Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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
    More: Scary, North Dakota, Water pumping, Great Plains, gasfields, Bakken, conspiracy, gas wells, natural gas  
•       •       •

6612 clicks; posted to Main » on 19 Jan 2013 at 7:24 PM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



215 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-01-19 04:07:12 PM  
Yeah, subby, that's what they WANT you to believe.

I won't be drinking your Kool Aid today, sir. Good day.
 
2013-01-19 04:43:26 PM  
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
 
2013-01-19 04:46:19 PM  
It's in the frakkin' oil fields!
 
2013-01-19 04:53:36 PM  
But it makes money, so it must be okay, right?
 
2013-01-19 04:57:54 PM  
Streetlight.

/Oblig
 
2013-01-19 05:09:16 PM  

Paris1127: Now, call me crazy, but why don't they, you know, use that natural gas?


Sometimes. It's cheap as shiat right now and they are drilling primarily for oil. It's not worth the effort or investment to build the infrastructure to pipe it out. Now, if there was say an overseas market that would be willing to pay a metric farkton more than it's bringing domestically...Oh wait!

That being said, flaring gas at the well site is nothing new. My Dad told me that back in the 50s you could drive through the fields south of Electra Texas at midnight at it was almost  as bright as day.
 
2013-01-19 05:11:44 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: Paris1127: Now, call me crazy, but why don't they, you know, use that natural gas?

Sometimes. It's cheap as shiat right now and they are drilling primarily for oil. It's not worth the effort or investment to build the infrastructure to pipe it out. Now, if there was say an overseas market that would be willing to pay a metric farkton more than it's bringing domestically...Oh wait!

That being said, flaring gas at the well site is nothing new. My Dad told me that back in the 50s you could drive through the fields south of Electra Texas at midnight at it was almost  as bright as day.


Still, it feels like they're leaving money on the table, even with the cost of infrastructure in comparison to the massive desire for natural gas. It's a limited resource, why not just gather and store?
 
2013-01-19 05:13:48 PM  
Has anyone seen Don Rumsfeld or Dick Cheney lately? I'd say this is their doing.
 
2013-01-19 05:22:16 PM  
Some people just like watching the world burn.
 
2013-01-19 05:37:02 PM  

Solon Isonomia: Still, it feels like they're leaving money on the table, even with the cost of infrastructure in comparison to the massive desire for natural gas. It's a limited resource, why not just gather and store?


No storage left. Really. It's insane and there are countries all but sucking our wang for the stuff. There is a concerted effort on the part of a few manufacturers to keep the DoE from authorizing mass exports. Combine that with the desire of the government to convert 'dirty' power generators to NG and you have a over supply issue. There are a couple of projects on the Texas coast to liquefy the product and ship overseas but until the greenlight is given to readily export it, it's just another waste byproduct of the oil extraction process good for little more than flaring.
 
2013-01-19 05:40:48 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: Solon Isonomia: Still, it feels like they're leaving money on the table, even with the cost of infrastructure in comparison to the massive desire for natural gas. It's a limited resource, why not just gather and store?

No storage left. Really. It's insane and there are countries all but sucking our wang for the stuff. There is a concerted effort on the part of a few manufacturers to keep the DoE from authorizing mass exports. Combine that with the desire of the government to convert 'dirty' power generators to NG and you have a over supply issue. There are a couple of projects on the Texas coast to liquefy the product and ship overseas but until the greenlight is given to readily export it, it's just another waste byproduct of the oil extraction process good for little more than flaring.


Ugh... that just makes me sick. That's seriously wasteful, disgustingly wasteful. Hmmm... I wonder if an activist shareholder could run with that, sort of a corporate waste suit...
 
2013-01-19 05:45:35 PM  

Solon Isonomia: That's seriously wasteful, disgustingly wasteful


Just standard business practice.  Why bother think for tomorrow when profit today is all that matters?
 
2013-01-19 05:47:29 PM  

Solon Isonomia: Ugh... that just makes me sick. That's seriously wasteful, disgustingly wasteful. Hmmm... I wonder if an activist shareholder could run with that, sort of a corporate waste suit..


Easy, Tiger. The oil companies are foaming at the mouth to sell it. My figures aren't exact, but LNG is on the US market at ~$4.00/ thousand Cu Ft and the overseas market is closer to $15. The block is at the regulatory level.
 
2013-01-19 05:47:35 PM  

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?


Because some of your shareholders might want to look at the long game and know how to use their position to redirect the company in the direction they want. At least, that's the idea behind certain shareholder rights.
 
2013-01-19 05:49:01 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: Solon Isonomia: Ugh... that just makes me sick. That's seriously wasteful, disgustingly wasteful. Hmmm... I wonder if an activist shareholder could run with that, sort of a corporate waste suit..

Easy, Tiger. The oil companies are foaming at the mouth to sell it. My figures aren't exact, but LNG is on the US market at ~$4.00/ thousand Cu Ft and the overseas market is closer to $15. The block is at the regulatory level.


Right, but which manufacturers are creating the bottleneck at the DoE? Are they just trying to stall for time so they have the infrastructure to corner the export market?
 
2013-01-19 05:49:38 PM  

NewportBarGuy: Has anyone seen Don Rumsfeld or Dick Cheney lately? I'd say this is their doing.


I scrolled by this really quickly and thought I saw "Don Rickles."

I'd like to see him weigh in on these events.
 
2013-01-19 05:52:04 PM  

Solon Isonomia: Right, but which manufacturers are creating the bottleneck at the DoE?


i580.photobucket.com
 
2013-01-19 05:53:05 PM  

GAT_00: Just standard business practice. Why bother think for tomorrow when profit today is all that matters?


You might want to stay away from this one, my boy.
 
2013-01-19 05:55:10 PM  

Shostie: Solon Isonomia: Right, but which manufacturers are creating the bottleneck at the DoE?

[i580.photobucket.com image 197x151]


Working off of  DiA's prior comment:

Dancin_In_Anson: There is a concerted effort on the part of a few manufacturers to keep the DoE from authorizing mass exports.

 
2013-01-19 05:56:04 PM  

Solon Isonomia: Shostie: Solon Isonomia: Right, but which manufacturers are creating the bottleneck at the DoE?

[i580.photobucket.com image 197x151]

Working off of  DiA's prior comment:

Dancin_In_Anson: There is a concerted effort on the part of a few manufacturers to keep the DoE from authorizing mass exports.


Ah, that makes more sense.
 
2013-01-19 06:00:30 PM  

Solon Isonomia: Right, but which manufacturers are creating the bottleneck at the DoE?


Here is am article regarding this issue.

And another.
 
2013-01-19 06:02:54 PM  
Tempers are rising. Gas is burning. Drillers are drilling.

Dealers keep dealin'
Thieves keep thievin'
Whores keep whorin'
Junkies keep scorin'
Trade is on the meat rack
Strip joints full of hunchbacks
biatches keep biatchin'
Clap keeps itchin'
 
2013-01-19 06:06:13 PM  

Solon Isonomia: 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?

Because some of your shareholders might want to look at the long game and know how to use their position to redirect the company in the direction they want. At least, that's the idea behind certain shareholder rights.


And at the cost of what long term damage?  They don't give a fark about that.  The bottom line trumps all.  So what about waste?  So what about environmental damage?  As long as you make money, people like DIA will think it's somehow the greatest thing ever.  He doesn't care that this is the kind of shiat that's going to leave his grandchildren a ruined world.  He's can't think in long term.  Profit now is all he can see.
 
2013-01-19 06:06:25 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: Solon Isonomia: Right, but which manufacturers are creating the bottleneck at the DoE?

Here is am article regarding this issue.

And another.


Ahhhh, so the fight is over the amount of exports. Hmm... one would think an improved infrastructure combined with the heaps of newly available natural gas would be an effective way to keep domestic prices stable while reaping a profit on the export market. Of course, that would assume infrastructure could be created in a timely manner and the brokers on the futures market don't create too many wild price spikes.
 
2013-01-19 06:15:48 PM  

GAT_00: DEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR R RRRRRRP!


You really need to sit this one out, son.


Solon Isonomia: Ahhhh, so the fight is over the amount of exports. Hmm... one would think an improved infrastructure combined with the heaps of newly available natural gas would be an effective way to keep domestic prices stable while reaping a profit on the export market.


One might think. The supply is strong enough to keep the price level domestically and achieving the goal of keeping prices of electricity from converted coal fired plants at or below current levels while reaping solid benefits on the national level from exports. Will prices go up for some manufactured goods that are produced using NG? Of course but not to a detriment IMO.
 
2013-01-19 06:18:29 PM  

Solon Isonomia: Dancin_In_Anson: Solon Isonomia: Right, but which manufacturers are creating the bottleneck at the DoE?

Here is am article regarding this issue.

And another.

Ahhhh, so the fight is over the amount of exports. Hmm... one would think an improved infrastructure combined with the heaps of newly available natural gas would be an effective way to keep domestic prices stable while reaping a profit on the export market. Of course, that would assume infrastructure could be created in a timely manner and the brokers on the futures market don't create too many wild price spikes.


Or you intentionally don't overshoot the demand so you don't have to burn off your product.  How hard is it to actually build for demand?
 
2013-01-19 06:19:12 PM  

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 wastefui


 Its called "flaring" and is a common practice in exploration. After a pipeline is built from the refinery or compressor station to the well, flaring is what has to happen.

If only the government would allow pipelines to be build in keystone areas.

 
2013-01-19 06:20:21 PM  

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


a) There is no local community. This is extra
b) Nobody will let them build pipelines. Something about how it might hurt the environment to build a pipeline. So instead they burn it. Works out well that way.
 
