Gas Flaring

[Marina Schwarz + 1,576]

Oil Producers Are Burning Enough 'Waste' Gas to Power Every Home in Texas

That's... a lot of homes, right?

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

P*ssing away hydrocarbons.

SMH.

[Marina Schwarz + 1,576]

I keep thinking it must be very expensive to stop flaring otherwise why keep doing it but, really, how expensive could it be?

[JEB + 4]

No kidding.  What about orderly development... I thought that was the RRC mission.  An awful and unnecessary waste.  The solution.... pay someone to take your gas, build more pipelines using eminent domain to force your way across privately held lands for the sake of Exxon and Kinder Morgan profits, only to take the gas to MEXICO!

Can anyone explain what we are doing? 

 

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,129]

3 hours ago, JEB said:

No kidding.  What about orderly development... I thought that was the RRC mission.  An awful and unnecessary waste.  The solution.... pay someone to take your gas, build more pipelines using eminent domain to force your way across privately held lands for the sake of Exxon and Kinder Morgan profits, only to take the gas to MEXICO!

Can anyone explain what we are doing? 

 

So, figure out how to turn it into product in situ.... Good Luck!!!

While you are at it, please take a drink from the Holy Grail as well

[RPS + 1]

Yes, NG flaring is a wasteful but necessary practice by oil producers. CO2 and hydrogen sulfide are being spewed out into the environment.

Certainly a possible health hazard

Pipelines in construction but some time before they come online. One solution is using gas to be flared to generate electricity on site and thus lower drilling/operating costs. however there seems to be no operating system currently available.

Saw a comparable process in the palm oil region near Trujillo, Honduras where the residue from crushing palm seeds was used to fuel biomass generators and reduce cost.

[JEB + 4]

We most likely can all agree that we need the product, no doubt about it, however, the fact that we can now boast about being the Head Honcho Exporter comes with a price.  The shale business model currently in place can only be implemented by MAJOR MAJOR money. To offset steep declines more holes need to be opened up, eventually the best performing models fill the core area of the play, leaving fringe area reserves, wells that don't perform like the Big Money boasted model.  

So as we rush forward aiming to keep the crude pipelines full (for exportation?), more and more wells are required. Thus more and more nat gas stranded/flared. Gas exported to Mexico, a country some say facilitates drug cartels and gangs. All of this movement to satisfy the balance sheet.  

Seriously folks, can we not stop and pause for a moment, rethink the matter.  Come up with a policy that includes thoughtful, orderly development.  Me thinketh Gov. Rick Perry(now Energy Czar) mostly likely would not have achieved national acclaim without the fact that the Barnett Shale was being developed, setting off the biggest turnaround in history regarding oil & gas production and making the great State of Texas wealthy!  

So today our President is achieving success, as he should using an economic model that does not include importation of oil! Thank the Lord. That being said, wouldn't it be nice if we could all huddle somewhere and take a look at the true decline picture, across all basins and be honest about how we are maintaining the title of Head Honcho Exporter?   

Slow down, stop and smell the ....Natural Gas!

 

 

 

 

[wrs + 893]

The US is not a centrally planned economy.  Why all this interest in having govt meddle in free markets?

[JEB + 4]

I have absolutely no interest in the government meddling, however the Texas RRC was formed 100 years ago to bring order to a totally unregulated, unmanaged startup industry.   You must agree that we have resources that are limited.  Mineral Owners, Working Interest Owners, Investors all have a vested interest in preventing waste, and creating some order.    Of course if it was necessary, for the greater good (war, national emergency) conservation should take a back seat, but where is the emergency?   

Why can't we have it both ways, slow and steady, healthy, predicable growth... not a boom bust situation.  The money is creating the chaos.  

Centrally planned economy... can you provide some detail here....Are you suggesting no plan, no discussion, no fore thought?

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,129]

1 hour ago, JEB said:

I have absolutely no interest in the government meddling, however....

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

[JEB + 4]

Oh,  I get it, it's either your way or no way...everyone else is wrong, crazy, and void of any worthwhile thoughts.

I did see your suggestion that someone shove it where the sun don't shine....that is brilliant..what a headline response, so much wisdom!

 

 

[wrs + 893]

22 hours ago, JEB said:

I have absolutely no interest in the government meddling, however the Texas RRC was formed 100 years ago to bring order to a totally unregulated, unmanaged startup industry.   You must agree that we have resources that are limited.  Mineral Owners, Working Interest Owners, Investors all have a vested interest in preventing waste, and creating some order.    Of course if it was necessary, for the greater good (war, national emergency) conservation should take a back seat, but where is the emergency?   

Why can't we have it both ways, slow and steady, healthy, predicable growth... not a boom bust situation.  The money is creating the chaos.  

