Not Logged In Log In   Sign Up   Points Leaders
Follow Us    1:09 AM

Message Forum - Read Message

Category: Daily News Article Discussions > Topics Add to favorite topics  
Author Topic: What a waste! Picture from space reveals how new U.S. oil field is burning off enough gas to power C Back to Topics
WonderfulMI

Champion Author
Michigan

Posts:14,397
Points:2,388,845
Joined:Jun 2008
Message Posted: Jan 28, 2013 8:53:12 AM

This incredible picture from space shows how the U.S. oil industry has boomed to such an extent that a gas field now burns as brightly as a major city.
The rapid increase in shale oil production means it is now often more economical to 'flare off' unwanted gas than to sell it.
As a result, one field in North Dakota, the state leading the energy revolution, is now burning off enough gas to power all the homes in Chicago and Washington D.C. combined.

In a recently released satellite image from NASA, the light being given off at the Bakken formation, almost twice the size of Wales, easily competes in intensity with that being emitted from those cities.

The volume of gas going up in flames at the plant rose by around 50 per cent last year alone in a practice that is causing growing con
Visit Daily Mail for full article
REPLIES (newest first) Post a Reply
Profile Pic
drpepperTX
Champion Author Texas

Posts:13,352
Points:1,352,020
Joined:Apr 2011
Message Posted: Jan 31, 2013 6:29:51 PM

It's all good!
Profile Pic
CdnLynx
Champion Author Ontario

Posts:1,233
Points:1,031,685
Joined:May 2008
Message Posted: Jan 31, 2013 6:03:12 PM

Dr.Pepper, I sincerely apologize; I'm not trying to excused it away, however this is the 2nd time the pdf search did not reveal it. Again, sorry for not clearly reading slowly and properly.
Profile Pic
drpepperTX
Champion Author Texas

Posts:13,352
Points:1,352,020
Joined:Apr 2011
Message Posted: Jan 31, 2013 5:50:12 PM

Cdnlynx, I did not make that statement, that was quoted directly from the study conclusions. Good grief, if you want to argue the scientists go right ahead and contact them!

[Edited by: drpepperTX at 1/31/2013 5:52:21 PM EST]
Profile Pic
CdnLynx
Champion Author Ontario

Posts:1,233
Points:1,031,685
Joined:May 2008
Message Posted: Jan 31, 2013 4:28:53 PM

DrPepper, I am curious about your following comment; "Furthermore, the vast majority of contemporary shale gas wells, the revenues gained from using reduced emissions completions to capture the gas produced
during a typical flowback cover the cost of executing such
completions."

If the following,is what you mean, then it's a concern!
"Revenues gained from using reduced emissions completions"! What are you trying to say; that the monies gained by allowing the venting of natural gas now, will eventually allow them to finance the eventual capture of future fugitive gases. Give me a Break! If that is what your trying to say, then that is wrong. Postponing into the future is wrong; capturing of gases should be now and not some dream in the future; for it will always be a dream and never a reality for the oil/gas industry.
Profile Pic
drpepperTX
Champion Author Texas

Posts:13,352
Points:1,352,020
Joined:Apr 2011
Message Posted: Jan 31, 2013 10:11:00 AM

Cdnlynx, I did not quote the scientists, but "a release substantially lower than several widely quoted estimates." certainly could be stated as greatly exaggerated.

When one says "My contention with..." disagreeing with the scientific studies reporting something different than their contention (opinion) a red flag should be raised.

You have your opinions, I have mine.
Profile Pic
CdnLynx
Champion Author Ontario

Posts:1,233
Points:1,031,685
Joined:May 2008
Message Posted: Jan 31, 2013 2:10:38 AM

A electronic search of that pdf document. does not support your claim that either of those two scientists stated the following "emissions caused by shale gas production has been greatly exaggerated". They only stated "... a release substantially lower than several widely quoted estimates." I have explained why this is wrong but to no avail, as it is only referring to per each well, that this statement was attributed to! The overall chain of ch4 within this study, did not include ch4 from other sources, or even other green house gases!
Profile Pic
CdnLynx
Champion Author Ontario

Posts:1,233
Points:1,031,685
Joined:May 2008
Message Posted: Jan 31, 2013 12:59:40 AM

iop science mit scientific study paper, That is the contention between DrPepper/Cdn Lynx!