2013-01-19 06:24:40 PM  

brandent: 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

a) There is no local community. This is extra
b) Nobody will let them build pipelines. Something about how it might hurt the environment to build a pipeline. So instead they burn it. Works out well that way.


You can build relatively safe pipelines.  The safety equipment exists that would prevent all the blowouts that are so common.  But the holy bottom line is better, and that costs a little more, so fark the future.
 
2013-01-19 06:25:03 PM  

GAT_00: Or you intentionally don't overshoot the demand so you don't have to burn off your product.


Read again, Einstein....it is a by product of oil extraction. It's coming out of the ground whether or not you want it to.
 
2013-01-19 06:27:47 PM  

GAT_00: But the holy bottom line is better, and that costs a little more, so fark the future.


Jesus farking God boy. Do you realize that if exports were allowed, the price would go up enough to afford to build these "relatively safe' pipelines and use the product in industry and power generation thereby preserving the 'future' via the desired green path?!
 
2013-01-19 06:40:12 PM  

GAT_00: brandent: 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

a) There is no local community. This is extra
b) Nobody will let them build pipelines. Something about how it might hurt the environment to build a pipeline. So instead they burn it. Works out well that way.

You can build relatively safe pipelines.  The safety equipment exists that would prevent all the blowouts that are so common.  But the holy bottom line is better, and that costs a little more, so fark the future.


No what I'm saying is way more explicit. The Obama administration is putting blocks on the plans for pipelines. They'd rather the stuff burn off into the atmosphere I guess.
 
2013-01-19 06:49:09 PM  

brandent: GAT_00: brandent: 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

a) There is no local community. This is extra
b) Nobody will let them build pipelines. Something about how it might hurt the environment to build a pipeline. So instead they burn it. Works out well that way.

You can build relatively safe pipelines.  The safety equipment exists that would prevent all the blowouts that are so common.  But the holy bottom line is better, and that costs a little more, so fark the future.

No what I'm saying is way more explicit. The Obama administration is putting blocks on the plans for pipelines. They'd rather the stuff burn off into the atmosphere I guess.


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.

And even then, the pipeline was going to be confirmed as soon as they specified the route. These are being blocked because these lazy farks refuse to do basic work to prevent decades of damage for a few dollars.
 
2013-01-19 07:08:01 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: You really need to sit this one out, son.


Just a tip: no matter how cogent your argument might be, calling people "Son" makes you sound like a tool.
 
2013-01-19 07:19:18 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: Solon Isonomia: Still, it feels like they're leaving money on the table, even with the cost of infrastructure in comparison to the massive desire for natural gas. It's a limited resource, why not just gather and store?

No storage left. Really. It's insane and there are countries all but sucking our wang for the stuff. There is a concerted effort on the part of a few manufacturers to keep the DoE from authorizing mass exports. Combine that with the desire of the government to convert 'dirty' power generators to NG and you have a over supply issue. There are a couple of projects on the Texas coast to liquefy the product and ship overseas but until the greenlight is given to readily export it, it's just another waste byproduct of the oil extraction process good for little more than flaring.


Because there's no chance we'd ever need this stuff in the future, right? Assuming your first three words are even correct, build some more f*cking storage. And converting power generators from coal and oil to NG would create excess demand, not excess supply.

Not mention the insanity of pumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere for absolutely zero benefit.
 
2013-01-19 07:22:01 PM  

Toshiro Mifune's Letter Opener: NewportBarGuy: Has anyone seen Don Rumsfeld or Dick Cheney lately? I'd say this is their doing.

I scrolled by this really quickly and thought I saw "Don Rickles."

I'd like to see him weigh in on these events.


Lucky bastard. I thought it said "dong".
 
2013-01-19 07:32:53 PM  

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?


Blasphemy. The Free Market solves all problems and don't you forget it!
 
2013-01-19 07:35:14 PM  
1) Burn off gas now.

2) Cry about a "natural gas shortage" in ten years and triple the price.

3) Profit!
 
2013-01-19 07:38:14 PM  

fusillade762: Dancin_In_Anson: You really need to sit this one out, son.

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


Funny thing, fracking is a tool. Like a hammer. You can choose to build your house with a hammer, or brain your wife. The tool is the same no matter.
 
2013-01-19 07:40:57 PM  
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
 
2013-01-19 07:41:01 PM  

Old enough to know better: 1) Burn off gas now.


2) Get approval to sell the bulk of it overseas, stop burning and start exporting

3) Cry about a "natural gas shortage" in ten years and triple the price.

3) Profit!


Just added an extra step in there so we can cover the export angle.
The only people that would benefit from exporting natural gas are the gas companies. Meanwhile, everybody that heats a home with gas is going to see a price increase, because no gas company is going to want to sell it to you for $4 per thousand cubic feet when they can sell it for $15. They might cut Joe Homeowner a break though, and let him have it for $12.

/I'm a somewhat cynical person
 
2013-01-19 07:43:50 PM  

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.
 
2013-01-19 07:44:14 PM  

Old enough to know better: 1) Burn off gas now.

2) Cry about a "natural gas shortage" in ten years and triple the price.

3) Profit!


That's about the size of it
 
2013-01-19 07:45:43 PM  
Somehow, I knew this was somehow Obama's fault, and not greed and short-sightedness on the part of business. Glad to have this thread to show me exactly how.
 
2013-01-19 07:47:08 PM  

fusillade762: Tempers are rising. Gas is burning. Drillers are drilling.

Dealers keep dealin'
Thieves keep thievin'
Whores keep whorin'
Junkies keep scorin'
Trade is on the meat rack
Strip joints full of hunchbacks
biatches keep biatchin'
Clap keeps itchin'


"can't fight against the youth,
'cause we're strong
them are rude, rude people"
 
2013-01-19 07:48:48 PM  

Solon Isonomia: Dancin_In_Anson: Solon Isonomia: Ugh... that just makes me sick. That's seriously wasteful, disgustingly wasteful. Hmmm... I wonder if an activist shareholder could run with that, sort of a corporate waste suit..

Easy, Tiger. The oil companies are foaming at the mouth to sell it. My figures aren't exact, but LNG is on the US market at ~$4.00/ thousand Cu Ft and the overseas market is closer to $15. The block is at the regulatory level.

Right, but which manufacturers are creating the bottleneck at the DoE? Are they just trying to stall for time so they have the infrastructure to corner the export market?


Probably it would cost more at the outset to also build facilities to capture and store extra natural gas at the surface than to just flare it off while they're fracking deeper down. That would be my guess--they don't want the extra capital outlay.
 
2013-01-19 07:48:52 PM  

Speaker2Animals: Dancin_In_Anson: Solon Isonomia: Still, it feels like they're leaving money on the table, even with the cost of infrastructure in comparison to the massive desire for natural gas. It's a limited resource, why not just gather and store?

No storage left. Really. It's insane and there are countries all but sucking our wang for the stuff. There is a concerted effort on the part of a few manufacturers to keep the DoE from authorizing mass exports. Combine that with the desire of the government to convert 'dirty' power generators to NG and you have a over supply issue. There are a couple of projects on the Texas coast to liquefy the product and ship overseas but until the greenlight is given to readily export it, it's just another waste byproduct of the oil extraction process good for little more than flaring.

Because there's no chance we'd ever need this stuff in the future, right? Assuming your first three words are even correct, build some more f*cking storage. And converting power generators from coal and oil to NG would create excess demand, not excess supply.

Not mention the insanity of pumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere for absolutely zero benefit.


Aside from the natural salt domes that we use to "store natural gas" the only other ways of safely storing them are in Natural Gas Spheres which are safe 99.9% of the time, but that other 0.01%? Yea, shiat goes to hell after that.

The other option is specialized tanks that I know, that at least Exxon has 3 or 4 of them currently, that hold liquefied natural gas. These tanks, however, are extremely expensive, take a shiat ton of time to build and require a liquefaction facility.

You're talking billions in infrastructure for a demand that may not be there in the future. Add on to that, it's the middle of freaking no where, the NIMBY types, the government delays in permitting, and ever changing environmental regulations (not a bad thing) leads to operators going "fark it, light a match"

Also, not directed at you specifically, fracking has been used since the 1940s on liquid oil wells to stimulate reserves and improve yield.
 
2013-01-19 07:49:19 PM  

Paris1127: Now, call me crazy, but why don't they, you know, use that natural gas? You know, instead of just burning it?


Everyone else seems to have regulation and short-term thinking and all the other stuff covered, but there's one other factor:

From what I understand, this gas is more of a safety hazard than anything else. First off (and sorry I can't cite because I read this years ago), methane near crude tends to be "sour", by which I mean it has a lot of sulfur (HS, SO2, SO3) that needs to be extracted from it first. This is difficult and costly to do, to the point that it's a money-burning proposition to sell it as fuel. In other words, there isn't a whole lot you can do with the stuff. These flares are basically venting the well to prevent build-up of flammable, corrosive AND toxic gases; it's costly to store and dispose of some other way. Pump it back underground, which defeats the purpose of the vent, and it'll just seep out. Methane is a VERY potent greenhouse gas; much worse than carbon dioxide. The sulfur-based gases are highly toxic and MUST be deal with. Finally, it's not a huge amount of methane; it's what's precipitating out of an oil well. The stuff burns bright because it's explosive and there's no effort made to hide the flame, as the whole point is to disperse the exhaust.

