Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Earth

Methane Emissions From Gas Flaring Being Hidden From Satellite Monitors (theguardian.com) 51

Posted by BeauHD from the now-you-see-it-now-you-don't dept.
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Guardian: Oil and gas equipment intended to cut methane emissions is preventing scientists from accurately detecting greenhouse gases and pollutants, a satellite image investigation has revealed. Energy companies operating in countries such as the US, UK, Germany and Norway appear to have installed technology that could stop researchers from identifying methane, carbon dioxide emissions and pollutants at industrial facilities involved in the disposal of unprofitable natural gas, known in the industry as flaring. Flares are used by fossil fuel companies when capturing the natural gas would cost more than they can make by selling it. They release carbon dioxide and toxic pollutants when they burn as well as cancer-causing chemicals. Despite the health risks, regulators sometimes prefer flaring to releasing natural gas -- which is 90% methane -- directly into the atmosphere, known as "venting".

The World Bank, alongside the EU and other regulators, have been using satellites for years to find and document gas flares, asking energy companies to find ways of capturing the gas instead of burning or venting it. The bank set up the Zero Routine Flaring 2030 initiative at the Paris climate conference to eradicate unnecessary flaring, and its latest report stated that flaring decreased by 3% globally from 2021 to 2022. But since the initiative, "enclosed combustors" have begun appearing in the same countries that promised to end flaring. Experts say enclosed combustors are functionally the same as flares, except the flame is hidden. Tim Doty, a former regulator at the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, said: "Enclosed combustors are basically a flare with an internal flare tip that you don't see. Enclosed flaring is still flaring. It's just different infrastructure that they're allowing.

"Enclosed flaring is, in truth, probably less efficient than a typical flare. It's better than venting, but going from a flare to an enclosed flare or a vapor combustor is not an improvement in reducing emissions." The only method of detecting flaring globally is by using satellite-mounted tools called Visible Infrared Imaging Radiometer Suite of detectors (VIIRS), which find flares by comparing heat signatures with bright spots of light visible from space. But when researchers tried to replicate the database, they saw that the satellites were not picking up the enclosed flares. Without the satellite data, countries were forced to rely mostly on self-disclosed reporting from oil and gas companies, researchers said. Environmentalists fear the research community's ability to understand pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the energy sector could be jeopardized.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Methane Emissions From Gas Flaring Being Hidden From Satellite Monitors More

Methane Emissions From Gas Flaring Being Hidden From Satellite Monitors

Comments Filter:

  • We flare because releasing natgas as it is not only produces a much greater greenhouse effect than CO2 from burning it, but because it's pretty toxic compared to CO2 and water vapor + tiny amount of impurities that come out.

    Problem is that gas is often byproduct of oil extraction, and very difficult to transport since it's a gas and disperses, unlike oil that is a liquid and can be stored in a simple container.

    So there have been attempts, some successful to capture the natgas and pipe it. Problem being that

    • Re:The actual problem (Score:4, Interesting)

      by NoWayNoShapeNoForm ( 7060585 ) on Saturday May 04, 2024 @01:16AM (#64446862)

      Another problem with capturing that natgas is cleaning it up (taking out the impurities & water & what-not) before storing it or shipping it off.

      Cleaning that natgas therefore requires a processing plant nearby. That processing plant has to be powered by something. Since natgas is readily available, some extraction/production outfits use natgas they get from the well, after they have cleaned it up of course. Yeah, they probably need something to jumpstart the process, or maybe they stockpile some jumpstart gas at the facility.

      The natgas extraction rigs in the Santa Barbara Channel off of Santa Barbara & Carpinteria have their extracted gas cleaned onshore at a processing plant powered by the cleaned-up natgas they extract before sending that natgas off in a pipeline. That operation has been working for decades; legal, permitted, overseen by Santa Barbara County gub'mint folks.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by Luckyo ( 1726890 )

        Yup. Built before Greens got on the whole "punitive measurements against everything that isn't net zero. In everything from funding to taxes". That was before final vestiges of environmentalism got taken over by green ideology.

        Today, net zero is reality, so these sorts of plants will never have time to pay for themselves, don't get infrastructure funding in the first place even if they did.

    • Problem is that gas is often byproduct of oil extraction, and very difficult to transport since it's a gas and disperses, unlike oil that is a liquid and can be stored in a simple container.

      So use a thermoacoustic liquefier. Bunch of plumbing and a burner regulator on a par with a water heater, which contains the only moving part. Burn off 30% of it and use the heat energy to turn the rest as liquefied propane (LP) Gas, ready to haul away. One model, about the right size to haul in on a flatbed semi, ca

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by Luckyo ( 1726890 )

        And how expensive do you think each such module is in addition to needing a terminal to offload it? How costly do you think it is to move liquefied gasses where you must maintain pressure and cryogenics for entire path to end user?

        And how do you pay for that infrastructure?