Centrally planned economy... can you provide some detail here....Are you suggesting no plan, no discussion, no fore thought?

I think you are misunderstanding the purpose of the RRC and it's aims.  The RRC always sides with the operators and allowables are set so high as to never be met much less exceeded on any unit.  The biggest issue that the RRC was concerned with wasn't overproduction but the spacing on the wells and the draining of adjacent properties.  Most of the restrictions in place for drilling are with respect to lease lines and unit sizes.  When you look at field rules and the changes implemented, they are mostly about unit sizes and boundaries, not allowables.   

I think production limitations are pretty much impossible to enforce and that is why they haven't been addressed.  The other problem with shale is that the IP is very high but the decline rate is dramatic so allowables would only be exceeded at the beginning of a well.  It's really difficult to actually regulate growth but easy to talk about.  Did you regulate your growth as a child?

Is the govt regulating the number of units that car manufacturers can produce?  Nope, so why should they regulate the output of oil?  Are they regulating the number of shares of stock that can be printed?  Are they regulating the amount of food produced or the number of children you can have?   So why should they regulate the output of oil and gas?

Who says govt knows any better than the market?  I don't see govt doing much useful but I do see it getting in the way of people living life.

Edited April 13, 2019 by wrs

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

The unspoken part about flaring is that you are then releasing Helium into the atmosphere, where it cannot be recaptured.  Helium has a lot of value, but that value is not appreciated nor recognized by the drillers.  Once released, gone forever. 

If you are going to develop oil drilling, with all that gas as a byproduct, then it makes sense to develop markets for everything in that stream, including the gas and the helium.  Aside from the crass aspect of it being Money, it is also a totally finite resource. Use it or lose it - forever. 

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,129]

4 hours ago, Jan van Eck said:

The unspoken part about flaring is that you are then releasing Helium into the atmosphere, where it cannot be recaptured.  Helium has a lot of value, but that value is not appreciated nor recognized by the drillers.  Once released, gone forever. 

If you are going to develop oil drilling, with all that gas as a byproduct, then it makes sense to develop markets for everything in that stream, including the gas and the helium.  Aside from the crass aspect of it being Money, it is also a totally finite resource. Use it or lose it - forever. 

Gone forever....  no.  More expensive to collect than out of rocks?  Yes.  Uh, find more helium bearing rocks will happen and even if not... Gone?  No.  Millions of years on very shaky science which could be off by an order of magnitude or two?  Yea, no.  Are we going to run out of NG anytime in the next thousand years?  No.  Can always get it right out of the air. 

Got more fear mongering you wish to pursue? 

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

1 hour ago, Wastral said:

Gone forever....  no.  More expensive to collect than out of rocks?  Yes.  Uh, find more helium bearing rocks will happen and even if not... Gone?  No.  Millions of years on very shaky science which could be off by an order of magnitude or two?  Yea, no.  Are we going to run out of NG anytime in the next thousand years?  No.  Can always get it right out of the air. 

Got more fear mongering you wish to pursue? 

Here's a suggestion: get off this Board.  You are totally obnoxious.What a pest. 

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

20 hours ago, JEB said:

Oh,  I get it, it's either your way or no way...everyone else is wrong, crazy, and void of any worthwhile thoughts.

I did see your suggestion that someone shove it where the sun don't shine....that is brilliant..what a headline response, so much wisdom!

 

 

He's a pest, Jeb.  Ignore the troll. 

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,129]

1 hour ago, Jan van Eck said:

Here's a suggestion: get off this Board.  You are totally obnoxious.What a pest. 

Pest and Obnoxious to state; truth.  Okay.  Thanks. 

Just curious; what does that make you?

[ceo_energemsier + 1,818]

I have mentioned some where else on this forum recently and last year about the various options for produced gas before pipelines and processing/gathering facilities are in place to prevent the flaring.

These options below can be deployed rapidly in comparison to large scale facilities and can be dismantled and relocated to a new location/new production  basin as needed in the future.

One has to understand that when E&P companies go into an area to explore and drill, the midstream companies (pipelines, oil and gas separation and processing plants, storage and other related infrastructure and services companies) do not go before the E&P companies to lay the pipe and develop the infrastructure, until such time the basin/region proves out to be containing substantial resources (oil gas etc) for years to come and can be sustainable for the long term. Once that is established , they rush in to provide the services and develop the infrastructure. Federal, State and Local permitting is also a major factor how fast these facilities are developed and put into operations.

This, however does not preclude the E&P companies nor the services companies to sit idle and just flare the gas. Can you imagine if E&P companies just let the oil flow out of the wells into the fields and ditches and waterways? Why spew the gas then into the air?!!!

