Emissions Soar as Flaring Frenzy Breaks New Records

[ronwagn + 6,290]

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Emissions-Soar-As-Permian-Flaring-Frenzy-Breaks-New-Records.html

Emissions Soar As Permian Flaring Frenzy Breaks New Records

By Nick Cunningham - Dec 14, 2019, 6:00 PM CST

The oil and gas industry is wasting a fuel that is cleaner than oil while they should be promoting the switching to it. If they keep up this short sighted approach they will ruin their reputations and may cause severe repercussions on the industry. This is also natural gas that they could be profiting from. Forcing them to use it is my preference. Either stop excess flaring or get out of the business. RCW

Join Our Community

 

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

Ron, although I agree with you in principle, I don’t think it is as simple as just ‘stop flaring’.

The operators would need to lay dedicated gas lines to a processing facility, and this would need to be a cost benefit to the operator - they won’t do this out of the goodness of their hearts, nor should they. Business is business.

This dissociated gas has to go somewhere if the oil is to continue to flow. Short of some tree hugger induced federal mandate I do not see this happening anytime soon.

I agree that flaring is a waste of a natural resource, if the players could sit down and come up with a cost effective way of capturing then utilizing this resource would be a fine idea.

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

1 hour ago, Douglas Buckland said:

I agree that flaring is a waste of a natural resource, if the players could sit down and come up with a cost effective way of capturing then utilizing this resource would be a fine idea

Just a thought, that gas could be converted to alcohol on-site, if I recall the chem equations.  (Then again, I could be getting so senile I am confused with something else, hey, who knows).  

Then you don't need pipelines.  The liquid can be stored in tanks and driven away in conventional tank trucks.  

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

Ah, here we go, @Douglas Buckland, @ronwagn  I knew I saw this new development somewhere:

----------------------------------

America's current energy boom may take a new direction thanks to the discovery of a new way to turn raw natural gas into upgraded liquid alcohol fuel.

In the March 14 issue of Science magazine, chemists from Brigham Young University and The Scripps Research Institute detail a process that could reduce dependence on petroleum.

The most unexpected breakthrough in the paper was that ordinary "main group" metals like thallium and lead can trigger the conversion of natural gas to liquid alcohol. The research teams saw in experiments that natural gas to alcohol conversion occurs at 180 degrees Celsius -- just a fraction of the heat needed with traditional "transition metal" catalysts (1400-1600 degrees Celsius). The BYU team was crucial in using theory to understand how and why this process works at low temperatures and under mild conditions.

"This is a highly novel piece of work that opens the way to upgrading of natural gas to useful chemicals with simple materials and moderate conditions," said Robert Crabtree, a chemistry professor at Yale who is familiar with the new study.

The discovery comes at a time when natural gas production is booming in America -- a trend that is expected to continue for the next 30 years. The new process actually cuts out one step of the process for fuel production. Ordinarily the three main parts of raw natural gas -- methane, ethane and propane -- are separated before they are turned into fuels or other useful chemicals.

"Hardly anybody actually tries to do reactions on a genuine mixture that you would get from natural gas," said Daniel Ess, a BYU chemistry professor and one of the study authors. "Turns out we can just directly use the mixture of what comes out of natural gas and convert all three of them together."

The potential benefits aren't limited to the production of fuel, Ess said. Many chemicals derived from natural gas, such as methanol, are also important in manufacturing.

"Whether you use methanol to burn as a fuel or as a chemical commodity for products, this process cuts down energy usage," Ess said.

Edited December 15, 2019 by Jan van Eck

[ronwagn + 6,290]

1 hour ago, Douglas Buckland said:

Ron, although I agree with you in principle, I don’t think it is as simple as just ‘stop flaring’.

The operators would need to lay dedicated gas lines to a processing facility, and this would need to be a cost benefit to the operator - they won’t do this out of the goodness of their hearts, nor should they. Business is business.

This dissociated gas has to go somewhere if the oil is to continue to flow. Short of some tree hugger induced federal mandate I do not see this happening anytime soon.

I agree that flaring is a waste of a natural resource, if the players could sit down and come up with a cost effective way of capturing then utilizing this resource would be a fine idea.

So, you think this is an OK situation. I never said stop flaring, is said stop unnecessary flaring, I realize some is needed. I say shut the companies down. I disagree with the the powers that be on this issue, including Trump. Wasting this natural resource is not an option in my opinion. You want higher prices for oil so do it right and charge more. 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

37 minutes ago, Jan van Eck said:

Just a thought, that gas could be converted to alcohol on-site, if I recall the chem equations.  (Then again, I could be getting so senile I am confused with something else, hey, who knows).  

