Skip to comments.
Oil Industry Flares $40 Billion a Year in Gas
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,504511,00.html ^
Posted on 09/07/2007 5:16:50 PM PDT by lduucckkyy
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-32 next last
To: lduucckkyy
I wonder if these gases that they burn off by flaring could be used to run generators ? instead of wasting it.
2
posted on
09/07/2007 5:20:22 PM PDT
by
Prophet in the wilderness
(PSALM hath said in his heart , There is no GOD .53 : 1 The FOOL)
To: lduucckkyy
America's weather-data department, the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), came to this conclusion in a new report based on American satellite data. The study was financed by the World Bank, which five years ago started a global initiative to change the long-established practice of flaring gas and to capture it for energy use instead. Well, OK, I can see the desire to put the gas to some real use ... but it's gonna go into the atmosphere anyway, once it's burned.
3
posted on
09/07/2007 5:20:56 PM PDT
by
r9etb
To: lduucckkyy
but the burden on the earth's atmosphere -- in warming emissions like methane and carbon dioxide -- is enormous. Just holding off the next Ice Age.
4
posted on
09/07/2007 5:24:58 PM PDT
by
sionnsar
(trad-anglican.faithweb.com |Iran Azadi| 5yst3m 0wn3d - it's N0t Y0ur5 (SONY) | UN: Useless Nations)
To: lduucckkyy
This seems like wasted energy, but the concern here is for the environment. The whackos would probably prefer that we just shut these wells in.
5
posted on
09/07/2007 5:25:59 PM PDT
by
umgud
To: r9etb
True, but if the oil companies don’t want that $40 billion dollars, I’d like $10 million or so for just one year.
6
posted on
09/07/2007 5:26:54 PM PDT
by
DoughtyOne
((Victory will never be achieved while defining Conservatism downward, and forsaking its heritage.))
To: r9etb
Well, OK, I can see the desire to put the gas to some real use ... but it's gonna go into the atmosphere anyway, once it's burned.Indeed... I'm sure we'll hear any minute now that the farts from 1000 cows are far worse than this. /s
7
posted on
09/07/2007 5:27:32 PM PDT
by
ken in texas
(come fold with us.... team #36120)
To: Prophet in the wilderness
The gas burning on the top of the oil rigs helps suck out the oil below it. I’ll bet it would cost more to try and capture it than burning it off the way they do. If its one thing oil companies don't like to do its throw away profits.
8
posted on
09/07/2007 5:28:48 PM PDT
by
chaos_5
(Fred and Hunter 08)
To: ken in texas
“Indeed... I’m sure we’ll hear any minute now that the farts from 1000 cows are far worse than this. /s”
The real reason for the demise of the dinosaurs is the green freaks concerned with Trex farts.
To: chaos_5
Bingo! It costs them more to capture it than its worth. Thus they burn it off.
10
posted on
09/07/2007 5:35:24 PM PDT
by
SampleMan
(Islamic tolerance is practiced by killing you last.)
To: lduucckkyy
Stupid.
They won't let us drill for oil off the Cape or So Cal.
Ok, Drill and just tap the gas and let's use it for our cars. Duh....
To: SampleMan
Another possible reason is natural gas has no odor. If it accumulates, it could explode.
12
posted on
09/07/2007 5:48:10 PM PDT
by
TOneocon
(The reason there is so much poverty is because of the uneven distribution of capitalism...Rush)
To: chaos_5
No, Chaos, you need a pipeline, to sell gas....and they are expensive.
13
posted on
09/07/2007 5:51:23 PM PDT
by
richardtavor
(Pray for the peace of Jerusalem in the name of the G-d of Jacob)
To: Prophet in the wilderness
Don’t you think that the prudent thing to do would be to test the well to see if you can commercially produce it before you spend millions to put in a pipeline? But that’s me. I am an investor, and I don’t agree with hillary’s policies.
14
posted on
09/07/2007 5:54:02 PM PDT
by
richardtavor
(Pray for the peace of Jerusalem in the name of the G-d of Jacob)
To: richardtavor
You are making my point about it being to expensive to use the gas.
15
posted on
09/07/2007 5:54:55 PM PDT
by
chaos_5
(Fred and Hunter 08)
To: lduucckkyy
In the business, this is called “stranded” or “associated” gas. If it was economical to send the gas somewhere, you can bet the owner of the well would do it. If someone wants to pay the cost of doing something other than flare it, they are welcome to get out their checkbook.
If government wants to write the check, it can only get the money from the taxpayer, who we presume is also the customer who is bidding for the output of the well. If the government wants to regulate well drilling to force the owner to do something with the gas, it will only serve to decrease the number of wells that are drilled, because it will raise costs, and therefore raise the bar about justifying the entire drilling project.
To: lduucckkyy
Imagine how much gas Ted Kennedy ‘flairs’ off.
17
posted on
09/07/2007 6:09:55 PM PDT
by
Leisler
(Just be glad you're not getting all the Government you pay for.)
To: theBuckwheat
To: Leisler
19
posted on
09/07/2007 6:20:45 PM PDT
by
billorites
(freepo ergo sum)
To: umgud
The whackos would probably prefer that we just shut these wells in. Yep, productively using the energy would be just as bad as flaring it (in their demented reasoning). IOW, there's no pleasing them.
20
posted on
09/07/2007 6:27:17 PM PDT
by
ChildOfThe60s
(If you can remember the 60s........you weren't really there)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-32 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson