If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(NPR)   All you conspiracy nuts raving about a huge night time light source in North Dakota that wasn't there six years ago can just relax. It's only oil frackers burning off massive amounts of natural gas   (npr.org) divider line 215
    More: Scary, North Dakota, Water pumping, Great Plains, gasfields, Bakken, conspiracy, gas wells, natural gas  
•       •       •

6589 clicks; posted to Main » on 19 Jan 2013 at 7:24 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



215 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-19 10:33:14 PM

eatin' fetus: I am in West Texas, on business. I build oil and natural gas pipelines.


Holler at me some time. First round is on me if you can get the time off.

eatin' fetus: I'm gonna go with DIA - stay out of this one, you're in way over your head.


Watch it now. He's got a degree in cartography or somethingorother and is waaaaaaaaaayyyyy smarter than you.

Maul555: GAT_00's a faux know-it-all jerkoff. Don't bother with facts or logic

I blocked him a long time ago,


Bah. You're missing out on some of the funniest shiat you'll ever read. He can count all the way to potato and is more than happy to tell you so!

Speaking of counting to potato...


Kibbler: Because they make more short-term profit this way. Just as Supply Side Jesus commanded.

It's like you don't know anything about Real Murica.

---


fusillade762: Just a tip: no matter how cogent your argument might be, calling people "Son" makes you sound like a tool.

How long were you in Texas before moving to Portland?
 
2013-01-19 10:36:13 PM

Dancin_In_Anson: eatin' fetus: I am in West Texas, on business. I build oil and natural gas pipelines.

Holler at me some time. First round is on me if you can get the time off.

eatin' fetus: I'm gonna go with DIA - stay out of this one, you're in way over your head.

Watch it now. He's got a degree in cartography or somethingorother and is waaaaaaaaaayyyyy smarter than you.

Maul555: GAT_00's a faux know-it-all jerkoff. Don't bother with facts or logic

I blocked him a long time ago,

Bah. You're missing out on some of the funniest shiat you'll ever read. He can count all the way to potato and is more than happy to tell you so!

Speaking of counting to potato...


Kibbler: Because they make more short-term profit this way. Just as Supply Side Jesus commanded.

It's like you don't know anything about Real Murica.

---

fusillade762: Just a tip: no matter how cogent your argument might be, calling people "Son" makes you sound like a tool.

How long were you in Texas before moving to Portland?


You are right... maybe I should favorite him in a nice deep red color
 
2013-01-19 10:38:50 PM

Maul555: I do not have a grudge against perfecting clean renewable energy...


Didn't seem that way in your other posts, accusing environmentalists of sabotaging oil and gas to force green options on the country.
 
2013-01-19 10:39:17 PM

rohar: Maul555: rohar: Maul555: rohar: Maul555: You want to move the goal posts any more? I would just like to know where you want them to be put in the end so we can just skip to the conclusion...

Maul, unlike you, this isn't a scholastic exercise for me. I own two active wells in the field TFA is discussing. I've spent thousands of hours trying to figure out how to best move these resources around. If you've got something better than converting the waste gas to electricity, I'd love to hear it. Dollars/mile cost would help. I've gone through virtually every transportation option, and it turns out electric, even after the initial investment in the waste gas generators, is the most financially responsible option. Again, I'd love to see another option. I could always make more money. Any ideas?

I think you are a liar.

You also seem to thing there's some financially efficient method of moving natural gas thousands of miles without converting it to LNG. I think you've received far to many hits to the head.

You are "this" close to going on my ignore list...

I can't be any closer to your ignore list than you are to a 60 IQ. Give it up dude, you've walked in to an entire system you cannot understand in an evening.


No dog in this fight, but that was a pretty sick burn.
 
2013-01-19 10:40:47 PM
in short: Environmentalists are often their own worst enemy...

I am out of here guys... don't let the trolls take over the place. I may drop back in later.
 
2013-01-19 10:41:43 PM

Maul555: in short: Environmentalists are often their own worst enemy...

I am out of here guys... don't let the trolls take over the place. I may drop back in later.


Circa 2006 called, they said "too late".
 
2013-01-19 10:43:07 PM

jst3p: Maul555: in short: Environmentalists are often their own worst enemy...

I am out of here guys... don't let the trolls take over the place. I may drop back in later.

Circa 2006 called, they said "too late".


Now you're just trying to one up me. That's cold.

/you may have beaten me
//next time!
 