TL;DR: The most environmentally safe and considerate thing to do with the gas is to flare it off. It will result in more carbon dioxide and acid rain (which happens when you burn sulfur), but it's not the process that's harmful so much as our fark-the-consequences obsession with the materialistic and shortsighted waste of fossil fuels. Drilling for oil has ALWAYS been environmentally costly; you think that suddenly changed a few years ago?? Welcome back to reality. If you don't like it, ditch the goddamn Canyonero.
 
2013-01-19 07:52:07 PM  

dragonchild: Paris1127: Now, call me crazy, but why don't they, you know, use that natural gas? You know, instead of just burning it?

Everyone else seems to have regulation and short-term thinking and all the other stuff covered, but there's one other factor:

From what I understand, this gas is more of a safety hazard than anything else. First off (and sorry I can't cite because I read this years ago), methane near crude tends to be "sour", by which I mean it has a lot of sulfur (HS, SO2, SO3) that needs to be extracted from it first. This is difficult and costly to do, to the point that it's a money-burning proposition to sell it as fuel. In other words, there isn't a whole lot you can do with the stuff. These flares are basically venting the well to prevent build-up of flammable, corrosive AND toxic gases; it's costly to store and dispose of some other way. Pump it back underground, which defeats the purpose of the vent, and it'll just seep out. Methane is a VERY potent greenhouse gas; much worse than carbon dioxide. The sulfur-based gases are highly toxic and MUST be deal with. Finally, it's not a huge amount of methane; it's what's precipitating out of an oil well. The stuff burns bright because it's explosive and there's no effort made to hide the flame, as the whole point is to disperse the exhaust.

TL;DR: The most environmentally safe and considerate thing to do with the gas is to flare it off. It will result in more carbon dioxide and acid rain (which happens when you burn sulfur), but it's not the process that's harmful so much as our fark-the-consequences obsession with the materialistic and shortsighted waste of fossil fuels. Drilling for oil has ALWAYS been environmentally costly; you think that suddenly changed a few years ago?? Welcome back to reality. If you don't like it, ditch the goddamn Canyonero.


Also this.
 
2013-01-19 07:55:08 PM  

Gyrfalcon: Solon Isonomia: Dancin_In_Anson: Solon Isonomia: Ugh... that just makes me sick. That's seriously wasteful, disgustingly wasteful. Hmmm... I wonder if an activist shareholder could run with that, sort of a corporate waste suit..

Easy, Tiger. The oil companies are foaming at the mouth to sell it. My figures aren't exact, but LNG is on the US market at ~$4.00/ thousand Cu Ft and the overseas market is closer to $15. The block is at the regulatory level.

Right, but which manufacturers are creating the bottleneck at the DoE? Are they just trying to stall for time so they have the infrastructure to corner the export market?

Probably it would cost more at the outset to also build facilities to capture and store extra natural gas at the surface than to just flare it off while they're fracking deeper down. That would be my guess--they don't want the extra capital outlay.


Uh, but you don't have to capture and transport the natural gas. Funny thing, you can convert it to electricity which is easy to transport.

Then again, what would I know, there's only 3 waste gas generators on the family farm in the middle of the Bakken. They paid for themselves 3 years ago. Pure profit on top of the oil rights at this point.

Now, if we had just invested in high power DC transmission lines rather than sure to fail solar "technology" firms this wouldn't be happening...
 
2013-01-19 07:56:05 PM  

Target Builder: 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.


Correct. Natural gas is used at the site or flared. Solution, regulate the companies to liquify it at the site or build an electric plant at the site or convert it to ethylene. Here's an example Link
 
2013-01-19 07:57:36 PM  
The lights are from light plants, not the burning of nat. gas.

You can't generally burn this gas in engines because of how wet it is.
 
2013-01-19 07:58:15 PM  

stiletto_the_wise: Somehow, I knew this was somehow Obama's fault, and not greed and short-sightedness on the part of business.


It's the hardcore greens. Obama does have to placate them, but all the fracking jobs in Ohio and Pennsylvania are part of what put him over the top in November and don't think the party doesn't know that.

Every bit of indigenous energy we can extract is that much less reason to bow and scrape to the Saudis.
 
2013-01-19 07:59:31 PM  

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.
 
2013-01-19 07:59:31 PM  

GAT_00: Solon Isonomia: Dancin_In_Anson: Solon Isonomia: Right, but which manufacturers are creating the bottleneck at the DoE?

Here is am article regarding this issue.

And another.

Ahhhh, so the fight is over the amount of exports. Hmm... one would think an improved infrastructure combined with the heaps of newly available natural gas would be an effective way to keep domestic prices stable while reaping a profit on the export market. Of course, that would assume infrastructure could be created in a timely manner and the brokers on the futures market don't create too many wild price spikes.

Or you intentionally don't overshoot the demand so you don't have to burn off your product.  How hard is it to actually build for demand?


Reminds me of the forced destruction of crops and cattle at the end of WW1. It wound up hurting pretty much everyone. Same as the previous housing bubble, but more Americans were affected since (then, anyways) we were still more agrarian and there were fewer prtective measures put in place...not so many now, either...
 
2013-01-19 08:00:48 PM  
I suggest a new Fark policy that would make it mandatory to turn any thread about fracking into a Tricia Helfer, Grace Park, and Katee Sackoff thread.

So say we all?
 
2013-01-19 08:13:18 PM  

Brubold: I suggest a new Fark policy that would make it mandatory to turn any thread about fracking into a Tricia Helfer, Grace Park, and Katee Sackoff thread.

So say we all?


Not unless it also includes Maren Jensen
 
2013-01-19 08:19:03 PM  

BGates: The lights are from light plants, not the burning of nat. gas.

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


Not exactly true. It's both.

When there is a low cover of clouds and I'm driving to location the clouds glow brightest over the flares. This is because light plants are focused on the ground and because they still flare once the people leave and the light plants are gone.

And while you're mostly correct about engines, there are other ways to harness the energy. Turbines, for instance...
 
2013-01-19 08:19:24 PM  

GAT_00: brandent: GAT_00: brandent: 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

a) There is no local community. This is extra
b) Nobody will let them build pipelines. Something about how it might hurt the environment to build a pipeline. So instead they burn it. Works out well that way.

You can build relatively safe pipelines.  The safety equipment exists that would prevent all the blowouts that are so common.  But the holy bottom line is better, and that costs a little more, so fark the future.

No what I'm saying is way more explicit. The Obama administration is putting blocks on the plans for pipelines. They'd rather the stuff burn off into the atmosphere I guess.

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.

And even then, the pipeline was going to be confirmed as soon as they specified the route. These are being blocked because these lazy farks refuse to do basic work to prevent decades of damage for a few dollars.


Yes true. In this case it seems like there's a role for the administration to play however. Use their enforcement capabilities to fast track through the various state and federal agencies a plan however in return the company has to abide by strict requirements and also create a regulation (or perhaps enforce an existing one) that would eliminate or at least minimize flaring. But instead it seems the administration just wants to say no and let the damage take place somewhere like ND that nobody cares about.
 
2013-01-19 08:19:29 PM  
Farkin Frackers, pipe some my way, I'm almost out of propane and my oil bill has more chins than a Chinese phone book.

/miss natural gas
 
2013-01-19 08:25:55 PM  
Gotta love the environmentalists.

"You can't sell that gas, it's a fossil fuel and you'll contribute to global warming!"

"Okay, we'll just let it seep into the water table."

"NOOOOOOO! That makes it toxic waste!"

"Okay, we'll flare it off at the wells."

"NOOOOOOOOWHAARGARBL"

"What should we do with it then?"

"Stop using the magic machine that converts fossils into gas! That's all you have to do! Turn it off, and then there will never be any gas anywhere ever!"
 
2013-01-19 08:27:36 PM  
What a big fracking fire might look like
www.battlestarwiki.org
 
2013-01-19 08:29:46 PM  

Feral_and_Preposterous: And while you're mostly correct about engines, there are other ways to harness the energy. Turbines, for instance...


CSRV generators from Coates. Available days after a phone call. Inexpensive compared to turbines or other interesting generators, low maintenance and high efficiency. They work beautifully. Why more rights owners don't require them is beyond me.
 
2013-01-19 08:30:48 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: Paris1127: Now, call me crazy, but why don't they, you know, use that natural gas?

Sometimes. It's cheap as shiat right now and they are drilling primarily for oil. It's not worth the effort or investment to build the infrastructure to pipe it out. Now, if there was say an overseas market that would be willing to pay a metric farkton more than it's bringing domestically...Oh wait!

That being said, flaring gas at the well site is nothing new. My Dad told me that back in the 50s you could drive through the fields south of Electra Texas at midnight at it was almost  as bright as day.


Sounds healthy.
 
2013-01-19 08:34:24 PM  
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...
 
2013-01-19 08:37:30 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...


You know how I know you have no idea what you're talking about?
 
2013-01-19 08:39:08 PM  
Short-sighted assholes.
 
2013-01-19 08:40:08 PM  

GAT_00: brandent: 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

a) There is no local community. This is extra
b) Nobody will let them build pipelines. Something about how it might hurt the environment to build a pipeline. So instead they burn it. Works out well that way.

You can build relatively safe pipelines.  The safety equipment exists that would prevent all the blowouts that are so common.  But the holy bottom line is better, and that costs a little more, so fark the future.


Whether or not you have a point is overshadowed by your overzealous idealism.

Make your point without all of the hyperbole, and it will be taken more seriously. DIA would probably take you more seriously if you didn't just start off by accusing him of sucking corporate wang (paraphrased).
 
2013-01-19 08:40:50 PM  
I am still trying to absorb the Sandy Hook Ley Line Multiple Shooter theory. Too many things to be afraid of and they want my assault hunting weapons.
 
