Oil giants partner with environmental group to track Permian Basin's methane emissions

[ceo_energemsier + 1,818]

Oil giants partner with environmental group to track Permian Basin's methane emissions

 

WASHINGTON — Oil companies including Exxon Mobil and Chevron are partnering with an environmental think tank to track methane emissions coming out of the Permian Basin.

The abundant flaring of natural gas in the West Texas oil field has drawn concern from climate scientists, with methane being a far more powerful greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.

 

 

"Climate change risks posed by methane and other greenhouse gas emissions are serious and warrant action,” Bart Cahir, a senior vice president at Exxon Mobil, said in a statement.

 

The Rocky Mountain Institute, a think tank based in Colorado, has developed a computer program to track emissions coming out of oil and gas fields, allowing companies to not only report their emissions to investor groups but track which technologies are best at reducing methane leaks.

The moves comes as the Trump administration has rolled back methane regulations, saying companies are best equipped to manage the leaks themselves, despite criticism from some in the industry that the Obama-era regulations were fair and necessary.

According to federal estimates, about 28 percent of the 570 million metric tons of methane emitted by the United States into the atmosphere comes from oil and gas drillng.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

2 hours ago, ceo_energemsier said:

The Rocky Mountain Institute, a think tank based in Colorado, has developed a computer program to track emissions coming out of oil and gas fields, allowing companies to not only report their emissions to investor groups but track which technologies are best at reducing methane leaks.

I think I'd prefer actual monitoring equipment to actually monitor emissions. After all, software just does what it's been programmed to do and the economists who wrote the disastrous Sturgis Covid prediction software Are still wiping the egg off their face. Actually pretty much all the Covid prediction software has been rubbish. 

[ceo_energemsier + 1,818]

1 minute ago, Ward Smith said:

I think I'd prefer actual monitoring equipment to actually monitor emissions. After all, software just does what it's been programmed to do and the economists who wrote the disastrous Sturgis Covid prediction software Are still wiping the egg off their face. Actually pretty much all the Covid prediction software has been rubbish. 

Yes, softwares are not proactive or dynamic, most are designed with a set of parameters and are confined to gathering just that info and with bias in a lot of cases. Monitoring equipment can you you real time data for just about anything and everything.

For a new refinery, we had to monitor "normal" conditions for 1 year, then the EPA said you have to do it for 2 years then when 2 years was done they said do it for another year.

They wanted us to use a software they had, we used it and it always had faulty and would fail in the field due to changes in weather conditions.

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

 

4 hours ago, Ward Smith said:

I think I'd prefer actual monitoring equipment to actually monitor emissions. After all, software just does what it's been programmed to do and the economists who wrote the disastrous Sturgis Covid prediction software Are still wiping the egg off their face. Actually pretty much all the Covid prediction software has been rubbish. 

Tracking is not the same as modelling, not even close.

Think before you type nonsense. 

 

"The Rocky Mountain Institute, a think tank based in Colorado, has developed a computer program to track emissions coming out of oil and gas fields, allowing companies to not only report their emissions to investor groups but track which technologies are best at reducing methane leaks."

 

In Canada tracking is old news:

https://www.canada.ca/en/services/environment/pollution-waste-management/national-pollutant-release-inventory.html

Edited September 18, 2020 by Enthalpic

[Dan Clemmensen + 1,011]

These articles keep mixing up flaring and methane emissions. These are very different. Flaring is a little bad. methane emissions (venting, leaks, poorly capped wells, etc) are much much worse.  Vented or leaked methane is 80 times worse short term than the CO2 from the same amount of flared methane, and 26 times worse over the first century.

There are ways to track methane using satellites, and some independent greenie tracking efforts have been reported using real data collected on the ground or with aircraft. The industry is playing catch up here.

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

1 hour ago, Dan Clemmensen said:

These articles keep mixing up flaring and methane emissions. These are very different. Flaring is a little bad. methane emissions (venting, leaks, poorly capped wells, etc) are much much worse.  Vented or leaked methane is 80 times worse short term than the CO2 from the same amount of flared methane, and 26 times worse over the first century.

There are ways to track methane using satellites, and some independent greenie tracking efforts have been reported using real data collected on the ground or with aircraft. The industry is playing catch up here.

I repeat

Quote

The Rocky Mountain Institute, a think tank based in Colorado, has developed a computer program to track emissions

Computer programs don't "track" anything. Unless they're connected to sensors (in which case it's called "monitoring") they are running models or simply guesstimating.

Sort of like the "models" that are supposedly "predicting" the climate, except when they're completely wrong. But that's OK, billions are being spent with thousands of "scientists" who all run different models, so when one seems reasonably close in hindsight they can proudly back to that one model, while ignoring the thousands of others that were dead wrong. Nice work if you can get it (and don't have a conscience).

[ceo_energemsier + 1,818]

2 hours ago, Dan Clemmensen said:

These articles keep mixing up flaring and methane emissions. These are very different. Flaring is a little bad. methane emissions (venting, leaks, poorly capped wells, etc) are much much worse.  Vented or leaked methane is 80 times worse short term than the CO2 from the same amount of flared methane, and 26 times worse over the first century.