The industry needs to cooperate and collaborate with each other and out of industry players with the right techs and concepts to develop meaningful, sustainable, cost effective, environmentally safe methodologies, technologies and applications and implementation of all these to maximize the use of the resources available and being developed.

1) Produced gas re-injection into the formation or into another zone for later use and or increasing liquid hydrocarbons production volume sa an EOR for liquids recovery.. We tried that in several different parts of the country and different countries and it worked well. Saved a valuable resource for future use and also prevented the air quality issues etc.

2) Compact (and or small scale) GTL plants that would convert the gas to liquids fuels . There are several companies that offered the solution in the oil and gas fields and provided it as a service. Some companies provide tech services that will convert the natgas to high quality methanol, ethanol, formalin/formaldehyde and other petrochem feedstocks and liquid fuels  and further use of inhouse tech to components of cleaner burning fuels. This adds value to the end product compared to just the lower value of the gas and these liquids can be transported off site by tanker trucks with ease or stored at a nearby storage facility for further transportation via rail or connect to a products pipeline if feasible.

3) Compact LNG plants , offering the same as 2) for easy onsite or near site within a play /field region for gas to LNG and further transport by LNG trucks to points of storage/transport or re-gasification

4) On or near sites of production and or production basin based compact NG- LPG plants

5) Portable/mobile natgas power plants that can provide electric power to the operators on site and also can connect that generated electric power into the grid

6) Develop regional gas storage hub as the E&P companies ramp up exploration and production in the basin or region. It could be in salt caverns or man made storage facilities as the production is ramping up. It will require shorter pipeline distances or temporary pipeline setup that are safe and reliable to move the produced gas to the nearby basin /regional storage hub. Collaboration would be required with the permitting and approval process for these as well. Once the trunk pipelines are in place, the companies can move the stored gas to areas where the demand is.. power plants, main gas storage hubs, LNG plants etc.

 

Just some thoughts, some of which have been executed and implemented with success! Rampant, illogical, willful , negligent flaring for ease and convenience should end!

 

Edited April 17, 2019 by ceo_energemsier
addition

[ceo_energemsier + 1,818]

This truly sucks for the industry and is a very bad precedent. Lot  more can be done with better planning and strategizing and monetizing the resource much much better and keeping a minimal impact on the environment!!!!

 

_____________________

Oil Producers Are Burning Enough 'Waste' Gas to Power Every Home in Texas

Kevin Crowley and Ryan Collins

BloombergApril 11, 2019

 

 

 

(Bloomberg) -- America’s hottest oil patch is producing so much natural gas that by the end of last year producers were burning off more than enough of the fuel to meet residential demand across the whole of Texas. The phenomenon has likely only intensified since then.

Flaring is the controversial but common practice in which oil and gas drillers burn off gas that can’t be easily or efficiently captured and stored. It releases carbon dioxide and is lighting up the skies of West Texas and New Mexico as the Permian Basin undergoes a massive production boom. Oil wells there produce gas as a byproduct, and because pipeline infrastructure hasn’t kept pace with the expansion, energy companies must sometimes choose between flaring and slowing production.

“It’s a black eye for the Permian basin,” Pioneer Natural Resources Chief Executive Officer Scott Sheffield said at Wednesday at an energy conference at Columbia University in New York. “The state, the pipeline companies and the producers -- we all need to come together to figure out a way to stop the flaring.”

The amount of gas flared in the Permian rose about 85 percent last year reaching 553 million cubic feet a day in the fourth quarter, according to data from Oslo-based consultant Rystad Energy. Local prices that are hovering near zero will remain “under stress” until more pipelines come online, Moody’s Investors Service said in a note Thursday.

There will always be a “mismatch” between the amount of gas produced and pipeline capacity, so some flaring is inevitable, according to Ryan Sitton, the head of the Railroad Commission of Texas. Despite what its name suggests, his agency oversees the oil and gas industry in the state and regulates flaring, allowing companies to burn gas for limited periods, or in times of emergency.

Some 4 billion cubic feet of pipelines are expected come online in the next year or so, which will likely reduce, but not eliminate, the need to flare, the commissioner said in an interview.

Right now, there’s about 9.5 billion feet a day of gas pipeline capacity in the basin that can reach markets that need the heating and power plant fuel, according to RS Energy Group. That’s not enough to carry the more than 13 billion cubic feet a day of gas that’s being pumped out of wells in the region.

Unsurprisingly, with such an abundance of gas but also real difficulties in getting it to consumers, prices for the fuel in Permian have been cheaper than in other parts of the U.S., and earlier this month they went negative, meaning producers had to pay customers to take their gas.

“Everything now that can reach a market is most definitely running full,” Jen Snyder, a director at RS, said in an interview Wednesday. “This market is going to be super volatile, particularly in the spring when market demand is low and things are tighter.”