My other link was broken for some unknown reason; hope this links!
Profile Pic
CdnLynx
Champion Author Ontario

Posts:1,233
Points:1,031,685
Joined:May 2008
Message Posted: Jan 31, 2013 12:55:07 AM

Your additional dialogue was not part of the scientists suposition; it was your own added onto the end of theirs.

"Furthermore, for the vast majority of
contemporary shale gas wells, the revenues gained from using
reduced emissions completions to capture the gas produced
during a typical flowback cover the cost of executing such
completions."

"Revenues gained from using reduced emissions completions"! What are you trying to say; that the monies gained by allowing the venting of natural gas now, will eventually allow them to finance the eventual capture of future fugitive gases. Give me a Break! If that is what your trying to say, then that is wrong. Postponing into the future is wrong; capturing of gases should be now and not some dream in the future; for it will always be a dream and never a reality for the oil/gas industry. If that is what your stating, then your sounding like a slick snake oil salesman!
Profile Pic
CdnLynx
Champion Author Ontario

Posts:1,233
Points:1,031,685
Joined:May 2008
Message Posted: Jan 30, 2013 4:54:36 PM

No, I don't believe there are any omissions that reveal any prejudice; you seem to dislike it if somebody disagrees with you. You have a tendency to resort to negative adjectives.

However I still disagree with there and your suppositions; I seen where the two scientists state the the entire natural gas chain only contributes (you stated 3.4%, believe the paper stated 3.1% of only the ch4 portion, (natural gas including the methane). My contention with this is two fold; one being it's my stance that 10,259 Gg of natural gas alone as a GreenHouseGas is too much; combined with ch4 from other sources (ie. methane from other source, landfills, sewage treatment (not all is captured) and animal waste manure, then the methane vented into the upper atmosphere is too, much. Estimated at 10% as green house gas. The other greenhouse gas of 90% for carbon dioxide (CO2)is also too much. The capture rate must be increased. I see the industry's dilemma; well sites are in many cases remotely situated and the build up of methane is explosive and must be dealt with expeditiously, so it is either burned off or just allowed to escape. This quick solution now for them will be disastrous over time for all.

Now I see what people are saying re: the mixing of light with flares; however the heat given off from flares should be far more significant & discernible; the Suomi NPP Polar sat, that was launched to be help determine the extent global warming should be able to differentiate between light and heat!

I have stated, that I wish people would stop linking to biased sources; I have never, to my recollection done so. It was not me, that linked the Daily Mail article; you stating that it is biased is a supposition by yourself. The Daily Mail is no different then say the NY Times. Biased sources would be Greenpeace or an organization sponsored by the oil/gas industry, or some other outlet that good possibly gain by their assertions/suppositions.

In another thread; you made the same remark (I believe it was the Oil&Gas Journal) that it was biased (I concur, it is biased) and that I had linked to it. I have never linked to prove any of my arguments, assertions or suppositions. We have discussed/disagreed with other questionable articles, including the Oil&Gas Journal.

There was a previous thread that we were discussing, that I have looked at in detail and have gave more comments; however you have dropped off the radar; suspect you thought our conversations were over!
"Study finds shale gas not as clean as thought"; disappointing, as I had more to say!
Profile Pic
drpepperTX
Champion Author Texas

Posts:13,352
Points:1,352,020
Joined:Apr 2011
Message Posted: Jan 30, 2013 10:04:53 AM

You are very welcome for the link to the report Cdnlynx. However, your ommissions reveal your prejudice.

For those interested in the conclusion of the study:

"Taking actual field practice into account, we estimate that
in 2010 the total fugitive GHG emissions from US shale
gas-related hydraulic fracturing amounted to 216 Gg CH4.
This represents 3.6% of the estimated 6002 Gg CH4 of
fugitive emissions from all natural gas production-related
sources in that year (EPA 2012a, 2012b). The entire natural
gas value chain is estimated to have produced 10 259 Gg CH4
of fugitive emissions in 2010, or about 3.1% of the nation’s
total GHG inventory (EPA 2012a, 2012b). Thus under a
goal of GHG reduction it is clear that increased efforts
must be made to reduce fugitive losses from this system.
However, it is also clear is that the production of shale gas
and specifically, the associated hydraulic fracturing operations
have not materially altered the total GHG emissions from
the natural gas sector. Furthermore, for the vast majority of
contemporary shale gas wells, the revenues gained from using
reduced emissions completions to capture the gas produced
during a typical flowback cover the cost of executing such
completions."

1. The ENTIRE natural gas value chain has produced about 3.1% of the nation’s total GHG inventory. In other words, of all the "GHG" emmissions produced by the U.S. only that small fraction is from NG production.

2. MIT scientists with this study revealed that the amount of methane emissions caused by shale gas production has been greatly exaggerated.

3. It would be great to recover more than this rather small amount but only time will tell on that.

4. As pointed out earlier, the Daily Mail would have you believe that all that light is only from gas flares? Please don't insult our intelligence.

5. Didn't Cdnlynx say he/she wished folks would not link stories from biased sources?

[Edited by: drpepperTX at 1/30/2013 10:08:32 AM EST]
Profile Pic
CdnLynx
Champion Author Ontario

Posts:1,233
Points:1,031,685
Joined:May 2008
Message Posted: Jan 30, 2013 12:56:26 AM

Shale gas production: potential versus actual greenhouse gas emissions

In regards to the total amount of flaring (burning off); currently 15%, of natural gas in America; there is an additional problem, venting (unburned) of 15% of natural gas into the upper atmosphere! It's estimated that only 70% of Natural gas is captured!.
I would like to thank Dr.PepperTx for the following Scientific article, that he brought up in a previous thread; (Thread that he is no longer discussing) ( http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/7/4/044030/pdf/1748-9326_7_4_044030.pdf )! Article quoted, "However, our main estimate of actual fugitive emissions is based on a ‘current field practice gas handling scenario, where 70% of potential fugitives are captured, 15% vented, and 15% flared. This we believe is a reasonable representation of current gas handling practices in the major shale (EPA 2012b)".

So, when watching this video, you're seeing that 15% burn off at 2010 estimates (possilby more now)! The other problem not seen is another 15% of natural gas (including ch4, methane) that is actually being allowed to be vented into the upper atmosphere (not burned off)! This venting is only the estimated 15% from the 4000 gas wells in 2010, there are other sources (ie agriculture etc) that allow ch4 escape into the upper atmosphere. This multiplys the problem! I urge you to read the above report, for it is estimated that 10,259 Gg, (1 Gg = 1 million kilograms or 2.2046 million pounds) was released for the entire natural gas chain for 2010. My personal opinion that this is too much; however since it is only 3.1% of the total GHG for the U.S. Dr.Pepper along with the authors do not believe it to be too much. I would like you to realize that this is only the ch4 (methane portion) which is only accounts for 10% of the total gases incorporated into the GHG; CO2 is the primary culprit when discussing GreenHouseGases, in additon to this there are two other gases that contribute to GreenHouseGas (GHG), they are Nitrous Oxide and Fluorinated Gases!
I would like to bring your attention to the following EPA site re: GreenhouseGases -( http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases.html )

EPA - Climate change / Green House Gas Emissions
Profile Pic
remay
Champion Author Houston

Posts:9,348
Points:2,708,990
Joined:May 2006
Message Posted: Jan 29, 2013 8:44:28 AM

This is nothing new. More attempts to sensationalize ...
Profile Pic
NHLiveFree
Champion Author New Hampshire

Posts:14,055
Points:2,207,475
Joined:Jun 2008
Message Posted: Jan 29, 2013 12:43:00 AM


It takes a 'view' from space to learn how arrogantly these firms act without concern for the earth we must all share with these polluting dolts. I suppose this is just one more industry 'standard'. What a disgusting shame!
Profile Pic
RitaVespa
Champion Author Oregon

Posts:4,089
Points:1,324,505
Joined:Jan 2011
Message Posted: Jan 29, 2013 12:40:01 AM

Ugh!
Profile Pic
Night Owl
Champion Author Toronto

Posts:10,055
Points:2,383,575
Joined:Jul 2004
Message Posted: Jan 28, 2013 9:39:07 PM

This waste is shameful.
Profile Pic
Endoman5000
All-Star Author Michigan

Posts:854
Points:825,350
Joined:Jan 2012
Message Posted: Jan 28, 2013 9:30:05 PM

How about we think about capturing this "excess" prior to us having excess! Reactionary thinking! Arrrgh
Profile Pic
Mark8601
Champion Author Bakersfield