2013-01-19 08:41:19 PM  

stiletto_the_wise: Somehow, I knew this was somehow Obama's fault, and not greed and short-sightedness on the part of business. Glad to have this thread to show me exactly how.


Shut up retard, adults are talking.
 
2013-01-19 08:41:41 PM  

brandent: GAT_00: brandent: GAT_00: brandent: 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

a) There is no local community. This is extra
b) Nobody will let them build pipelines. Something about how it might hurt the environment to build a pipeline. So instead they burn it. Works out well that way.

You can build relatively safe pipelines.  The safety equipment exists that would prevent all the blowouts that are so common.  But the holy bottom line is better, and that costs a little more, so fark the future.

No what I'm saying is way more explicit. The Obama administration is putting blocks on the plans for pipelines. They'd rather the stuff burn off into the atmosphere I guess.

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.

And even then, the pipeline was going to be confirmed as soon as they specified the route. These are being blocked because these lazy farks refuse to do basic work to prevent decades of damage for a few dollars.

Yes true. In this case it seems like there's a role for the administration to play however. Use their enforcement capabilities to fast track through the various state and federal agencies a plan however in return the company has to abide by strict requirements and also create a regulation (or perhaps enforce an existing one) that would eliminate or at least minimize flaring. But instead it seems the administration just wants to say no and let the damage take place somewhere like ND that nobody cares about.


Before you start unzipping your pants to jerk off over the pipeline, keep in mind it was going to be built so production from the oil sands in Canada, currently our main source of gasoline, could instead be shipped to more profitable areas of the world, which in turn would have raised our fuel prices. So, yeah, fark the pipeline, and every industry shill who supports it.
 
2013-01-19 08:44:37 PM  
It's only oil frackers burning off massive amounts of natural gas . . .

. . . to keep energy prices high.
 
2013-01-19 08:45:17 PM  

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
 
2013-01-19 08:46:36 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]


So how do we get the natural gas from ND to TX and still have a marketable price?
 
2013-01-19 08:47:34 PM  

Old enough to know better: 1) Burn off gas now.

2) Cry about a "natural gas shortage" in ten years and triple the price.

3) Profit!


So, you're saying I should buy stock in the natural gas companies now?
 
2013-01-19 08:47:50 PM  

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.
 
2013-01-19 08:49:36 PM  

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.
 
2013-01-19 08:50:57 PM  

Solon Isonomia: Dancin_In_Anson: Paris1127: Now, call me crazy, but why don't they, you know, use that natural gas?

Sometimes. It's cheap as shiat right now and they are drilling primarily for oil. It's not worth the effort or investment to build the infrastructure to pipe it out. Now, if there was say an overseas market that would be willing to pay a metric farkton more than it's bringing domestically...Oh wait!

That being said, flaring gas at the well site is nothing new. My Dad told me that back in the 50s you could drive through the fields south of Electra Texas at midnight at it was almost  as bright as day.

Still, it feels like they're leaving money on the table, even with the cost of infrastructure in comparison to the massive desire for natural gas. It's a limited resource, why not just gather and store?


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.
 
2013-01-19 08:51:32 PM  

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.
 
2013-01-19 08:53:34 PM  

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.


And you suggest less efficient solutions than they do. You'll excuse me, but from my perspective you're not better. Bring a solution or bugger off.
 
2013-01-19 08:56:39 PM  

rohar: 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.

And you suggest less efficient solutions than they do. You'll excuse me, but from my perspective you're not better. Bring a solution or bugger off.


I have... You must be a troll... Natrual gas is much cleaner than gasoline, much cheaper, easier to turn into fuel, and extract from the ground. also most current vehicles can be retrofitted to run on CNG for less than $1000
 
2013-01-19 08:58:09 PM  
Meanwhile, my power company is charging me $180 a month for natural gas. Gee, they wouldn't have any incentive to keep supply low.
 
2013-01-19 08:59:49 PM  

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
 
2013-01-19 09:03:42 PM  

Maul555: rohar: 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.

And you suggest less efficient solutions than they do. You'll excuse me, but from my perspective you're not better. Bring a solution or bugger off.

I have... You must be a troll... Natrual gas is much cleaner than gasoline, much cheaper, easier to turn into fuel, and extract from the ground. also most current vehicles can be retrofitted to run on CNG for less than $1000


Yes it is, but transport doubles the price. If you simply convert it to electric at the source, the overhead is cut by as much as 90%. This starting to make any sense yet?
 
2013-01-19 09:06:13 PM  

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.
 
2013-01-19 09:07:21 PM  

rohar: Maul555: rohar: 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.

And you suggest less efficient solutions than they do. You'll excuse me, but from my perspective you're not better. Bring a solution or bugger off.

I have... You must be a troll... Natrual gas is much cleaner than gasoline, much cheaper, easier to turn into fuel, and extract from the ground. also most current vehicles can be retrofitted to run on CNG for less than $1000

Yes it is, but transport doubles the price. If you simply convert it to electric at the source, the overhead is cut by as much as 90%. This starting to make any sense yet?


Let me know when battery technology catches up with that perfect dream of yours. Also... twice the price of dirt cheap is still dirt cheap.
 
2013-01-19 09:12:24 PM  
maybe I forgot to mention that this stuff is all over the US... not just Texas and ND... literaly, it is under every coast, the top, bottom and center of our country....
 
2013-01-19 09:13:47 PM  

Maul555: rohar: Maul555: rohar: 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.

And you suggest less efficient solutions than they do. You'll excuse me, but from my perspective you're not better. Bring a solution or bugger off.

I have... You must be a troll... Natrual gas is much cleaner than gasoline, much cheaper, easier to turn into fuel, and extract from the ground. also most current vehicles can be retrofitted to run on CNG for less than $1000

Yes it is, but transport doubles the price. If you simply convert it to electric at the source, the overhead is cut by as much as 90%. This starting to make any sense yet?

Let me know when battery technology catches up with that perfect dream of yours. Also... twice the price of dirt cheap is still dirt cheap.


Meanwhile, we're dropping high voltage DC lines from the Bakken to Minneapolis so we have a productive outlet for this power source. Compared to the nonexistent pipelines, it seems a good idea. Waste gas generators will start consuming the gas that's currently being flared off and electricity will show up both inexpensive and environmentally friendly compared to current coal sources.

But hey, your personal issue is much more important than the reality that there's so damned much energy coming out of the Bakken we can't use it currently.
 
2013-01-19 09:15:28 PM  

rohar: Maul555: rohar: Maul555: rohar: 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.

And you suggest less efficient solutions than they do. You'll excuse me, but from my perspective you're not better. Bring a solution or bugger off.

I have... You must be a troll... Natrual gas is much cleaner than gasoline, much cheaper, easier to turn into fuel, and extract from the ground. also most current vehicles can be retrofitted to run on CNG for less than $1000

Yes it is, but transport doubles the price. If you simply convert it to electric at the source, the overhead is cut by as much as 90%. This starting to make any sense yet?

Let me know when battery technology catches up with that perfect dream of yours. Also... twice the price of dirt cheap is still dirt cheap.

Meanwhile, we're dropping high voltage DC lines from the Bakken to Minneapolis so we have a productive outlet for this power source. Compared to the nonexistent pipelines, it seems a good idea. Waste gas generators will start consuming the gas that's currently being flared off and electricity will sho ...


my personal agenda? what would that be? I want natural gas to power everything possible as cheaply as possible... WTF is your mental malfunction?
 
2013-01-19 09:17:34 PM  

Maul555: stiletto_the_wise: Somehow, I knew this was somehow Obama's fault, and not greed and short-sightedness on the part of business. Glad to have this thread to show me exactly how.

Shut up retard, adults are talking.


So today I learned one of the names adults use when they disagree with someone.
 
2013-01-19 09:18:39 PM  

SomeoneDumb: Maul555: stiletto_the_wise: Somehow, I knew this was somehow Obama's fault, and not greed and short-sightedness on the part of business. Glad to have this thread to show me exactly how.

Shut up retard, adults are talking.

So today I learned one of the names adults use when they disagree with someone.


Trolls get the respect they deserve.
 
2013-01-19 09:20:36 PM  

Maul555: SomeoneDumb: Maul555: stiletto_the_wise: Somehow, I knew this was somehow Obama's fault, and not greed and short-sightedness on the part of business. Glad to have this thread to show me exactly how.

Shut up retard, adults are talking.

So today I learned one of the names adults use when they disagree with someone.

Trolls get the respect they deserve.


There's that. I was hoping you'd handle it better than that. I may need to drink more.

/Keep fighting, sir
 
2013-01-19 09:21:33 PM  

SomeoneDumb: Maul555: SomeoneDumb: Maul555: stiletto_the_wise: Somehow, I knew this was somehow Obama's fault, and not greed and short-sightedness on the part of business. Glad to have this thread to show me exactly how.

Shut up retard, adults are talking.

So today I learned one of the names adults use when they disagree with someone.

Trolls get the respect they deserve.

There's that. I was hoping you'd handle it better than that. I may need to drink more.

/Keep fighting, sir


well at least we have one thing in common

/me takes another swig of beer
 
2013-01-19 09:22:10 PM  

fusillade762: Tempers are rising. Gas is burning. Drillers are drilling.

Dealers keep dealin'
Thieves keep thievin'
Whores keep whorin'
Junkies keep scorin'
Trade is on the meat rack
Strip joints full of hunchbacks
biatches keep biatchin'
Clap keeps itchin'


Beds keep burnin?

/Just sayin..
 