2013-01-19 10:43:18 PM

GBB: GAT_00: Solon Isonomia: That's seriously wasteful, disgustingly wasteful

Just standard business practice.  Why bother think for tomorrow when profit today is all that matters?

That's a Rule of Acquisition, isn't it?


Probably.  The Ferengi get a lot less enjoyable when you realize that it isn't really satire of capitalism anymore these days.

eatin' fetus: GAT_00
Those pipelines get blocked because the companies don't bother trying to prevent environmental damage. Keystone was blocked, for example, yes I know that's oil and not NG, because they didn't scout a route across Nebraska, leaving a very serious potential of an oil leak into the Ogallala aquifer. They don't use advanced safety techniques, because they know they won't have to pay for the decades of damage.


Did you know that environmental inspection is so strict on FERC jobs that you can't put up a foot of silt fence without 5 of your government buddies staring at it? Do you know what a FERC job is? Do you understand what a water table is? Do you know how a pipeline is trenched? Do you understand that every weld on a pipeline is x-rayed, and then the entire line is hydrostatically tested at well above operating pressure, with any leaks (almost always above ground) identified and repaired before commissioning? Do you understand that you probably drive over any number of 50+ year old pipelines every single day on the way to work? I'm gonna go with DIA - stay out of this one, you're in way over your head.


So, I'm going to go over this the best I can, though if you think DIA proves anything more than I do there's little to no point.  Yes I know that there is a government organization the regulates energy production, but I can't answer the first question because it really doesn't make sense.  I can't tell if you are a FERC employee and you think nobody you work with does any work but you or if the second you start piling up dirt they are so ruthlessly efficient that they instantly appear to question you.  Considering I'm working with a group on long-term hydrological analysis of Upper Tennessee watersheds, yes I have this faint glimmering idea of how a water table works and how the rate of contamination from things like fracking is wildly varying based on the soil.  And you can claim that pipelines are tested within an inch of your life all you want, they still fail regularly.  TransCanada claims the Canada part of the Keystone pipeline would only leak 1.4 times per decade on average but it leaked 14 times in the first year.  And the pipelines I drive over are a fraction of the size of the Keystone pipeline.
 
2013-01-19 10:43:21 PM

Keizer_Ghidorah: Maul555: I do not have a grudge against perfecting clean renewable energy...

Didn't seem that way in your other posts, accusing environmentalists of sabotaging oil and gas to force green options on the country.


if the shoe fits, wear it.

/seriously though... I am outta here
 
2013-01-19 10:47:00 PM

dforkus: Yah, it's not like we couldn't make a car that can go 250 miles on a tank of CNG, that would make smog and the need to import foreign oil a thing of the past..
Link


It would be better to have the cars run on electric, then use the natural gas to make electric. No need to retool cars to accept something other than natural gas in the future, and different types of energy can be used to make electricity.
 
2013-01-19 10:49:49 PM

rohar: jst3p: Maul555: in short: Environmentalists are often their own worst enemy...

I am out of here guys... don't let the trolls take over the place. I may drop back in later.

Circa 2006 called, they said "too late".

Now you're just trying to one up me. That's cold.

/you may have beaten me
//next time!


No offense but you wont be a winner until you get out of Spokane.


/lived there
//still has nightmares
 
2013-01-19 10:51:20 PM

Chariset: But it makes money, so it must be okay, right?


We're done here.
 
2013-01-19 10:52:49 PM

Maul555: rohar: Maul555: If the environmentalists where not so opposed to using natural gas to power our vehicles, this stuff would not be burned off anywhere near the rate it is now. I would love a CNG car...

You know how I know you have no idea what you're talking about?

you know how I know that you are a troll?

[automobiles.honda.com image 797x451]


Actually, any gasoline car can get a CNG conversion.

CNG, though, is not actually "free". A lot of work must be done on the gas to get to its ~3000PSI storage pressure, and it needs some special filtering.

There's a CNG station here in Austin, but IIRC it's not that much cheaper per mile. The actual price a consumer pays for home use for the gas itself IS much cheaper, though.

One thing the CNG guy noted was that CNG's price does track gasoline pretty closely. But I'm a bit confused there, because that should mean natural gas should be valuable enough to recover in a world of >$3 gasoline.

Saw a guy online who works on these cars and seemed knowledgeable say some pretty specific things. The heads don't last on a lot of conversions, and don't last on a lot of engines designed and mfg for CNG at the factory. They don't come with the charge cooling of gasoline. Gasoline is sprayed into the intake manifold as droplets, and begins evaporating into a true vapor there, which makes it cold, and the cold fuel/air charge runs past the intake valve which cools the valve off between firing. For CNG, he said it's not all that cold, which is a bit confusing if it it just expanded from 3000 PSI but he said that's the case.