Posts:1,117
Points:726,810
Joined:Dec 2011
Message Posted: Jan 28, 2013 7:45:18 PM

Gas plants are being built as we read to capture this resource.
Profile Pic
bwatchingu
Champion Author Arkansas

Posts:4,293
Points:1,202,900
Joined:Jan 2009
Message Posted: Jan 28, 2013 6:17:58 PM

interesting
Profile Pic
PDQBlues
Champion Author San Diego

Posts:9,648
Points:2,046,375
Joined:Jan 2009
Message Posted: Jan 28, 2013 4:12:23 PM


This practice has been going on for decades. And it never made sense to just burn off that natural gas.
Profile Pic
teafortwo
Champion Author Washington

Posts:27,155
Points:1,982,235
Joined:Feb 2009
Message Posted: Jan 28, 2013 3:56:59 PM


More evidence of the greed and arrogance of this industry.

Thanks for sharing WonderfulMI.
Profile Pic
humblepie
Champion Author Toledo

Posts:57,403
Points:2,975,995
Joined:Mar 2006
Message Posted: Jan 28, 2013 3:38:44 PM

the price for no pipeline advocates
Profile Pic
Discovery02
Champion Author Colorado Springs

Posts:7,440
Points:895,320
Joined:May 2012
Message Posted: Jan 28, 2013 1:35:46 PM

This needs a smart mind to develop a way to capture and use this flare off for some good use instead of just wasting it.
Profile Pic
SycamoreISU
Champion Author Indiana

Posts:1,250
Points:667,040
Joined:Jan 2012
Message Posted: Jan 28, 2013 1:21:44 PM

Just because the gas is there does NOT necessarily mean it's easy to reclaim.
Profile Pic
eschroth442
Champion Author Cleveland

Posts:2,698
Points:743,260
Joined:Nov 2011
Message Posted: Jan 28, 2013 1:20:59 PM

looks like an opportunity of rsomeone to come up with a way to harness this fuel and sell the power.
Profile Pic
stealthvan
Veteran Author Seattle

Posts:385
Points:655,340
Joined:Feb 2012
Message Posted: Jan 28, 2013 12:54:04 PM

What a shame! Maybe we should take all that money that we are spending on extending unemployment and put people to work instead!
Profile Pic
bluetruck54
Champion Author Quad Cities

Posts:3,538
Points:877,230
Joined:Apr 2010
Message Posted: Jan 28, 2013 12:44:06 PM

very intereting: "more economical to burn it than to sell it"

very telling.......
Profile Pic
ObieDog
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:4,258
Points:1,439,555
Joined:Sep 2010
Message Posted: Jan 28, 2013 12:25:55 PM

SMH !!!
Profile Pic
qwerty17
Champion Author New Jersey

Posts:5,787
Points:1,692,445
Joined:Oct 2009
Message Posted: Jan 28, 2013 12:20:06 PM

put a lid on it please.
Profile Pic
truvoice1
Champion Author San Diego

Posts:1,923
Points:788,580
Joined:Feb 2011
Message Posted: Jan 28, 2013 12:04:35 PM

Somehow they need to recapture that gas!
Profile Pic
CityCouponer
Champion Author New Orleans

Posts:2,533
Points:600,425
Joined:Aug 2012
Message Posted: Jan 28, 2013 11:49:36 AM

Waste not, want not.
Profile Pic
DesertRat2011
Champion Author Riverside

Posts:6,300
Points:1,078,240
Joined:Jun 2011
Message Posted: Jan 28, 2013 10:46:59 AM

Put the gas to a good use give it away to for home use
Profile Pic
bigt61
All-Star Author Virginia

Posts:815
Points:222,800
Joined:Jul 2008
Message Posted: Jan 28, 2013 10:42:25 AM

Thank goodness people are saving the planet by driving a Prius or Leaf! On a serious note, instead of just subsidizing windmills and solar panels, let's give some incentive to capture and storage of the excess gas. Let's get more homes on clean burning gas heat and off oil burning just from an air pollution standpoint.
Profile Pic
mastermariner
Champion Author Texas