2013-01-19 09:22:40 PM  

Maul555: rohar: Maul555: rohar: Maul555: rohar: 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.

And you suggest less efficient solutions than they do. You'll excuse me, but from my perspective you're not better. Bring a solution or bugger off.

I have... You must be a troll... Natrual gas is much cleaner than gasoline, much cheaper, easier to turn into fuel, and extract from the ground. also most current vehicles can be retrofitted to run on CNG for less than $1000

Yes it is, but transport doubles the price. If you simply convert it to electric at the source, the overhead is cut by as much as 90%. This starting to make any sense yet?

Let me know when battery technology catches up with that perfect dream of yours. Also... twice the price of dirt cheap is still dirt cheap.

Meanwhile, we're dropping high voltage DC lines from the Bakken to Minneapolis so we have a productive outlet for this power source. Compared to the nonexistent pipelines, it seems a good idea. Waste gas generators will start consuming the gas that's currently being flared off and electricity w ...


Uh, the infrastructure to transport from the Bakken to anywhere it could be used without transforming it to electricity is both cost and environmentally prohibitive. I don't know if you've looked at a map lately, but there's no consumer base in ND. My county has more people than the whole state of ND and I'm in podunk Spokane.

I'd agree, we should be making better use of NG, but when discussing the Bakken, the rules change. NG cars aren't part of the equation.
 
2013-01-19 09:24:09 PM  
And I might mention that I have attempted to engage in debate on facebook with one of my anti-fracking relatives. Not a single reply... It is just an anecdote.. take it as you will...
 
2013-01-19 09:26:55 PM  

rohar: Maul555: rohar: Maul555: rohar: Maul555: rohar: 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.

And you suggest less efficient solutions than they do. You'll excuse me, but from my perspective you're not better. Bring a solution or bugger off.

I have... You must be a troll... Natrual gas is much cleaner than gasoline, much cheaper, easier to turn into fuel, and extract from the ground. also most current vehicles can be retrofitted to run on CNG for less than $1000

Yes it is, but transport doubles the price. If you simply convert it to electric at the source, the overhead is cut by as much as 90%. This starting to make any sense yet?

Let me know when battery technology catches up with that perfect dream of yours. Also... twice the price of dirt cheap is still dirt cheap.

Meanwhile, we're dropping high voltage DC lines from the Bakken to Minneapolis so we have a productive outlet for this power source. Compared to the nonexistent pipelines, it seems a good idea. Waste gas generators will start consuming the gas that's currently being flared off and elec ...


And why are they not part of the equation? We should have a national drive to incentivise gas stations to install the appropriate infrastructure. You don't even need pipelines. Gasoline is hauled all over this country all the time with trucks... And pipelines are not cost prohibitive if there is market demand. It is a chicken and egg scenario, but one that is very easy to overcome.
 
2013-01-19 09:37:21 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: GAT_00: But the holy bottom line is better, and that costs a little more, so fark the future.

Jesus farking God boy. Do you realize that if exports were allowed, the price would go up enough to afford to build these "relatively safe' pipelines and use the product in industry and power generation thereby preserving the 'future' via the desired green path?!


GAT_00's a faux know-it-all jerkoff. Don't bother with facts or logic
 
2013-01-19 09:38:09 PM  

Maul555: And why are they not part of the equation?


Uh, because all the cars are nowhere near the Bakken?
 
2013-01-19 09:38:59 PM  

pedrop357: Dancin_In_Anson: GAT_00: But the holy bottom line is better, and that costs a little more, so fark the future.

Jesus farking God boy. Do you realize that if exports were allowed, the price would go up enough to afford to build these "relatively safe' pipelines and use the product in industry and power generation thereby preserving the 'future' via the desired green path?!

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


I blocked him a long time ago, but am still amused by his posts in other peoples quotes all the time....
 
2013-01-19 09:39:53 PM  

rohar: Maul555: And why are they not part of the equation?

Uh, because all the cars are nowhere near the Bakken?


Seriously? This is the best you have to offer? Ignore everything else and focus on a low vehicle density in that part of the country?
 
2013-01-19 09:42:07 PM  

illannoyin: So, you're saying I should buy stock in the natural gas companies now?


Bear with me now. Some kind of transport tube, maybe a series of tubes like the internet. We build those tubes and pipe the natural gas through those tubes from places like Texas to places like North Dakota.

We could call it a pipeline like my local gas company does when they run natural gas across town.

Maybe we could call this larger, longer distance version a pipeline. 'Series of natural gas tubes' doesn't have the same ring to it.
 
2013-01-19 09:43:50 PM  
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.
 
2013-01-19 09:43:58 PM  

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.
 
2013-01-19 09:44:29 PM  

pedrop357: illannoyin: So, you're saying I should buy stock in the natural gas companies now?

Bear with me now. Some kind of transport tube, maybe a series of tubes like the internet. We build those tubes and pipe the natural gas through those tubes from places like Texas to places like North Dakota.

We could call it a pipeline like my local gas company does when they run natural gas across town.

Maybe we could call this larger, longer distance version a pipeline. 'Series of natural gas tubes' doesn't have the same ring to it.


GOD F***ING DAMMIT!


I was responding to rohar who said:
So how do we get the natural gas from ND to TX and still have a marketable price?
 
2013-01-19 09:45:13 PM  
www.bloomberg.com

GO TO BED
 
2013-01-19 09:45:28 PM  

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


I'll lean towards that and not the series of natural gas tubes.
 
2013-01-19 09:46:04 PM  

Maul555: rohar: Maul555: And why are they not part of the equation?

Uh, because all the cars are nowhere near the Bakken?

Seriously? This is the best you have to offer? Ignore everything else and focus on a low vehicle density in that part of the country?


That's kinda where the waste gas fires are. Did you not read TFA?
 
2013-01-19 09:46:56 PM  

Tatterdemalian: Gotta love the environmentalists.

"You can't sell that gas, it's a fossil fuel and you'll contribute to global warming!"

"Okay, we'll just let it seep into the water table."

"NOOOOOOO! That makes it toxic waste!"

"Okay, we'll flare it off at the wells."

"NOOOOOOOOWHAARGARBL"

"What should we do with it then?"

"Stop using the magic machine that converts fossils into gas! That's all you have to do! Turn it off, and then there will never be any gas anywhere ever!"


Yeah, I also hate it when the voices in my head who I assign the names of people I dislike start arguing.

I also love how so many people don't seem to give a shiat about the only planet that we can live on at the moment, think everything lasts forever, and have so much contempt for the ecosystem that keeps humanity alive.
 
2013-01-19 09:47:02 PM  

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.


And rail, yes, thank you. I can't believe I forgot about rail!
 
2013-01-19 09:48:09 PM  

rohar: Maul555: rohar: Maul555: And why are they not part of the equation?

Uh, because all the cars are nowhere near the Bakken?

Seriously? This is the best you have to offer? Ignore everything else and focus on a low vehicle density in that part of the country?

That's kinda where the waste gas fires are. Did you not read TFA?


Ok... this is the part where you ignore the beginning of my arguments and we start going around in circles... The environmentalists are the problem... just scroll up.
 
2013-01-19 09:48:10 PM  

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.
 
2013-01-19 09:48:12 PM  
Would it be viable to run that flare gas thru a fuel cell and sell the electricity?
 
2013-01-19 09:49:02 PM  

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?
 
2013-01-19 09:49:55 PM  
Why does NPR look like FB?
 
2013-01-19 09:50:26 PM  

Maul555: rohar: Maul555: rohar: Maul555: And why are they not part of the equation?

Uh, because all the cars are nowhere near the Bakken?

Seriously? This is the best you have to offer? Ignore everything else and focus on a low vehicle density in that part of the country?

That's kinda where the waste gas fires are. Did you not read TFA?

Ok... this is the part where you ignore the beginning of my arguments and we start going around in circles... The environmentalists are the problem... just scroll up.


We have an excess of energy in a remote part of the country. It's less expensive to just burn it off as waste than transport it anywhere. Yet, environmentalists are the problem? What, are they rigging the market somehow to make natural gas worthless?
 
2013-01-19 09:52:20 PM  

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.
 
2013-01-19 09:52:47 PM  
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.
 
2013-01-19 09:53:18 PM  

rohar: Maul555: rohar: Maul555: rohar: Maul555: And why are they not part of the equation?

Uh, because all the cars are nowhere near the Bakken?

Seriously? This is the best you have to offer? Ignore everything else and focus on a low vehicle density in that part of the country?

That's kinda where the waste gas fires are. Did you not read TFA?

Ok... this is the part where you ignore the beginning of my arguments and we start going around in circles... The environmentalists are the problem... just scroll up.

We have an excess of energy in a remote part of the country. It's less expensive to just burn it off as waste than transport it anywhere. Yet, environmentalists are the problem? What, are they rigging the market somehow to make natural gas worthless?


Wrong. We have an excess of energy across most of the US, and it is the environmentalist that are waging a campaign to stop us from fully utilizing it. They believe that any further wide-spread acceptance of more fossil fuels will hinder their goal of a perfect renewable energy source. So they continue to bash away at the present in hope of a perfect future.
 
2013-01-19 09:55:35 PM  

LavenderWolf: GAT_00: brandent: 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

a) There is no local community. This is extra
b) Nobody will let them build pipelines. Something about how it might hurt the environment to build a pipeline. So instead they burn it. Works out well that way.

You can build relatively safe pipelines.  The safety equipment exists that would prevent all the blowouts that are so common.  But the holy bottom line is better, and that costs a little more, so fark the future.

Whether or not you have a point is overshadowed by your overzealous idealism.