IIRC he said in his experience most of the engines didn't make it past 50K miles without tearing up the head, which is pretty lame. There are hardened valves and seats and some gasoline vehicles already come with tough heads on them and convert well, but ironically many of those designed and sold AS CNG vehicles did NOT have very good parts for it and actually didn't last in that app.
 
2013-01-19 10:53:18 PM

GAT_00: So, I'm going to go over this the best I can

  GAT_00: I have this faint glimmering idea

At least you're FINALLY coming to grips with your limitations.
 
2013-01-19 10:54:03 PM

jst3p: rohar: jst3p: Maul555: in short: Environmentalists are often their own worst enemy...

I am out of here guys... don't let the trolls take over the place. I may drop back in later.

Circa 2006 called, they said "too late".

Now you're just trying to one up me. That's cold.

/you may have beaten me
//next time!

No offense but you wont be a winner until you get out of Spokane.


/lived there
//still has nightmares


To my defense I work remote for a foreign company and live in Mead near Mt. Spokane. My neighbors are all upper middle class federal law enforcement armed to the teeth as they're all right win nutcases....

Oh, I see what you're saying. Point taken.
 
2013-01-19 10:54:33 PM

rohar: That's why we're building high power DC transmission from the Bakken to Minneapolis where it then links up with the high voltage DC infrastructure going on to Duluth, Chicago etc. Believe it or not, it's the cheapest (both financially and environmentally) of all of the available options.

Once the initial well is drilled, a year later the infrastructure comes along to manage the NG in LNG form, at that point, transportation is much less expensive. LNG makes sense to transport via rail. CNG doesn't. The prices just aren't there to support it. What would you suggest we do with it other than just burn it off?


I concur entirely. I just think that rail transport would be a quicker solution to bring into operation, if flaring were outlawed for instance. HVDC sounds like a great idea, but more of a long term solution than a stop gap measure like rail. Plus, America is going to need more electric production capacity with all the Californians and their electric cars.

/When you say "we're building" who is that "we" and are they hiring engineers?
 
2013-01-19 10:56:37 PM

Dancin_In_Anson: GAT_00: So, I'm going to go over this the best I can  GAT_00: I have this faint glimmering idea

At least you're FINALLY coming to grips with your limitations.


Ok, one, unlike you, I am aware that I don't know everything and that you need to prove what you say.  Hence the first point.  Second, you are so goddamn dense and so desperate to think that you're better than everyone else that you completely missed sarcasm.
 
2013-01-19 11:08:45 PM

Yoyo: rohar: That's why we're building high power DC transmission from the Bakken to Minneapolis where it then links up with the high voltage DC infrastructure going on to Duluth, Chicago etc. Believe it or not, it's the cheapest (both financially and environmentally) of all of the available options.

Once the initial well is drilled, a year later the infrastructure comes along to manage the NG in LNG form, at that point, transportation is much less expensive. LNG makes sense to transport via rail. CNG doesn't. The prices just aren't there to support it. What would you suggest we do with it other than just burn it off?

I concur entirely. I just think that rail transport would be a quicker solution to bring into operation, if flaring were outlawed for instance. HVDC sounds like a great idea, but more of a long term solution than a stop gap measure like rail. Plus, America is going to need more electric production capacity with all the Californians and their electric cars.

/When you say "we're building" who is that "we" and are they hiring engineers?


The problem is, to make rail transport competative, the NG must be LNG. It can take a year or more to get the infrastructure in place to convert the ambient NG to LNG. In the interim, we flare it off. This is the whole problem. The NG isn't flared off forever, just a year or two.

So what do you do with it other than flare it off? Turns out you can put a waste gas generator on site with a couple of week's heads up. The power supplier can hook you up to the grid as fast as they can hook up a new house for consumption. It's a walk in the park. Problem is, there's nowhere to send all of that energy right now. From memory, MonDak Electric coop is pulling the DC line to Minnesota, not sure who's pulling it from there.
 
2013-01-19 11:10:12 PM

GAT_00: Ok, one, unlike you, I am aware that I don't know everything


Then quit talking like you do. Especailly when it comes to something outside of the realm of cartography.

GAT_00: Second, you are so goddamn dense and so desperate to think that you're better than everyone else


Says the guy who has spent the entire evening trying to biatch about something he has no farking clue about. Oh but wait..it was

GAT_00: sarcasm.