Then you don't need pipelines.  The liquid can be stored in tanks and driven away in conventional tank trucks.  

Jan, we have done this before. You know there are many ways to use this natural gas onsite or transport it as CNG or LNG by truck. It may cost more, but it is the right thing to do IMHO. 

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

Elon could swoop in with a fleet of his new pickups with big tanks mounted on a fifth wheel gooseneck trailer.  He could even challenge Ford to compete against him and see who the winner is after a year or so.  Ok, I'm being facetious, but it sounds like winner winner chicken dinner to me.  Have a nice Sunday everyone!

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

3 hours ago, Jan van Eck said:

Just a thought, that gas could be converted to alcohol on-site, if I recall the chem equations.  (Then again, I could be getting so senile I am confused with something else, hey, who knows).  

Then you don't need pipelines.  The liquid can be stored in tanks and driven away in conventional tank trucks.  

Depending on the alcohol, you could just ‘moonshine’ for some added cash....

Obviously the stoichiometry has alluded me as well....damn, I may be senile as well!😂 

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

2 hours ago, ronwagn said:

So, you think this is an OK situation. I never said stop flaring, is said stop unnecessary flaring, I realize some is needed. I say shut the companies down. I disagree with the the powers that be on this issue, including Trump. Wasting this natural resource is not an option in my opinion. You want higher prices for oil so do it right and charge more. 

Easy Ron...calm down a bit. I said that I agree with you on principle and that I agreed that flaring was a waste of a natural resource. I never insinuated that unnecessary flaring was ‘okay’!   

[PE Scott + 563]

Wasting it doesn't make sense, but then what other choice do the producers have that's economical and feasible today? You cant pull the oil out of tight shale without the associated gas. 

It seems like there are a few ways to go:

1. Put a punitive tax/fee on flaring

2. Subsidize the storage/sequestering of CH4

3. Offer up some grant money to whomever can come up with the most economical and feasible method of using/converting CH4 onsite.

I'm sure there's another broad path to take I'm not considering.

Personally, I'm against over regulating. I think it stifles economy. I'm more for creating a market to absorb the supply. You guys have listed lots of different ways to use/convert NG in other threads....what would it take to make any of them economically viable?

 

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

20 minutes ago, PE Scott said:

what would it take to make any of them economically viable?

 You need economies of scale to get past the "one-off" or prototype level and up to where you have a modular unit that could be mobile, i.e. inside a 40-foot container or containers, then trucked to site.  To get there, someone or some foundation has to cough up the seed capital to build the first ten units and tool the production line.  Then you are in a position to start making alcohol on a large scale from that gas.  remember that there are large markets for alcohol, including as a heat fuel and as an ignition fuel.  I suspect it would burn just fine when mixed in with marine gasoil, for openers. 

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

“Personally, I'm against over regulating. I think it stifles economy. I'm more for creating a market to absorb the supply. You guys have listed lots of different ways to use/convert NG in other threads....what would it take to make any of them economically viable?”

The fact is that not being allowed to flare (and waste that resource) should become a requirement for ‘doing business’. If this was the case, the required pipelines and other infrastructure or R&D to turn the gas into alcohol would be accounted for in the business model and budget at the start of the project.

Will this cost money and reduce the profit margin? Of course it will, but we need to keep in mind that this gas is an American resource and that it should not be wasted so that a private company can make more money at the country’s expense.

I am against unwarranted and unwanted government interference in the marketplace, but if companies refuse to use ‘good drilling practices’ (for lack of a better term) then a governmental carrot or stick may be required.

[Zhong Lu + 845]

10 hours ago, Jan van Eck said:

Just a thought, that gas could be converted to alcohol on-site, if I recall the chem equations.  (Then again, I could be getting so senile I am confused with something else, hey, who knows).  

Then you don't need pipelines.  The liquid can be stored in tanks and driven away in conventional tank trucks.  

Methanol is poisonous.  

EDIT: NVM.  Saw your next post.  You meant alcohol fuel.  

Edited December 15, 2019 by Zhong Lu

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

2 minutes ago, Zhong Lu said:

Methanol is poisonous.  

EDIT: NVM.  Saw your next post.  You meant alcohol fuel.  

Yes, fuel or industrial chemical.  That said, the catalytic reactions in the field could be driven also to ethanol, interestingly enough. Good research work is being done in this field.  Cheers.

[Zhong Lu + 845]

"Make alcohol then let the workers drink them."  LOL.  

[PE Scott + 563]

9 hours ago, Douglas Buckland said:

The fact is that not being allowed to flare (and waste that resource) should become a requirement for ‘doing business’. If this was the case, the required pipelines and other infrastructure or R&D to turn the gas into alcohol would be accounted for in the business model and budget at the start of the project.