Make your point without all of the hyperbole, and it will be taken more seriously. DIA would probably take you more seriously if you didn't just start off by accusing him of sucking corporate wang (paraphrased).


Why should I take DIA seriously? Or pretend that he's not a corporate shill?
 
2013-01-19 09:56:16 PM  

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?
 
2013-01-19 09:58:00 PM  

Maul555: rohar: Maul555: rohar: Maul555: rohar: Maul555: And why are they not part of the equation?

Uh, because all the cars are nowhere near the Bakken?

Seriously? This is the best you have to offer? Ignore everything else and focus on a low vehicle density in that part of the country?

That's kinda where the waste gas fires are. Did you not read TFA?

Ok... this is the part where you ignore the beginning of my arguments and we start going around in circles... The environmentalists are the problem... just scroll up.

We have an excess of energy in a remote part of the country. It's less expensive to just burn it off as waste than transport it anywhere. Yet, environmentalists are the problem? What, are they rigging the market somehow to make natural gas worthless?

Wrong. We have an excess of energy across most of the US, and it is the environmentalist that are waging a campaign to stop us from fully utilizing it. They believe that any further wide-spread acceptance of more fossil fuels will hinder their goal of a perfect renewable energy source. So they continue to bash away at the present in hope of a perfect future.


And another one knocked out. At this rate you'll be out of straw men before you know it.
 
GBB
2013-01-19 09:58:25 PM  

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?
 
2013-01-19 09:58:54 PM  

DisposableSavior: Maul555: rohar: Maul555: rohar: Maul555: rohar: Maul555: And why are they not part of the equation?

Uh, because all the cars are nowhere near the Bakken?

Seriously? This is the best you have to offer? Ignore everything else and focus on a low vehicle density in that part of the country?

That's kinda where the waste gas fires are. Did you not read TFA?

Ok... this is the part where you ignore the beginning of my arguments and we start going around in circles... The environmentalists are the problem... just scroll up.

We have an excess of energy in a remote part of the country. It's less expensive to just burn it off as waste than transport it anywhere. Yet, environmentalists are the problem? What, are they rigging the market somehow to make natural gas worthless?

Wrong. We have an excess of energy across most of the US, and it is the environmentalist that are waging a campaign to stop us from fully utilizing it. They believe that any further wide-spread acceptance of more fossil fuels will hinder their goal of a perfect renewable energy source. So they continue to bash away at the present in hope of a perfect future.

And another one knocked out. At this rate you'll be out of straw men before you know it.


would you like to get your troll award right now, or later?
 
2013-01-19 10:03:17 PM  

Maul555: rohar: Maul555: rohar: Maul555: rohar: Maul555: And why are they not part of the equation?

Uh, because all the cars are nowhere near the Bakken?

Seriously? This is the best you have to offer? Ignore everything else and focus on a low vehicle density in that part of the country?

That's kinda where the waste gas fires are. Did you not read TFA?

Ok... this is the part where you ignore the beginning of my arguments and we start going around in circles... The environmentalists are the problem... just scroll up.

We have an excess of energy in a remote part of the country. It's less expensive to just burn it off as waste than transport it anywhere. Yet, environmentalists are the problem? What, are they rigging the market somehow to make natural gas worthless?

Wrong. We have an excess of energy across most of the US, and it is the environmentalist that are waging a campaign to stop us from fully utilizing it. They believe that any further wide-spread acceptance of more fossil fuels will hinder their goal of a perfect renewable energy source. So they continue to bash away at the present in hope of a perfect future.


I'm not quite sure how to respond other that repeat what both you and I already know. The geological center of the continent is on fire to the point where you can see it from outer space better than you can see New York City. This is important to me, as I own a whole pile of land there. There are very few cars within 1000 miles of the fires that can be converted to CNG. Since people won't stop consuming petroleum, this will continue up and until the point we find something to do with the waste gas.

What do you suggest we do about the issue raised in TFA?
 
2013-01-19 10:03:19 PM  

Maul555: 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.

And rail, yes, thank you. I can't believe I forgot about rail!


You probably don't live two blocks from an international rail line, so it's easy to forget about rail. I would have gone with barge, but I don't think the Missouri is very navigable in that area. Containerizing the NG would allow for rapid crossloading on to barges on the Mississippi at Minneapolis or on to ships on the Great Lakes at Duluth without the need for additional specialized vehicles.
 
2013-01-19 10:05:04 PM  
It's not oil, it's Frak.com!
 
2013-01-19 10:05:52 PM  

rohar: Maul555: rohar: Maul555: rohar: Maul555: rohar: Maul555: And why are they not part of the equation?

Uh, because all the cars are nowhere near the Bakken?

Seriously? This is the best you have to offer? Ignore everything else and focus on a low vehicle density in that part of the country?

That's kinda where the waste gas fires are. Did you not read TFA?

Ok... this is the part where you ignore the beginning of my arguments and we start going around in circles... The environmentalists are the problem... just scroll up.

We have an excess of energy in a remote part of the country. It's less expensive to just burn it off as waste than transport it anywhere. Yet, environmentalists are the problem? What, are they rigging the market somehow to make natural gas worthless?

Wrong. We have an excess of energy across most of the US, and it is the environmentalist that are waging a campaign to stop us from fully utilizing it. They believe that any further wide-spread acceptance of more fossil fuels will hinder their goal of a perfect renewable energy source. So they continue to bash away at the present in hope of a perfect future.

I'm not quite sure how to respond other that repeat what both you and I already know. The geological center of the continent is on fire to the point where you can see it from outer space better than you can see New York City. This is important to me, as I own a whole pile of land there. There are very few cars within 1000 miles of the fires that can be converted to CNG. Since people won't stop consuming petroleum, this will continue up and until the point we find something to do with the waste gas.

What do you suggest we do about the issue raised in TFA?


I have layed out a plan to do something with the waste gas and proven every one of your arguments to be false... Seriously... just stop you troll...
 
2013-01-19 10:05:57 PM  

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?


Nope, but less environmentally invasive electricity from waste gas in ND is better than the coal plants we're using to energize Minneapolis. You see, that's why we're going ahead with the high power DC power links from the Bakken to Minneapolis.

You drunk?
 
2013-01-19 10:07:24 PM  

Yoyo: Maul555: 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.

And rail, yes, thank you. I can't believe I forgot about rail!

You probably don't live two blocks from an international rail line, so it's easy to forget about rail. I would have gone with barge, but I don't think the Missouri is very navigable in that area. Containerizing the NG would allow for rapid crossloading on to barges on the Mississippi at Minneapolis or on to ships on the Great Lakes at Duluth without the need for additional specialized vehicles.


I have to stop an wait for trains all the time. Stop trying to turn me into a strawman. Rail is everywhere down here.
 
2013-01-19 10:07:30 PM  

Maul555: rohar: Maul555: rohar: Maul555: rohar: Maul555: rohar: Maul555: And why are they not part of the equation?

Uh, because all the cars are nowhere near the Bakken?

Seriously? This is the best you have to offer? Ignore everything else and focus on a low vehicle density in that part of the country?

That's kinda where the waste gas fires are. Did you not read TFA?

Ok... this is the part where you ignore the beginning of my arguments and we start going around in circles... The environmentalists are the problem... just scroll up.

We have an excess of energy in a remote part of the country. It's less expensive to just burn it off as waste than transport it anywhere. Yet, environmentalists are the problem? What, are they rigging the market somehow to make natural gas worthless?

Wrong. We have an excess of energy across most of the US, and it is the environmentalist that are waging a campaign to stop us from fully utilizing it. They believe that any further wide-spread acceptance of more fossil fuels will hinder their goal of a perfect renewable energy source. So they continue to bash away at the present in hope of a perfect future.

I'm not quite sure how to respond other that repeat what both you and I already know. The geological center of the continent is on fire to the point where you can see it from outer space better than you can see New York City. This is important to me, as I own a whole pile of land there. There are very few cars within 1000 miles of the fires that can be converted to CNG. Since people won't stop consuming petroleum, this will continue up and until the point we find something to do with the waste gas.

What do you suggest we do about the issue raised in TFA?

I have layed out a plan to do something with the waste gas and proven every one of your arguments to be false... Seriously... just stop you troll...


So, per pound, what does it cost to transport natural gas 1000 miles?
 
2013-01-19 10:07:55 PM  
Hey guys, I don't know if anybody's interested, but I used to work completions while fracking was going on in Wyoming on natural gas wells. I controlled the output of the well while guys from Schlumberger controlled the input of fracking solution.

I'll start by saying I DNRTFA, but I know a little bit about this.

You ALWAYS have a flare stack when you're doing completions on a well. That gas comes out of the well at whatever farking pressure it has, and it's often more than you can handle. There's always a line going to a flare and when you get a big hit of pressure you send it up the flare stack. Natural gas and oil well completions have never been a 100% efficient process. There's going to be some waste. There's always a least a pilot light going on the flare stack because it's a biatch to relight. You shouldn't be flaring thousands of cubic feet of gas on a completed well of course, but if they're fracking the well isn't completed and producing yet.

My brother's in North Dakota completing wells right now and if they were doing something truly weird now compared to what he and I used to do in Wyoming I think he would have told me.

Seriously, read a bit about this. It's not like they just drill a hole down to the big puddle of oil under the ground and suck it out. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Completion_%28oil_and_gas_wells%29
 
2013-01-19 10:08:20 PM  

rohar: 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?

Nope, but less environmentally invasive electricity from waste gas in ND is better than the coal plants we're using to energize Minneapolis. You see, that's why we're going ahead with the high power DC power links from the Bakken to Minneapolis.