The U.S. moved past Nigeria in terms of gas flaring in the recent years, though increases in Iran and Iraq have kept it in fourth place, according to World Bank data for 2017. Russia remains the biggest source, burning off almost 20 billion cubic meters that year.

[ceo_energemsier + 1,818]

https://www.chron.com/business/energy/article/Moody-s-Gas-pipeline-shortages-will-hamper-13760738.php

[ceo_energemsier + 1,818]

Sempra Energy said that Cameron LNG started feeding pipeline gas to the first liquefaction train of the LNG export project as it prepares to start production at the facility in Hackberry, Louisiana.

This is the final commissioning step for Train 1 of Cameron LNG Phase 1, Sempra said in a statement.

Lisa Glatch, chief operating officer of Sempra LNG and board chair for Cameron LNG, said, “Sempra Energy is now one step closer to reaching our goal of building up to 45 million tonnes per annum (Mtpa) of LNG export capacity to serve global markets.”

Following authorization received from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Friday, April 5, allowing the introduction of pipeline feed gas, Cameron LNG will begin ramping up the feed gas deliveries to the facility as it completes the commissioning process.

Phase 1 of the Cameron LNG liquefaction-export project, which includes the first three liquefaction trains, is a $10 billion facility with a projected export of 12 mtpa of LNG, or approximately 1.7 billion cubic feet per day.

Cameron LNG Phase 1 is jointly owned by affiliates of Sempra LNG, Total, Mitsui & Co., and Japan LNG Investment, a company jointly owned by Mitsubishi Corporation and Nippon Yusen Kabushiki Kaisha (NYK).  Sempra Energy indirectly owns 50.2 percent of Cameron LNG.

Cameron LNG Phase 1 is one of five LNG export projects Sempra Energy is developing in North America.

Cameron LNG Phase 2, previously authorized by FERC, encompasses up to two additional liquefaction trains and up to two additional LNG storage tanks.

Sempra is also developing Port Arthur LNG project in Texas and Energía Costa Azul (ECA) LNG Phase 1 and Phase 2 in Mexico.

[ceo_energemsier + 1,818]

Kinder Morgan in discussions to build third Permian Basin gas pipeline: CEO

 

 

2 Min Read

•  
•  

 

(Reuters) - Kinder Morgan Inc has begun internal discussions about building a third natural gas pipeline in the Permian Basin as demand for gas takeaway capacity continues to surge, Chief Executive Officer Steven Kean told investors on Wednesday.

As natural gas production has outpaced pipeline capacity in the Permian Basin, a gas glut has led to plummeting prices in the region, with spot prices at the Waha hub even trading at negative levels.

 

Kinder Morgan believes demand for gas takeaway capacity could grow by 2 billion cubic feet per day each year over the next few years, equivalent to the Houston pipeline operator’s Gulf Coast Express project, Kean said.

 

“Demand to get gas out of the Permian continues to grow and the desire to unlock value that’s in oil and (natural gas liquids) continues to put pressure on need for additional takeaway capacity,” Kean said. “There is interest in pipe three.”

Kinder Morgan’s Gulf Coast Express natural gas pipeline in the Permian Basin is set to come into service in October. Another similar project, the Permian Highway, is on schedule to begin service one year later.

Reporting by Collin Eaton in Houston; Editing by Peter Cooney and Lisa Shumaker

[ceo_energemsier + 1,818]

The US Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has issued the order granting authorization for Tellurian Inc.’s proposed Driftwood LNG export project and an associated pipeline in Louisiana. The project would produce as much as 27.6 million tonnes/year of LNG for export.

The Driftwood LNG project consists of two main components: the construction and operation of the LNG facility, which includes five LNG plant facilities to liquefy natural gas, three tanks to store the LNG, LNG carrier loading/berthing facilities, and other appurtenant facilities at a site near Carlyss, Calcasieu Parish, La.; and the construction and operation of about 96 miles of pipeline, three new compressor stations, and 15 new meter stations.

Construction is expected to begin this year with first LNG anticipated in 2023.

[ceo_energemsier + 1,818]

https://www.houstonchronicle.com/business/energy/article/Keep-on-Trucking-18-wheelers-haul-LNG-exports-13777053.php

[ronwagn + 6,290]

On 4/11/2019 at 10:29 PM, Marina Schwarz said:

I keep thinking it must be very expensive to stop flaring otherwise why keep doing it but, really, how expensive could it be?

There may be expense or profit involved with the natural gas that is wasted. The point is that the general public is the loser whenever natural resources are wasted. The producer makes a quicker and easier profit. Big oil companies can be convinced to minimize flaring. Small operators don't care as much about their reputations. They may not be able to follow best practices either. Only public and governmental oversight can stop the waste of our natural resources.