What ever you say, Sunshine.
 
2013-01-19 11:20:15 PM

Maul555: Keizer_Ghidorah: Maul555: I do not have a grudge against perfecting clean renewable energy...

Didn't seem that way in your other posts, accusing environmentalists of sabotaging oil and gas to force green options on the country.

if the shoe fits, wear it.

/seriously though... I am outta here


Ah yes, the "some do it, so I'll scream and rave about everyone doing it" reasoning. Quite intelligent and reasonable of you.
 
2013-01-19 11:26:58 PM
Still looking for an answer to my question about using fuel cells like the Bloom Box to turn that waste gas into electricity and then adding that to the grid.
 
2013-01-19 11:29:43 PM

Any Pie Left: Still looking for an answer to my question about using fuel cells like the Bloom Box to turn that waste gas into electricity and then adding that to the grid.


I've touched on this issue many times in this thread. The summary, there's no grid in ND that could take that energy anywhere yet. Even if it was there, internal combustion waste gas generators are much less expensive to manufacture and maintain.
 
2013-01-19 11:31:05 PM

Dancin_In_Anson: GAT_00: Ok, one, unlike you, I am aware that I don't know everything

Then quit talking like you do. Especailly when it comes to something outside of the realm of cartography.

GAT_00: Second, you are so goddamn dense and so desperate to think that you're better than everyone else

Says the guy who has spent the entire evening trying to biatch about something he has no farking clue about. Oh but wait..it was GAT_00: sarcasm.

What ever you say, Sunshine.


You're utterly incapable of acknowledging anything outside your world, aren't you?  Unless you personally decide it holds true to what you know to be a personal truth, it simply isn't true.  Facts be damned, others be damned, anything except your own ego be damned, you know what's right.  You're Colbert in character, except it isn't a character, you are goddamn serious.  You create these fantastic stereotypes of everyone else so you don't have to process that a world exists outside of your own opinions, and so when someone challenges the falsehoods you've infused yourself with, you simply fall back onto your created stereotypes to prove yourself.  If you were blind, I'm pretty sure you'd convince yourself that sight was a myth and anything you saw before you were blinded was simply a figment of your own imagination, because if you can't experience it at that moment it cannot possibly exist.

You're a reflexive shell of hate and ego that is so utterly warped that I can't even imagine what happened to you to cause it.
 
2013-01-19 11:35:02 PM
Can you see that flame from orbit?
 
2013-01-19 11:35:42 PM

Maul555: If the environmentalists where not so opposed to using natural gas to power our vehicles, this stuff would not be burned off anywhere near the rate it is now. I would love a CNG car...


Know how I know you're not an automotive engineer?
 
2013-01-19 11:39:50 PM

eatin' fetus: I am in West Texas, on business. I build oil and natural gas pipelines.

The people in this thread who sound like they know what they are talking about -- they are right. The leftist know-it-alls chanting nonsense about waste, corporate greed, etc. have zero idea how this industry works. Leave it to us, please. Go regulate a soda or something.


Unregulated industry always knows what's best.

Externalities.

Ever heard of them?
 
2013-01-19 11:48:18 PM

Keizer_Ghidorah: Maul555: Keizer_Ghidorah: Maul555: I do not have a grudge against perfecting clean renewable energy...

Didn't seem that way in your other posts, accusing environmentalists of sabotaging oil and gas to force green options on the country.

if the shoe fits, wear it.

/seriously though... I am outta here

Ah yes, the "some do it, so I'll scream and rave about everyone doing it" reasoning. Quite intelligent and reasonable of you.


are you accusing me of screaming and raving? Because I have listed facts...
 
2013-01-19 11:54:05 PM

Maul555: Keizer_Ghidorah: Maul555: Keizer_Ghidorah: Maul555: I do not have a grudge against perfecting clean renewable energy...

Didn't seem that way in your other posts, accusing environmentalists of sabotaging oil and gas to force green options on the country.

if the shoe fits, wear it.

/seriously though... I am outta here

Ah yes, the "some do it, so I'll scream and rave about everyone doing it" reasoning. Quite intelligent and reasonable of you.

are you accusing me of screaming and raving? Because I have listed facts...


Because the normal sane ones keep lists...
 
2013-01-20 12:01:30 AM

Maul555: Speaker2Animals: Maul555: rohar: Maul555: rohar: Maul555: rohar: Maul555: If the environmentalists where not so opposed to using natural gas to power our vehicles, this stuff would not be burned off anywhere near the rate it is now. I would love a CNG car...