You drunk?


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...
 
2013-01-19 10:09:12 PM  

rohar: Maul555: rohar: Maul555: rohar: Maul555: rohar: Maul555: rohar: Maul555: And why are they not part of the equation?

Uh, because all the cars are nowhere near the Bakken?

Seriously? This is the best you have to offer? Ignore everything else and focus on a low vehicle density in that part of the country?

That's kinda where the waste gas fires are. Did you not read TFA?

Ok... this is the part where you ignore the beginning of my arguments and we start going around in circles... The environmentalists are the problem... just scroll up.

We have an excess of energy in a remote part of the country. It's less expensive to just burn it off as waste than transport it anywhere. Yet, environmentalists are the problem? What, are they rigging the market somehow to make natural gas worthless?

Wrong. We have an excess of energy across most of the US, and it is the environmentalist that are waging a campaign to stop us from fully utilizing it. They believe that any further wide-spread acceptance of more fossil fuels will hinder their goal of a perfect renewable energy source. So they continue to bash away at the present in hope of a perfect future.

I'm not quite sure how to respond other that repeat what both you and I already know. The geological center of the continent is on fire to the point where you can see it from outer space better than you can see New York City. This is important to me, as I own a whole pile of land there. There are very few cars within 1000 miles of the fires that can be converted to CNG. Since people won't stop consuming petroleum, this will continue up and until the point we find something to do with the waste gas.

What do you suggest we do about the issue raised in TFA?

I have layed out a plan to do something with the waste gas and proven every one of your arguments to be false... Seriously... just stop you troll...

So, per pound, what does it cost to transport natural gas 1000 miles?


And what is the air speed velocity of a coconut laden swallow?
 
2013-01-19 10:12:38 PM  

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?
 
2013-01-19 10:12:44 PM  

Maul555: DisposableSavior: Maul555: rohar: Maul555: rohar: Maul555: rohar: Maul555: And why are they not part of the equation?

Uh, because all the cars are nowhere near the Bakken?

Seriously? This is the best you have to offer? Ignore everything else and focus on a low vehicle density in that part of the country?

That's kinda where the waste gas fires are. Did you not read TFA?

Ok... this is the part where you ignore the beginning of my arguments and we start going around in circles... The environmentalists are the problem... just scroll up.

We have an excess of energy in a remote part of the country. It's less expensive to just burn it off as waste than transport it anywhere. Yet, environmentalists are the problem? What, are they rigging the market somehow to make natural gas worthless?

Wrong. We have an excess of energy across most of the US, and it is the environmentalist that are waging a campaign to stop us from fully utilizing it. They believe that any further wide-spread acceptance of more fossil fuels will hinder their goal of a perfect renewable energy source. So they continue to bash away at the present in hope of a perfect future.

And another one knocked out. At this rate you'll be out of straw men before you know it.

would you like to get your troll award right now, or later?


How was he trolling? You're the one who's convinced of environmental conspiracy theories, even though you just said we have an excess of energy in America. You should also realize that the oil and gas are going to be gone forever at some point, which is why they're pushing so hard for renewable (as in, won't go away forever) energy sources. Why are people like you so angry and hateful towards renewable energy?
 
2013-01-19 10:13:38 PM  
The part I don't understand is why they wastefully burn off the natural gas instead of capturing and selling it.
 
2013-01-19 10:13:38 PM  

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.
 
2013-01-19 10:14:48 PM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: Maul555: DisposableSavior: Maul555: rohar: Maul555: rohar: Maul555: rohar: Maul555: And why are they not part of the equation?

Uh, because all the cars are nowhere near the Bakken?

Seriously? This is the best you have to offer? Ignore everything else and focus on a low vehicle density in that part of the country?

That's kinda where the waste gas fires are. Did you not read TFA?

Ok... this is the part where you ignore the beginning of my arguments and we start going around in circles... The environmentalists are the problem... just scroll up.

We have an excess of energy in a remote part of the country. It's less expensive to just burn it off as waste than transport it anywhere. Yet, environmentalists are the problem? What, are they rigging the market somehow to make natural gas worthless?

Wrong. We have an excess of energy across most of the US, and it is the environmentalist that are waging a campaign to stop us from fully utilizing it. They believe that any further wide-spread acceptance of more fossil fuels will hinder their goal of a perfect renewable energy source. So they continue to bash away at the present in hope of a perfect future.

And another one knocked out. At this rate you'll be out of straw men before you know it.

would you like to get your troll award right now, or later?

How was he trolling? You're the one who's convinced of environmental conspiracy theories, even though you just said we have an excess of energy in America. You should also realize that the oil and gas are going to be gone forever at some point, which is why they're pushing so hard for renewable (as in, won't go away forever) energy sources. Why are people like you so angry and hateful towards renewable energy?


I have already covered this... I have posted links... I am not going to run around in circles for you.
 
2013-01-19 10:16:01 PM  

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.
 
2013-01-19 10:17:03 PM  

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...
 
2013-01-19 10:18:49 PM  

rohar: Electrical lines are much less expensive [than rail] AND have virtually no environmental impact. Even when they fail.


Except for fires started when the powerlines over load. The electric grid in the region wasn't designed for long distance transmission and doesn't have much spare capacity, so there would be the capital cost of not only erecting new lines but also possibly acquiring the real estate. Then there would be the need for generation stations to supply the electrical transmission lines, and those don't come cheap, plus the permits needed for new construction take months if not years.

Rail lines already exist in the region and have spare capacity. No new construction or permits needed. You could bring in the needed compressors in 20' containers on rail and distribute them via truck to all the sites, then those same trucks could collect the full tanks of NG and store them at a rail yard until a full train load is assembled and haul it all off to where ever you please.

I'm still not sure even with free gas input that this would be a profitable venture. Want to invest in my new start-up company YoyoCo to design and build the necessary specialized equipment for this scheme? You can send the $250k to my Paypal account.
 
2013-01-19 10:23:26 PM  

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.
 
2013-01-19 10:24:38 PM  

Maul555: And rail, yes, thank you. I can't believe I forgot about rail!
[Yoyo says stuff.]
I have to stop an wait for trains all the time. Stop trying to turn me into a strawman. Rail is everywhere down here.


You're the one who stated he "forgot about rail!" I was just hypothesizing how you might not have considered rail as a means of transporting natural gas. I had no intent of turning you into a strawman.
 
2013-01-19 10:25:29 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.


Ignored... it was "interesting" talking to you... for the last time
 
2013-01-19 10:26:00 PM  

Maul555: Keizer_Ghidorah: Maul555: DisposableSavior: Maul555: rohar: Maul555: rohar: Maul555: rohar: Maul555: And why are they not part of the equation?

Uh, because all the cars are nowhere near the Bakken?

Seriously? This is the best you have to offer? Ignore everything else and focus on a low vehicle density in that part of the country?

That's kinda where the waste gas fires are. Did you not read TFA?

Ok... this is the part where you ignore the beginning of my arguments and we start going around in circles... The environmentalists are the problem... just scroll up.

We have an excess of energy in a remote part of the country. It's less expensive to just burn it off as waste than transport it anywhere. Yet, environmentalists are the problem? What, are they rigging the market somehow to make natural gas worthless?

Wrong. We have an excess of energy across most of the US, and it is the environmentalist that are waging a campaign to stop us from fully utilizing it. They believe that any further wide-spread acceptance of more fossil fuels will hinder their goal of a perfect renewable energy source. So they continue to bash away at the present in hope of a perfect future.

And another one knocked out. At this rate you'll be out of straw men before you know it.

would you like to get your troll award right now, or later?

How was he trolling? You're the one who's convinced of environmental conspiracy theories, even though you just said we have an excess of energy in America. You should also realize that the oil and gas are going to be gone forever at some point, which is why they're pushing so hard for renewable (as in, won't go away forever) energy sources. Why are people like you so angry and hateful towards renewable energy?

I have already covered this... I have posted links... I am not going to run around in circles for you.


I'm not asking you to run around in circles for me. I'm asking you to tell me why YOU have it out for perfecting alternate renewable energy sources.
 
2013-01-19 10:26:36 PM  

Yoyo: Maul555: And rail, yes, thank you. I can't believe I forgot about rail!
[Yoyo says stuff.]
I have to stop an wait for trains all the time. Stop trying to turn me into a strawman. Rail is everywhere down here.

You're the one who stated he "forgot about rail!" I was just hypothesizing how you might not have considered rail as a means of transporting natural gas. I had no intent of turning you into a strawman.


Fare enough... And with that added consideration, natural gas is even more appealing than before.
 
2013-01-19 10:27:11 PM  
fare fair
 
2013-01-19 10:28:30 PM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: Maul555: Keizer_Ghidorah: Maul555: DisposableSavior: Maul555: rohar: Maul555: rohar: Maul555: rohar: Maul555: And why are they not part of the equation?

Uh, because all the cars are nowhere near the Bakken?

Seriously? This is the best you have to offer? Ignore everything else and focus on a low vehicle density in that part of the country?

That's kinda where the waste gas fires are. Did you not read TFA?

Ok... this is the part where you ignore the beginning of my arguments and we start going around in circles... The environmentalists are the problem... just scroll up.

We have an excess of energy in a remote part of the country. It's less expensive to just burn it off as waste than transport it anywhere. Yet, environmentalists are the problem? What, are they rigging the market somehow to make natural gas worthless?

Wrong. We have an excess of energy across most of the US, and it is the environmentalist that are waging a campaign to stop us from fully utilizing it. They believe that any further wide-spread acceptance of more fossil fuels will hinder their goal of a perfect renewable energy source. So they continue to bash away at the present in hope of a perfect future.