There are ways to track methane using satellites, and some independent greenie tracking efforts have been reported using real data collected on the ground or with aircraft. The industry is playing catch up here.

Now you dont need Satellites for those, you have drones that are faster and cheaper. Some companies have also used "weather" balloons stationed over their fields/production sites and other facilities to keep a track/monitor emissions.

 

 

 

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

15 minutes ago, Ward Smith said:

I repeat

Computer programs don't "track" anything. Unless they're connected to sensors (in which case it's called "monitoring") they are running models or simply guesstimating.

Sort of like the "models" that are supposedly "predicting" the climate, except when they're completely wrong. But that's OK, billions are being spent with thousands of "scientists" who all run different models, so when one seems reasonably close in hindsight they can proudly back to that one model, while ignoring the thousands of others that were dead wrong. Nice work if you can get it (and don't have a conscience).

Track is a verb meaning:

" follow and note the course or progress of."

 

P.S. models are widely used in science and engineering with great success; don't let your climate and covid denialism get in the way of understanding that math and computers work.

Edited September 19, 2020 by Enthalpic

[ronwagn + 6,290]

5 hours ago, Dan Clemmensen said:

These articles keep mixing up flaring and methane emissions. These are very different. Flaring is a little bad. methane emissions (venting, leaks, poorly capped wells, etc) are much much worse.  Vented or leaked methane is 80 times worse short term than the CO2 from the same amount of flared methane, and 26 times worse over the first century.

There are ways to track methane using satellites, and some independent greenie tracking efforts have been reported using real data collected on the ground or with aircraft. The industry is playing catch up here.

I have a suspicion that far more methane is emitted from rotting vegetation in the oceans, lakes, land, and peat bogs etc. Than by the natural gas industry. Still it should be controlled and used. It should be mandated that the natural gas be used with minimal flaring or no drilling permit. There are plenty of ways to use it onsite or process it and transport it. 

[Dan Clemmensen + 1,011]

4 hours ago, ceo_energemsier said:

Now you dont need Satellites for those, you have drones that are faster and cheaper. Some companies have also used "weather" balloons stationed over their fields/production sites and other facilities to keep a track/monitor emissions.

 

 

 

Satellite imagery provides a good way to get broad coarse coverage to find general areas where more detailed checks are needed. An article in Bloomberg yesterday looked at abandoned gas wells. There are about 3 million of them in the US, and nobody is really tracking them.

[Dan Clemmensen + 1,011]

1 hour ago, ronwagn said:

I have a suspicion that far more methane is emitted from rotting vegetation in the oceans, lakes, land, and peat bogs etc. Than by the natural gas industry. Still it should be controlled and used. It should be mandated that the natural gas be used with minimal flaring or no drilling permit. There are plenty of ways to use it onsite or process it and transport it. 

Your suspicion may be correct. This is why we need good wide-area satellite coverage. Even if we just look at human-generated methane, agricultural activities (rice paddies and cow farts) generate a lot of methane.

[ceo_energemsier + 1,818]

4 minutes ago, Dan Clemmensen said:

Your suspicion may be correct. This is why we need good wide-area satellite coverage. Even if we just look at human-generated methane, agricultural activities (rice paddies and cow farts) generate a lot of methane.

So does Hollywood and liberal pols!!!!

[ceo_energemsier + 1,818]

9 minutes ago, Dan Clemmensen said:

Satellite imagery provides a good way to get broad coarse coverage to find general areas where more detailed checks are needed. An article in Bloomberg yesterday looked at abandoned gas wells. There are about 3 million of them in the US, and nobody is really tracking them.

From my experience, on a regional basis and an oil basin reference, going down to detailed emissions by major oil and gas operators and producers, and facilities in a specific basin/county etc , the drones and on site emissions monitoring stations and equipment are the most precise, yes you can use a satellite for looking up a large plume of anything in the air, land or water.

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

6 hours ago, Ward Smith said:

I repeat

Computer programs don't "track" anything.

Can we just forget this guys "reasoning?"

Anybody use Microsoft Excel?  People track things using computer programs all the time.

Perhaps track your companies performance in a spreadsheet or SQL database?  Maybe human resources would like to know hours worked and sick time...

Astronauts hand fly stuff to the moon and beyond... not.

"IQ" Ward is full of fail.

Edited September 19, 2020 by Enthalpic

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

10 hours ago, ceo_energemsier said:

From my experience, on a regional basis and an oil basin reference, going down to detailed emissions by major oil and gas operators and producers, and facilities in a specific basin/county etc , the drones and on site emissions monitoring stations and equipment are the most precise, yes you can use a satellite for looking up a large plume of anything in the air, land or water.

Assuming the satellites can even "see" the methane from space, amongst all the clutter, I'm unconvinced they could distinguish between natural and "artificial" sources. Of course natural gas is natural, but to the brainwashed greens I'm confident it's unnatural. Expect massive plumes from the rotting vegetation in California for the next several years, blamed no doubt on its oil industry. Because lazy scientists. 