You know how I know you have no idea what you're talking about?

you know how I know that you are a troll?

[automobiles.honda.com image 797x451]

So how do we get the natural gas from ND to TX and still have a marketable price?

Maybe you are not familiar with Texas... We have enough natural gas under our ground to power the world.

As does ND. Meanwhile, most of the country isn't in ND or TX. Transportation costs are prohibitive with such a product at scale. Meanwhile, we have the technology to turn this waste gas into electricity and transport it thousands of miles now, for low cost.

Talk to the environmentalists. they keep trying to push out great alternatives in search of their perfect renewable dream.

WTF are you talking about? Environmentalists never oppose converting cars from gasoline to NG, because of the drastically reduced emissions:

http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/2012/03/the-natural-gas-alternati ve /index.htm

really?

http://reason.com/archives/2011/05/10/environmentalists-were-for-fr

http://content.sierraclub.org/naturalgas/links/environmentalists-con ti nue-fight-against-lng-frackin

http://e360.yale.edu/feature/why_are_environmentalists_taking_anti-s ci ence_positions/2584

http://marcellusdrilling.com/2011/06/new-york-post-the-real-reason-e nv ironmentalists-dont-like-natural-gas/


Also I have family in San Fransisco... Rabid libs they could be called, though I love them the same. they are anti-fracking and anti-oil in general, and are trying to have this stuff shut down in California.


Your first link says fracking fluid is harmless...but apparently forgot to mention fracking fluid contains, among other things, benzene.

So, it's biased industry lies...no point reading further.

Have a nice glass before bed time!
 
2013-01-20 12:05:04 AM

Maul555: rohar: Maul555: rohar: Yoyo: rohar: So how do we get the natural gas from ND to TX and still have a marketable price?

I recommend rail along with CNG/LNG tank containers. A pipeline would be better but infrastructure intense, while rail lines already exist.

Electrical lines are much less expensive AND have virtually no environmental impact. Even when they fail.

We can have everything. Why the hyper-focus on electricity?

Efficiency.

And you would be willing to hand out corporate welfare checks on the tax payers dime right now to subsidize the current under-performing electric car technology we have now? and you would be willing to have the government limit the free market to force your electric only pathway? You are OK with screwing over free choice and individual concerns for this?


Your concern about "free markets" and "free choice" would carry more weight if taxpayers weren't already subsidizing the oil and gas industry to the tune of $4.6 BILLION a year. Son.
 
2013-01-20 12:22:58 AM
The "it's not worth it to sell" argument doesn't really do it for me. It's a waste product that when burned releases a pollutant into the atmosphere. They should not be allowed to flare it just cause they can't make enough money selling it. I don't care if its price goes negative and they have to pay someone to just to take it off their hands. That's generally what you do with waste products.
 
2013-01-20 12:28:35 AM
Only seven years ago, the U.S. was importing 60 percent of its oil. Now imports are down to 42 percent.

Shiney
 
2013-01-20 01:08:01 AM
 I just wrote a long and detailed post which has vanished into the ether with the slip of a finger. Any body know a way to recover this text?

In the meantme, I'll swallow my spleen and try again.

In the youth of the oil industry, natural gas was a waste-product of oil drilling. It is flammable and odorless (except for impurities) and so dangerous. They burned it off to prevent fires and explosions. By that time, cities were lighting and heating with gas, but there was no way to transport gas over long distances. It took developments in technology such as high-pressure pipelines and storage to make shipping natural gas possible. Even when the natural gas began to become a commodity internationally, it was cheaper to burn it than ship it, especially since oil was cheap enough to burn to provide heat and electricity.

As the price of natural gas rises and the cost of transporting it falls, it has become more economical to capture it, but basically natural gas just leaks any way. Better to burn it away when it leaks because its safer for people and the environment, where natural gas (methane) is a far more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2. Methane doesn't last long (about 12 years for maybe 97% of it to be converted into CO2 in the environment) but it costs money to pump back into the ground, so you have to burn some of it. This is even before you consider that natural gas can be sweet (pure) or sour (full of sulphur and other impurities.

Sour gas is burned off because it is too nasty to sell. It makes a lot more pollution than clean sweet gas.

Economics, environmental safety, health and safety, and common sense dictates that a certain amount of natural gas must be burned off rather than recuperated and sold.

