suddenly I’m not on the rigs making $100k a year.
I didn’t say it wasn’t doable, and I’m no expert, but my impression was (and is, after some wiki’ing) that it’s certainly more challenging and expensive than you seem to think.
Feel free to correct anything if you know more… From wiki: (bolding of the most relevant bits are mine)
As a broad brush, the effect would be lessened simply because putting the natural gas to use as an energy source would lessen the need for other energy.
That is, if I need 1000 units of energy, and for every 700 units of oil I also get 300 units of gas, I could meet my energy needs there–but if I just burn off the gas, then I need to get 300 more units of oil to meet my needs, thus causing more impact.
I’m not sure I can accept the “ways to handle it aren’t here yet” argument. If I build a home in the middle of nowhere, I still have to find a way to handle my sewage and trash–I can’t just go dumping it into a river because nobody’s build a sewage pipe out to me yet. That’s part of the cost of me building a house out there.
The majority of your link is correct, or close to it. It is very expensive because of the need to pressurize and transport cold. But what I was commenting on was your statement that these pipelines are more prone to leaks, which they are not. I suppose you could assume that because of the more complicated technology required to build these pipelines, but I do think that is just an assumption. As far as I’m aware, the leak rate for NG pipeline and oil pipelines is similar.
I am unsure about the wiki link’s assertion that the cost to build a terminal is estimated at $1000/tpa for 2012. Here is a link about the economics of LNG: Linky Essentially, it says that to make the production of NG, construction of pipelines, terminals, transportation, and regassification economic, there needs to be a big enough resource to supply for 20 years. This is occuring in some areas and 20 year contracts (mostly with Asia) have been secured. For instance, Gorgon in Australiaand Kitimat LNGin British Columbia. These two examples hing(ed) on securing 20 year supply as well as 20 year contracts with purchasers to make production, transport and downstream economic.
Pretty sure that’s from light pollution (sports fields, street lights, general nighttime lighting) reflecting off the clouds, not flames. I mean, Houston has pretty bad air pollution, but it’s not that bad!