[Dan Clemmensen + 1,011]

35 minutes ago, Ward Smith said:

Assuming the satellites can even "see" the methane from space, amongst all the clutter, I'm unconvinced they could distinguish between natural and "artificial" sources. Of course natural gas is natural, but to the brainwashed greens I'm confident it's unnatural. Expect massive plumes from the rotting vegetation in California for the next several years, blamed no doubt on its oil industry. Because lazy scientists. 

Satellites can see methane.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/meet-the-satellites-that-can-pinpoint-methane-and-carbon-dioxide-leaks/

They cannot distinguish the source, they can merely locate each small region that has methane and quantify its concentration. This allows much more efficient use of arial and ground-based localization.

Wildfires emit CO2, not methane, and burned areas in CA do not have much in the way of vegetation to rot in methane-producing conditions. I'm sure there must be some lazy scientists on the world, but I have no statistically valid evidence that scientists are lazier than the general population, and I have no evidence that greenie scientists are lazier than any other scientists. I do have lots of anecdotal evidence that there oare a whole bunch of non-lazy scientists of all flavors.

[Dan Clemmensen + 1,011]

On 9/19/2020 at 8:46 AM, Ward Smith said:

Assuming the satellites can even "see" the methane from space, amongst all the clutter, I'm unconvinced they could distinguish between natural and "artificial" sources. Of course natural gas is natural, but to the brainwashed greens I'm confident it's unnatural. Expect massive plumes from the rotting vegetation in California for the next several years, blamed no doubt on its oil industry. Because lazy scientists. 

And of course I'm behind the times as usual. A new satellite can now pinpoint methane emissions with 50-meter precision:

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-54210367

I'm fairly sure the "oil giants" decides to "partner" with greenies as a way to try to get some control of the narrative. Anyone with access to this new data has no need for cooperation from the oil companies, and new regulations against venting will be hard to ignore.

[Dan Clemmensen + 1,011]

On 9/19/2020 at 8:46 AM, Ward Smith said:

Assuming the satellites can even "see" the methane from space, amongst all the clutter, I'm unconvinced they could distinguish between natural and "artificial" sources. Of course natural gas is natural, but to the brainwashed greens I'm confident it's unnatural. Expect massive plumes from the rotting vegetation in California for the next several years, blamed no doubt on its oil industry. Because lazy scientists. 

Ward, the name "natural gas" was used to distinguish fossil NG from the earlier "town gas" that was an "artificial" gas produced from coal. Fossil NG is as "natural" as coal or oil. Bio-methane (identical chemical, CH4) is not usually called "natural gas". both bio-methane and NG have identical heat-trapping effects in the atmosphere. The problem, if there is one, is that leaked NG is in addition to bio-methane.  If (say) NG leaks are roughly equal in volume to bio-methane, then the NG leaks double the warming effect. (I think NG leaks are less then all bio-methane.) bio-methane can be divided into anthropogenic (rice paddies, cow farts, landfill) and "natural" (peat bogs, wildebeast farts, tundra).

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

On 9/19/2020 at 10:33 AM, Dan Clemmensen said:

Satellites can see methane.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/meet-the-satellites-that-can-pinpoint-methane-and-carbon-dioxide-leaks/

They cannot distinguish the source, they can merely locate each small region that has methane and quantify its concentration. This allows much more efficient use of arial and ground-based localization.

Wildfires emit CO2, not methane, and burned areas in CA do not have much in the way of vegetation to rot in methane-producing conditions. I'm sure there must be some lazy scientists on the world, but I have no statistically valid evidence that scientists are lazier than the general population, and I have no evidence that greenie scientists are lazier than any other scientists. I do have lots of anecdotal evidence that there oare a whole bunch of non-lazy scientists of all flavors.

Ward is anti-logic.

He thinks his beliefs completely overlap with truths.

 

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

1 hour ago, Dan Clemmensen said:

Ward, the name "natural gas" was used to distinguish fossil NG from the earlier "town gas" that was an "artificial" gas produced from coal. Fossil NG is as "natural" as coal or oil. Bio-methane (identical chemical, CH4) is not usually called "natural gas". both bio-methane and NG have identical heat-trapping effects in the atmosphere. The problem, if there is one, is that leaked NG is in addition to bio-methane.  If (say) NG leaks are roughly equal in volume to bio-methane, then the NG leaks double the warming effect. (I think NG leaks are less then all bio-methane.) bio-methane can be divided into anthropogenic (rice paddies, cow farts, landfill) and "natural" (peat bogs, wildebeast farts, tundra).

Agreed. I know what's "natural" and what isn't. Methane is methane is CH4. How it originated is important. The fact is methane leaks from faulty wellbore plumbing is in the tenths of a thousandths of a percent range compared to "natural" sources such as rotting vegetation or termite farts. 

Fun fact. Town gas is a mixture of hydrogen and carbon monoxide. Turns out sticking your head in a modern gas oven is a fairly useless way to commit suicide, unlike the old days when that was fairly common. Gasworks Park in Seattle is where "town gas" used to be produced. A lot of the equipment is still there.