Nowadays, even the Saudis are cutting back on flamming, which is expensive and contributes to global warming. It's bad PR if nothing else, but is plenty else.

The processing of petroleum from tarsands and tarshales takes enormous amounts of energy to heat water to liquefy the "petroleum" trapped in sand or shale rock. The Alberta Tarsands uses enough water to supply the City of Calgary and enough natural gas to heat that water and to process the oil slurry as would heat five to six million Canadian homes. The result is an input of 0.7 or more barrels of oil equivalent per barrel of oil extracted. Back in the heyday of the Saudi fields, it cost a dollar to extract a barrel of oil. The tarsands need a price of at least $65 per barrel to be economical and oil shales are even more costly to strip-mine and process. Lots of water, lots of cheap power and lots of mess. This is a dangerous, filthy, destructive business.

I watched a documentary in which one scene showed massive vehicles working on a yellow ground. The (aerial shot) camera pulls back slowly to show that this is a mound of sulphur. The camera continues to pull back to show the mound is on another mound and so forth--the heavy equipment is building a step pyramid of sulphur extracted from the tarsands oil and it is gigantic--bigger than the Great Pyramid of Cheops, I am sure.

In short, you don't need conspiracies in this dirty business. The economics and politics are bad enough without inexplicably malign games played by mysterious players.

Environmentalists (which include lumberjacks and farmers and people whose families are suddenly dying of rare cancers downstream from this alien world that the mining of petroleum is creating) are right to try to force the business and governments that service it to be more responsible. Left to their own druthers, they would render much of the surface of the Earth unihabitable for all but the most sturdy extremophile bacteria and archaea. Anybody who is working to protect human (and all other living) lives and health by forcing these extraction industry monsters to be safer, cleaner and more responsible is Fighting the Good Fight according to my Book.

The Great Conspiracy, according to the Church of the SubGenius' Reverend Ivan Stang is Stupidity. The conspiracies of the energy trade are business as usual. Stupidity writ so large that it is pure evil.

Who needs conspiracies when there is Big Money to blinker the foolish, warped monkey brains of mankind?
 
2013-01-20 01:25:32 AM

brantgoose: I just wrote a long and detailed post which has vanished into the ether with the slip of a finger. Any body know a way to recover this text?

Don't forget/overlook Carbon Black.

/nice post btw

 
2013-01-20 02:07:48 AM

Maul555: Keizer_Ghidorah: Maul555: Keizer_Ghidorah: Maul555: I do not have a grudge against perfecting clean renewable energy...

Didn't seem that way in your other posts, accusing environmentalists of sabotaging oil and gas to force green options on the country.

if the shoe fits, wear it.

/seriously though... I am outta here

Ah yes, the "some do it, so I'll scream and rave about everyone doing it" reasoning. Quite intelligent and reasonable of you.

are you accusing me of screaming and raving? Because I have listed facts...


And from those you decided that all people who care about the environment are trying to destroy oil and gas to force humanity to use green energy. Never mind that oil and gas are finite, that once they're gone they're gone forever, and it would be best to have green energy sooner than later, nope it's all a conspiracy.

And there's still the problem of, you know, burning off valuable energy-producing material instead of storing or using it intelligently.
 
2013-01-20 02:30:44 AM

fusillade762: Maul555: rohar: Maul555: rohar: Yoyo: rohar: So how do we get the natural gas from ND to TX and still have a marketable price?

I recommend rail along with CNG/LNG tank containers. A pipeline would be better but infrastructure intense, while rail lines already exist.

Electrical lines are much less expensive AND have virtually no environmental impact. Even when they fail.

We can have everything. Why the hyper-focus on electricity?

Efficiency.

And you would be willing to hand out corporate welfare checks on the tax payers dime right now to subsidize the current under-performing electric car technology we have now? and you would be willing to have the government limit the free market to force your electric only pathway? You are OK with screwing over free choice and individual concerns for this?

Your concern about "free markets" and "free choice" would carry more weight if taxpayers weren't already subsidizing the oil and gas industry to the tune of $4.6 BILLION a year. Son.


I am not your son, biatch.
 
2013-01-20 03:00:57 AM

rohar: So what do you do with it other than flare it off?


For a few years, there have been computing centers built into shipping containers so they could be delivered just about anywhere. I wonder if it would be economical for any of the big users (e.g., Facebook) to drop off such a container at the waste gas source and string fiber or copper to it.
 
2013-01-20 03:03:41 AM

brantgoose: In the meantme, I'll swallow my spleen and try again.