  • If it is burned then it is not vented. (Score:4)

    by MacMann ( 7518492 ) on Friday May 03, 2024 @11:33PM (#64446740)

    I'm trying to understand the issue here. These people don't want methane vented because methane is a very potent greenhouse gas, many times more potent than CO2. To comply with the rules on venting methane any natural gas that cannot be sold to markets is flared, that is burned in the air to produce H2O and CO2, two greenhouse gases but still less potent in contributing to global warming than methane.

    Then there is the explanation on why the methane in the natural gas is burned rather than sold, there's nobody willing to buy it. Okay then, if this upsets you then buy the natural gas from these people so they aren't burning it. What you do with the methane is up to you.

    I see the problem but it's not been spelled out in the fine article. There's a lot of money in selling petroleum. This drives people to drill for petroleum. There will be some methane that comes up with the oil, and when practical this is sold off at a profit for things like heating and cooking. If this bothers people then I see a solution. Provide a lower cost option for energy, energy that is useful for things like transport, heating, electricity generation, cooking, and any number of industrial processes.

    They call this "hiding" the methane emissions but it is no such thing. There's no methane emitted because it has been burned. They are complying with the rules. This upsets them because by complying there's nothing detectable to complain about. I recently heard tactics like this called "aggressive compliance", complying with the law to the letter just to prove how worthless the rules are in reaching the intended outcome. What they wanted from the rules on methane emissions was a reduction in natural gas and petroleum production. What they got instead was no change in drilling, only a small change in practices by putting up cheap "combustors" to burn the fuel under the "emergency action" exemption provided in the rules.

    These people wrote the rules and are now upset that people are following them. Sucks to be them I guess.

    • The point is the unenclosed burn pipes can be monitored and determine by heat relatively how much is being burned via the satellites.

      By enclosing the burn, we lose that heat source of truth. So now, they could *not* burn it and just flare it while claiming they are burning it.

      That means we don't know how much is or isn't being released other than the honor system...which many of them aren't.

      • By enclosing the burn, we lose that heat source of truth. So now, they could *not* burn it and just flare it while claiming they are burning it.

        They claim that they can detect methane and flaring, but not an enclosed flame. There is no option to claim they are burning than venting and not be caught by satellites.

        It seems you are confused on what "flaring" means, or perhaps you had a bit of a "brain fart" in typing that out. Flaring is still burning the methane. By enclosing the flame produced by burning methane there's no obvious hot spot that can be detected from space. There is no venting of methane without detection by satellites. Burning t

        • Yeah setting up a system of checks that can be so easily subverted isn't ideal.

          Fortunately new tech is now flying that detects the *actual* methane and CO2 released, flared or vented, making the enclosures moot.

        • Does this mean CO2 emissions from the burned methane must be tracked on an honor system? Sure.

          Spending money to make it unverifiable- forcing it onto the honor system is a pretty fucking direct indication of dishonorable intent.

          The rules were on what could be detected as heat or methane, so by burning the fuel in some kind of furnace than an open flame they are complying with the rules.

          Maliciously if so, but due to the hiding of any verifiable emissions, na, probably not. These folks aren't known for following rules.

          I find it amusing that they are upset over people complying with the rules.

          You don't see a problem with malicious compliance, or finding yourself a gap in the coverage of the rules that makes it possible for you to cheat?
          Come on dude. How fucking stupid are you?

          I'll end with my point made earlier, they could avoid the venting, flaring, or "combusting" (or whatever it is called) by just buying the natural gas and disposing of it as they wish.

          Oh, fuck you.
          Society's already paying for the stupid fuc

          • You don't see a problem with malicious compliance, or finding yourself a gap in the coverage of the rules that makes it possible for you to cheat?

            We need "malicious compliance" to show the flaws in the law. You don't want venting of methane? Okay then, we will flare it. No flaring either? Okay then, we will "combust" it. You don't like that? Then write a better law. We can't expect people to follow some unspecified "spirit of the law" because if it's not written down then it's expecting people to read minds. Even if the spirit of the law is somehow specified there's going to be those with "creative interpretations" to demonstrate flaws in thi

            • We need "malicious compliance" to show the flaws in the law.

              No.
              No more than we need to shoot people to show the flaws in a bullet proof vest.

              That logic is mind-numbingly bad.
              Malicious compliance is a consequence of a flawed law- but it is not some mythical requirement to finding those flaws. It is, in fact, a direct act of bad faith.
              Just like testing a bullet proof vest- you know you don't have to put it on a guy to shoot bullets at it, right?
              Flaws in laws can be found with basic analysis. If someone exploits them, you don't give them a pat on the back and say

    • They have a fear of fire. It's a primitive fear.

      They want to ban coal, wood stoves, gas stoves, iCE's, diesel ships - anything that uses fire.

      Solar, wind, wave - they are not afraid of those.

      "FIRE BAD!" - Unfrozen Caveman Bureaucrat

      • You want to talk about primitive, let's talk about fire.

        It is a horribly wasteful method of getting energy into things.

        Don't get me wrong, i'm not about to stop cooking my steaks with it, there are times when it's great. But given the basic issues with using fire I want to avoid it whenever it's not adding anything to the end result.