And another one knocked out. At this rate you'll be out of straw men before you know it.

would you like to get your troll award right now, or later?

How was he trolling? You're the one who's convinced of environmental conspiracy theories, even though you just said we have an excess of energy in America. You should also realize that the oil and gas are going to be gone forever at some point, which is why they're pushing so hard for renewable (as in, won't go away forever) energy sources. Why are people like you so angry and hateful towards renewable energy?

I have already covered this... I have posted links... I am not going to run around in circles for you.

I'm not asking you to run around in circles for me. I'm asking you to tell me why YOU have it out for perfecting alternate rene ...


I do not have a grudge against perfecting clean renewable energy...
 
2013-01-19 10:28:57 PM  

Yoyo: rohar: Electrical lines are much less expensive [than rail] AND have virtually no environmental impact. Even when they fail.

Except for fires started when the powerlines over load. The electric grid in the region wasn't designed for long distance transmission and doesn't have much spare capacity, so there would be the capital cost of not only erecting new lines but also possibly acquiring the real estate. Then there would be the need for generation stations to supply the electrical transmission lines, and those don't come cheap, plus the permits needed for new construction take months if not years.

Rail lines already exist in the region and have spare capacity. No new construction or permits needed. You could bring in the needed compressors in 20' containers on rail and distribute them via truck to all the sites, then those same trucks could collect the full tanks of NG and store them at a rail yard until a full train load is assembled and haul it all off to where ever you please.

I'm still not sure even with free gas input that this would be a profitable venture. Want to invest in my new start-up company YoyoCo to design and build the necessary specialized equipment for this scheme? You can send the $250k to my Paypal account.


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?
 
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?
 
2013-01-20 06:32:54 PM  

Solon Isonomia: Dancin_In_Anson: Paris1127: Now, call me crazy, but why don't they, you know, use that natural gas?

Sometimes. It's cheap as shiat right now and they are drilling primarily for oil. It's not worth the effort or investment to build the infrastructure to pipe it out. Now, if there was say an overseas market that would be willing to pay a metric farkton more than it's bringing domestically...Oh wait!

That being said, flaring gas at the well site is nothing new. My Dad told me that back in the 50s you could drive through the fields south of Electra Texas at midnight at it was almost  as bright as day.

Still, it feels like they're leaving money on the table, even with the cost of infrastructure in comparison to the massive desire for natural gas. It's a limited resource, why not just gather and store?


There's no money in it for them. They don't care about conserving limited resources, or about pollution resulting from burning the gas. The only thing they care about is profit.

If corporations are people then they are sociopaths.
 
2013-01-20 06:38:16 PM  
The problem here in North Dakota with gas flaring is actually the result of indoor plumbing in Canada.

"Back in the day", most of Saskatchewan and Manitoba had outdoor "bathrooms", called Outhouses. With the advent of indoor plumbing, these were removed. There is now very little stopping the arctic winds from howling down into North Dakota.

(The local news is on this very moment - and the Wind Chills around here are presently as low as -55F)

The gas flares are just an effort to warm this place up!

// Yes, it IS a conspiracy
 
2013-01-21 08:51:51 AM  

Maul555: 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?


And profit is the only thing worth worrying about, eh? No need to think about the environmental costs, because they would affect profit. Shouldn't you be living in the late 19th century? Oh wait, you think that's where you are.
 
2013-01-21 12:29:03 PM  
I await the day when greedy humans realize that because something make good economic sense, money is not the trump suit.
It is not good sense period when it is not good sense but shortrun profitable.
 
2013-01-21 01:22:45 PM  

Speaker2Animals: And profit is the only thing worth worrying about, eh? No need to think about the environmental costs, because they would affect profit. Shouldn't you be living in the late 19th century? Oh wait, you think that's where you are.


When your plan is to leave everyone living in neolithic mud huts toiling away on subsistence "sustainable" farms, the guy who promises "living in the late 19th century" starts to look pretty good.
 
2013-01-21 01:38:38 PM  

Tatterdemalian: everyone living in neolithic mud huts


Well, in truth, they'd be more "post modern" mud huts.
 
2013-01-21 01:47:21 PM  

SVenus: Tatterdemalian: everyone living in neolithic mud huts

Well, in truth, they'd be more "post modern" mud huts.


hipster huts?
 
2013-01-21 01:53:15 PM  

Tatterdemalian: Speaker2Animals: And profit is the only thing worth worrying about, eh? No need to think about the environmental costs, because they would affect profit. Shouldn't you be living in the late 19th century? Oh wait, you think that's where you are.

When your plan is to leave everyone living in neolithic mud huts toiling away on subsistence "sustainable" farms, the guy who promises "living in the late 19th century" starts to look pretty good.


So expecting companies to minimize and mitigate environmental damage = send everyone back to the stone age? If that's a troll, +1. If you're serious, that's one of the dumbest f*cking things I've ever seen on here.
 
2013-01-21 02:17:32 PM  

Speaker2Animals: So expecting companies to minimize and mitigate environmental damage = send everyone back to the stone age? If that's a troll, +1. If you're serious, that's one of the dumbest f*cking things I've ever seen on here.


On its face, no. The way it's applied by a lot of environmental groups, yes.

There is no reasonable standard or allowable level of emissions to some of them. Think of the groups saying that 'there's no such thing as clean coal' even if they could cut emissions 80% from what they are now.
 
2013-01-21 02:28:39 PM  

Speaker2Animals: So expecting companies to minimize and mitigate environmental damage = send everyone back to the stone age?


The way you propose it, yes.

/we have already minimized and mitigated environmental damage as much as possible without sending everyone back to the stone age
//the only way to do more is to send everyone back to the stone age
///and you probably even have the gall to think that it's really everyone else's fault for failing to find a "third way" that literally cannot exist, because finding one and taking it would only lead to demands that we do even more
 
2013-01-21 02:36:38 PM  

Speaker2Animals: So expecting companies to minimize and mitigate environmental damage


Say you decide to shut in the oil field, and replace that oil with that shipped in from overseas. Assuming America is importing the maximum from Canada, what with all the pipeline issues and all...
What is the trade off in emissions just to get that oil here? What is the cost in emissions per barrel to import oil from the Middle East? Lost jobs in that two year delay? Materials to drill new wells are paid with profits from currently producing wells. The entire thing is slowed down, and future capacity isn't known until the wells in an area are put on stream. So, you have to drill the wells, test the wells, and then shut them in for 18-24 months, not recouping THAT investment until new rights of way secured by legal agreement, the gas is hooked up and sales contracts are signed? We're talking several bunker oil burning super tankers worth of emissions, here. Not to mention the place where some of that oil would come from is flaring THEIR gas.

Who's the troll here?
 
2013-01-21 03:17:26 PM  

Tatterdemalian: /we have already minimized and mitigated environmental damage as much as possible without sending everyone back to the stone age
//the only way to do more is to send everyone back to the stone age


LMFAO!

The same argument has been used against every anti-pollution measure imposed for the last 40 years. Somehow industry is dragged kicking and screaming into compliance and guess what!!?!? You're reading these words on something decidedly not Stone Age.
 
2013-01-21 03:31:31 PM  

Speaker2Animals: The same argument has been used against every anti-pollution measure imposed for the last 40 years. Somehow industry is dragged kicking and screaming into compliance and guess what!!?!?


We get a recession that keeps getting deeper until the regulations are relaxed... and the relaxation of those regulations are exactly what you're whining about.

/one good thing I will say about Obama, he learns from his mistakes
//it would be nice if he could learn from other peoples' mistakes so he doesn't have to make the same mistakes Jimmy Carter did, but baby steps are better than nothing
 
2013-01-21 03:35:27 PM  

Tatterdemalian: Speaker2Animals: The same argument has been used against every anti-pollution measure imposed for the last 40 years. Somehow industry is dragged kicking and screaming into compliance and guess what!!?!?

We get a recession that keeps getting deeper until the regulations are relaxed... and the relaxation of those regulations are exactly what you're whining about.

/one good thing I will say about Obama, he learns from his mistakes
//it would be nice if he could learn from other peoples' mistakes so he doesn't have to make the same mistakes Jimmy Carter did, but baby steps are better than nothing


Wow. And I thought the Great Recession was caused by lax oversight of banks and you're telling me it's because of those damned environmentalists. Who knew?
 
2013-01-21 08:43:55 PM  

SVenus: Speaker2Animals: So expecting companies to minimize and mitigate environmental damage

Say you decide to shut in the oil field, and replace that oil with that shipped in from overseas. Assuming America is importing the maximum from Canada, what with all the pipeline issues and all...
What is the trade off in emissions just to get that oil here? What is the cost in emissions per barrel to import oil from the Middle East? Lost jobs in that two year delay? Materials to drill new wells are paid with profits from currently producing wells. The entire thing is slowed down, and future capacity isn't known until the wells in an area are put on stream. So, you have to drill the wells, test the wells, and then shut them in for 18-24 months, not recouping THAT investment until new rights of way secured by legal agreement, the gas is hooked up and sales contracts are signed? We're talking several bunker oil burning super tankers worth of emissions, here. Not to mention the place where some of that oil would come from is flaring THEIR gas.

Who's the troll here?


Don't know where he said he wanted to shut down all the oil fields here. But he has a point about making them impact the environment as little as possible.

The problem with humanity is its supreme arrogance. We need to dial it back, be more humble, and realize that the more we fark up our only home in the universe, the worse we're going to be affected down the line. We also need to try to suppress our incredible greed.
 
Displayed 215 of 215 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter








In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report