Thanks for taking the time to re-type all that. I knew there was a reason I had you faved.
 
2013-01-20 03:55:49 AM
The faster we get off fossil fuels, the better.

Start with eliminating the demand for coal, then petroleum for ground transportation, and finally methane.

It isn't that hard for the typical person to eliminate 95% of their current fossil fuel needs. I have.
 
2013-01-20 07:45:17 AM

GAT_00: Facts be damned


You wouldn't know a fact about this subject (and most others that you blather on about) if it jumped up and bit you on your ignorant hillbilly ass.
 
2013-01-20 08:54:32 AM

brachiopod: rohar: So what do you do with it other than flare it off?

For a few years, there have been computing centers built into shipping containers so they could be delivered just about anywhere. I wonder if it would be economical for any of the big users (e.g., Facebook) to drop off such a container at the waste gas source and string fiber or copper to it.


Same thought crossed my mind. We're building massive datacenters near hydro here in WA as we've got kinda the same problem. Massive electrical sources and limited transmission lines.

Problem is, the digital infrastructure in ND is almost nonexistent. Still, it's a solvable problem.
 
2013-01-20 10:03:08 AM

rohar: Problem is, the digital infrastructure in ND is almost nonexistent. Still, it's a solvable problem.


Yes, all you need is cash.

Since I pay for these pixels you see by raping the earth of oil and gas (come see me at NAPE in three weeks!) I'd figure I'd look up the numbers as presented by an industry source.

In June 2012 (the last month I can get numbers for), the entire state of North Dakota produced about 660,000 b/d of oil and about 713 MMcfd of gas. As mentioned, about 36% of that gas was flared.
That is a lot of gas. Before taxes and royalties, it's about $750,000 on the spot market. Up in smoke. Daily.

(I'm using a rough estimate of 1,000MMcfd as equal to $3,000,000US)

Sadly, the gas is not worth that where it's produced. The wells are being drilled faster than the gas pipeline network can reach the wells.
It's really gotten bad over the last 18-24 months. The flared gas percentage went as high as 40% in September of 2011.
In that same time period, the amount of gas sold doubled from around 210MMcfd to well over 420MMcfd
About 150 wells each month are put online for the first time for gas sales in North Dakota (again, figures only go back to June 2012)
So that puts 5,000 wells in North Dakota selling gas to pipeline sales or putting it to work locally.
But, that means nearly 1,100 wells not with gas sales.

Taking the average oil well not on gas sales, assuming that every one is flaring gas (probably not, but I can't show otherwise)
If I get my numbers right
Each well that is flaring gas is burning up about $680US worth of gas a day if that gas were to be sold at market prices.

That's enough to make doing something economic. If you had a solution on the back of a truck, you could probably make yourself a nice pile of money.

In the meantime, 4 Billion Dollars are being spent to improve gas gathering in North Dakota.
That includes ONEOK's 60,000 barrel/day NGL pipeline that runs 525 miles to Colorado (and the new gas separation and compression plants to support that)
Hess's Vantage pipeline that runs 425 miles to Alberta that's for ethane alone (and the gas plants that will separate the gas just for that)
Alliance pipeline that runs 76 miles and will take 106MMcfd to a trunkline
and Statoil's conversion of many drilling rigs from diesel fuel over to natural gas as a primary power source.

And those are just the items I found with a quick search.

If you're an adult man capable of passing a drug test, there's a job waiting for you in North Dakota.
But if anyone here thinks that you could move that much energy away from North Dakota in the form of electricity and in a timely manner, you are painfully naive.
 
2013-01-20 10:36:13 AM

rohar: BGates: You can't generally burn this gas in engines because of how wet it is.

Funny, I've got 3 large waste gas generators on my property in the heart of the Bakken running on this stuff right now. Surely, it's impossible.


Running with fresh nat gas? The gas they get back between fracs?
 
2013-01-20 11:05:16 AM

Target Builder: Paris1127: Now, call me crazy, but why don't they, you know, use that natural gas? You know, instead of just burning it? Maybe use it to power the local community?

/fracking's bad enough
//now they're just being wasteful

It costs them more to store, process and deliver the stuff than they can sell it for. Releasing huge volumes of it into the air creates a rather serious explosion hazard. So they just burn it.


Then natural gas should be a regulated industrial waste product and companies would be required to store or put it to good use. All that's needed for that is regulatory cajones. Oil profits are so high that the cost will only cut into their profiteering slightly.
 