        There's a reason steel plants use induction.

  • Direct quote from the article:

    "Methane and carbon dioxide plumes were seen coming from enclosed flaring devices in the Four Corners region of New Mexico, according to satellite data from CarbonMapper, which provides publicly accessible data on greenhouse gases."

    If we can see the plumes, it doesn't matter if we can see the flames.

  • Elon should put Earth Observing System cameras on every Starlink satellite. We need a global surveillance system. That's the only way to solve a lot of things. Imagine if we had that when MH370 disappeared or when the Jan 6 terrorist attack happened.

    • Reasoned discussion needed:
      - Need data on methane, CO2 and other pollution by oil wells and oil industry by country first.
      - Need to address high polluting wells in EU, US, Canada, Australia, NZ, Japan and other countries with a workable and enforced pollution regulatory scheme.
      - Need to prioritize trade policies to encourage countries with unenforced, unworkable, nonexistent pollution regulatory schemes to reduce pollution

      Don't need retreaded tire statements:
      - "We've done a lot, but have much more to do".
      -

  • Companies simply locate their refineries on/near Arctic Sinkholes [youtube.com] where, as per that NOVA episode, thawing permafrost releases a LOT of methane. Also Arctic methane emissions [wikipedia.org].

  • Many companies don't want to flare (Score:3)

    by thegarbz ( 1787294 ) on Saturday May 04, 2024 @03:28AM (#64446970)

    The flare at typical onshore oil and gas installations are *safety features*. These companies are in the business of selling combustible products, they don't actually want to set it on fire themselves, because then you don't pay for it. But when a process isn't running perfectly smooth you are forced to send some products for disposal (i.e. to the flare) to avoid potential overpressure, disasters.

    Also what is enclosed combustors? Are they talking about ground flares which have been in use for over 100 years because they can handle larger volumes without upsetting the locals? Are they talking about thermal heat recovery? Are they talking about refeeding the flare gas into the local fuel gas system for burning in furnaces? This isn't some "new technology".

    • You’re right

      This brief researched article lacks the engineering depth of a knowledgeable source to warrant credibility above click-bait

      • lol, tell me you didn't read it without saying you didn't read it.

        The article specifically mentions that the researchers do not count emergency flaring, because statutes do not try to regulate it.
        Your brief researched comment lacks the common sense depth of a fucking fart.
    • Sigh. Did you even look at the article?

      They demonstrate what they're bitching about- an open flare in Sat Pic A turning into a little box with 2 exhaust stacks in Sat Pic B.
      Nothing else going to, or coming from it. It's just a way to hide the burn.

      Steel Mill X says: We installed an enclosed flaring device as a precautionary measure, so that the flare is not visible from a distance if gas had to be flared at night.”

      Legit reasons? Entirely possibly.
      Also entirely possibly not.

      The discussion isn

      • I did. But the fact of the matter is one or two installations doing a dodgy is not some reflection of the industry. I've been involved in the engineering of more flare gas recovery systems than this article even talks about.

        Steel Mill X says: We installed an enclosed flaring device as a precautionary measure, so that the flare is not visible from a distance if gas had to be flared at night.”

        Yes, it's called a ground flare. That's their purpose. That has been their purpose for 100 years now. The oldest one of these I've worked on was built in the 60s to replace the 1920s flare because they were getting neighbour complaints. They also have significantly higher capacity than a

        • I did. But the fact of the matter is one or two installations doing a dodgy is not some reflection of the industry. I've been involved in the engineering of more flare gas recovery systems than this article even talks about.

          I believe you.
          But the inverse is also true. Allow me to articulate.
          The fact of the matter is the installations you have bee involved in the engineering of flare gas recovery systems aren't any more legitimately representative of the whole as this article.
          In fact, given scientists are the ones making the complaint, I'm going to bet they've done numbers that make your personal experience a drop of water in the ocean.

          Yes, it's called a ground flare. That's their purpose. That has been their purpose for 100 years now. The oldest one of these I've worked on was built in the 60s to replace the 1920s flare because they were getting neighbour complaints. They also have significantly higher capacity than a general flare so if you have something like an Ethelene cracker then you will almost need to go this route.

          This isn't new or nefarious.

          It is new when... it is new, like the cited example.
          Nefarious? Hard to say, but the timing

          • Bah.
            Last quote is an error.
            Correct quote:

            The discussion is only safety flaring. That is why you flare, it's the singular reason these systems exist. Releasing hydrocarbons into the air is Bad (TM). The industry has been going through a concerted effort to replace atmospheric vents with flares for decades now since it turns out it's not a good public image to blow up your own facility and kill people.

  • Free fuel should be pumped into an onsite mining rig and split the crypto with the owner.

    Do I need to build the trailer?

  • The already heavily subsidized petroleum industry is destroying fuel to keep prices artificially high.

Slashdot Top Deals

Last yeer I kudn't spel Engineer. Now I are won.

Close