Posts:12,718
Points:1,074,895
Joined:Jun 2011
Message Posted: Jan 28, 2013 10:36:36 AM

Oil and gas come together
Profile Pic
evowner
Champion Author Salem

Posts:5,058
Points:952,930
Joined:May 2012
Message Posted: Jan 28, 2013 10:34:53 AM

That's the corporate oil lobby we subsidize.
Profile Pic
TripleHs
Champion Author Austin

Posts:3,868
Points:1,051,020
Joined:Oct 2009
Message Posted: Jan 28, 2013 10:32:29 AM

wow, that's all i can say
Profile Pic
jimgraham
Champion Author Akron

Posts:12,987
Points:2,581,895
Joined:Oct 2007
Message Posted: Jan 28, 2013 10:25:02 AM

That has been going on since the beginning of time. At least now they are starting to capture some of the gas and use it to power the well site instead of diesel fuel.
Profile Pic
No1ConMan
Champion Author Memphis

Posts:3,600
Points:815,655
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Jan 28, 2013 10:10:26 AM

Waste not, period!
Profile Pic
VomVom
Champion Author Calgary

Posts:3,952
Points:2,099,610
Joined:May 2007
Message Posted: Jan 28, 2013 10:08:19 AM

Light = flare? Only the liberal left wingnuts will come up with that correlation!!
Profile Pic
fuel2use
Champion Author Seattle

Posts:5,557
Points:1,244,150
Joined:Dec 2010
Message Posted: Jan 28, 2013 10:06:07 AM

Infrastructure needed.
Profile Pic
BurntOrange
Champion Author Austin

Posts:11,402
Points:2,157,100
Joined:Nov 2007
Message Posted: Jan 28, 2013 9:58:42 AM

Cellsite wrote:

"Why can't this just be capped until storage or transportation is available?"

=========================================

Not possible to extract the oil and leave the gas.
It's also unlikely that it will ever be economically viable to
capture, transport, and store the natural gas.
Profile Pic
nozzle46
Champion Author Little Rock

Posts:8,422
Points:1,928,225
Joined:Jul 2006
Message Posted: Jan 28, 2013 9:55:56 AM

Exactly, cellsite.
Profile Pic
Cellsite
Champion Author Appleton

Posts:3,325
Points:780,070
Joined:Jun 2012
Message Posted: Jan 28, 2013 9:53:36 AM

Also, who says this light seen from space is actually from flaring? I pretty sure North Dakota has electricity and lights on and around these oil fields.
Profile Pic
Cellsite
Champion Author Appleton

Posts:3,325
Points:780,070
Joined:Jun 2012
Message Posted: Jan 28, 2013 9:51:21 AM

Why can't this just be capped until storage or transportation is available?
Profile Pic
angel4me
Champion Author San Jose

Posts:2,814
Points:841,745
Joined:Dec 2010
Message Posted: Jan 28, 2013 9:49:23 AM

wow.......
Profile Pic
slgas
Champion Author Houston

Posts:8,677
Points:2,164,740
Joined:Oct 2008
Message Posted: Jan 28, 2013 9:48:34 AM

Maybe we don't have a foolproof approach to all this freaking fracking.
Profile Pic
OTISFL
Champion Author Pensacola

Posts:5,993
Points:1,160,510
Joined:Apr 2009
Message Posted: Jan 28, 2013 9:46:36 AM

Crazy!!
Profile Pic
uglytom
Champion Author Florida

Posts:7,464
Points:1,542,015
Joined:Jul 2007
Message Posted: Jan 28, 2013 9:45:32 AM

How can this be allowed?
Profile Pic
amoshins
Champion Author Trenton

Posts:3,914
Points:1,177,620
Joined:Apr 2011
Message Posted: Jan 28, 2013 9:44:21 AM

I had no idea this was the result of fracking....I hope someone comes up with a better way to use this gas
Profile Pic
TC5504
Champion Author West Virginia

Posts:3,456
Points:794,485
Joined:Sep 2012
Message Posted: Jan 28, 2013 9:43:19 AM

Ok
Profile Pic
boatcatawba
Veteran Author Cleveland

Posts:264
Points:633,125
Joined:Dec 2012
Message Posted: Jan 28, 2013 9:43:04 AM

Why are things like this, still going on?
Post a reply Back to Topics