2013-01-20 11:12:28 AM

rohar: Maul555: rohar: Maul555: rohar: Maul555: If the environmentalists where not so opposed to using natural gas to power our vehicles, this stuff would not be burned off anywhere near the rate it is now. I would love a CNG car...

You know how I know you have no idea what you're talking about?

you know how I know that you are a troll?

[automobiles.honda.com image 797x451]

So how do we get the natural gas from ND to TX and still have a marketable price?

Maybe you are not familiar with Texas... We have enough natural gas under our ground to power the world.

As does ND. Meanwhile, most of the country isn't in ND or TX. Transportation costs are prohibitive with such a product at scale. Meanwhile, we have the technology to turn this waste gas into electricity and transport it thousands of miles now, for low cost.


No we don't. The grid from North Dakota to the east is already at capacity and proposed North Dakota wind projects will push that over the edge. There is no transmission to the west because the Rockies act as a dividing line and there's no need in Montana. Now, if you have a spare 10 billion laying around, and you can get FERC, the EPA, the North Dakota, South Dakota, Minnesota, Wisconsin and Illinois legislatures and regulators and whatever replaced MAPP on board we can file to build that transmission and then maybe we could have a way to move that power out of the oil fields by 2025.
 
2013-01-20 11:16:08 AM
I saw one post where someone said that storage cost would be way to high to do safely given the hazard. But if extraction industries cannot be viable while paying the full and true long-term cost of their business, then it was never a responsibly viable business model to begin with.
 
2013-01-20 11:30:06 AM

Mr. Eugenides: rohar: Maul555: rohar: Maul555: rohar: Maul555: If the environmentalists where not so opposed to using natural gas to power our vehicles, this stuff would not be burned off anywhere near the rate it is now. I would love a CNG car...

You know how I know you have no idea what you're talking about?

you know how I know that you are a troll?

[automobiles.honda.com image 797x451]

So how do we get the natural gas from ND to TX and still have a marketable price?

Maybe you are not familiar with Texas... We have enough natural gas under our ground to power the world.

As does ND. Meanwhile, most of the country isn't in ND or TX. Transportation costs are prohibitive with such a product at scale. Meanwhile, we have the technology to turn this waste gas into electricity and transport it thousands of miles now, for low cost.

No we don't. The grid from North Dakota to the east is already at capacity and proposed North Dakota wind projects will push that over the edge. There is no transmission to the west because the Rockies act as a dividing line and there's no need in Montana. Now, if you have a spare 10 billion laying around, and you can get FERC, the EPA, the North Dakota, South Dakota, Minnesota, Wisconsin and Illinois legislatures and regulators and whatever replaced MAPP on board we can file to build that transmission and then maybe we could have a way to move that power out of the oil fields by 2025.


I didn't say we had the funding at hand, but we do have the technology. High power DC links are already through the planning stage all we're missing is money. There's no sense in sending the power west, on the other side of the mountains, we're already generating more power than we can use. That said, $10b is a nothing. We just dropped $831 billion on a stimulus for shovel ready infrastructure projects, there's no reason we couldn't solve this inside 2 years.
 
2013-01-20 11:35:11 AM

BGates: rohar: BGates: You can't generally burn this gas in engines because of how wet it is.

Funny, I've got 3 large waste gas generators on my property in the heart of the Bakken running on this stuff right now. Surely, it's impossible.

Running with fresh nat gas? The gas they get back between fracs?


Couldn't tell you the absolute specifics as I'm not there anymore, but basically yes. As the holes are punched, it's flared for a very short time. Quickly after the CSRV generators are plumbed in and you're off to the races. Funny things happen when you remove poppet valves from internal combustion engines. They can burn damned near anything no matter how dirty. If you can make it flow, and set it on fire, it works as a fuel.

All the flexibility of a turbine, none of the maintenance issues.
 
2013-01-20 03:01:14 PM

namatad: Only seven years ago, the U.S. was importing 60 percent of its oil. Now imports are down to 42 percent.

Shiney


And all the while exporting more finished product than the US consumes.

Now that is "energy independance?" you can believe in.
Just don't expect a politician to admit knowing that.
 
2013-01-20 04:32:04 PM

Chaghatai: I saw one post where someone said that storage cost would be way to high to do safely given the hazard. But if extraction industries cannot be viable while paying the full and true long-term cost of their business, then it was never a responsibly viable business model to begin with.


It is viable... they are a business... Do you really think that there would be all of this activity without a profit?
 
Displayed 50 of 215 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report