I don't disagree with this at all, but then both sides have to work together to allow the infastructure to be put in place to utilize the gas. I'd be especially keen on a mixture of solutions to be deployed where they best fit. It would be a huge boost to the industry if there was a market for the NG, even where they broke even, as opposed to flaring. I'm actually quite surprised a bigger deal hasn't been made of flaring already. 

Playing devils advocate a little, but in the event legislation was passed to ban flaring and operators had to figure out something else to do with it, likely at greater costs, how would that effect the competitiveness of U.S. produced oil to the rest of the world? Would there be enough margin left to incentivize investment? Already, we're struggling to make decent margins in the shale patch relative to the global cost of oil and gas. It's not so simple as charging more for it as other countries will continue charging less. Perhaps with an additional tax on fossil fuels to the consumer in order to cover the cost of subsidized NG processing/storage it could be less of a barrier to U.S. producers. Of course, then the american consumer is footing the bill, not the operator. So, as much as I agree with all of you, it's difficult for me to see a scenario where this works unless there's a profit to be had somewhere or at the very least a way to save money.

I'm not trying to be combative here by the way, I fully expect to be educated on why my thinking is wrong.

Edit: the other solution staring me in the face is for the whole world to adopt an anti-flaring policy in unison, putting everyone on equal footing in that respect. I'm not going to hold my breath though.

 

Edited December 15, 2019 by PE Scott

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

I get where you are coming from PE, but at the end of the day I’d say that regardless what the rest of the world is doing, there is the question of doing business in a conscientious, ‘good practice’ manner or are you simply going full steam ahead in pursuit of profit?

Flaring gas is a waste of a resource, regardless if it is happening in Texas or Iran. For a company to say that they cannot maintain production without flaring may be accurate, but that is a problem they need to resolve instead of ignore. These companies knew in advance that the disassociated gas produced with LTO needed to be addressed, knew it was wasteful to flare it off and knew of the coming environmental backlash - but chose to ignore the issue as it was still legal to flare.

This is simply bad business in the long run, shows poor custody of a natural resource and once again tarnishes the image of the oil industry.

Sometimes it is simply a good idea to do ‘the right thing’.

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

Given that we know the decline curve on new wells is around 70%, how much investment should be expended on pipeline infrastructure, given that it should experience a comparable decline curve? 

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

6 minutes ago, Ward Smith said:

Given that we know the decline curve on new wells is around 70%, how much investment should be expended on pipeline infrastructure, given that it should experience a comparable decline curve? 

Here's the thing, Ward.  You don't need pipelines.  If you develop a mobile modular unit that converts natgas directly into alcohol, then you can transport the stuff out of there in tank trailers.  Alcohol has an industrial market, as well as a fuels market.  Since that gas is basically free, if not converted and sold then it gets flared instead,  whatever you get for the alcohol is profit. And when the well is exhausted, hey bring the big truck and haul it to the next well site!

Edited December 16, 2019 by Jan van Eck

[ronwagn + 6,290]

18 hours ago, PE Scott said:

Wasting it doesn't make sense, but then what other choice do the producers have that's economical and feasible today? You cant pull the oil out of tight shale without the associated gas. 

It seems like there are a few ways to go:

1. Put a punitive tax/fee on flaring

2. Subsidize the storage/sequestering of CH4

3. Offer up some grant money to whomever can come up with the most economical and feasible method of using/converting CH4 onsite.

I'm sure there's another broad path to take I'm not considering.

Personally, I'm against over regulating. I think it stifles economy. I'm more for creating a market to absorb the supply. You guys have listed lots of different ways to use/convert NG in other threads....what would it take to make any of them economically viable?

 

I think your attitude is the norm on this issue. I would like to see mandatory use of the natural gas onsite or through some  sort of transportation be it pipeline, trucked CNG or LNG, onsite use for running equipment and trucks, producing other chemicals and transporting them, producing electricity with the natural gas and transporting it. My thought is that the price increase in oil would be minimal and that it would actually be profitable once established. Continuing on as we are is morally wrong due to the waste of natural gas and the pollution involved. 

Creating a market is a good idea and I have always felt that natural gas trucking should be promoted by the industry to create a market. The problem is apparently that there is more money in selling diesel with no marketing needed. 

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

1 hour ago, Ward Smith said:

Given that we know the decline curve on new wells is around 70%, how much investment should be expended on pipeline infrastructure, given that it should experience a comparable decline curve? 

The answer would be ‘whatever it takes’.

Keep in mind that this was a known ‘by-product’ of production (and the drastic decline curves were also understood and anticipated) before a rig was moved onto location. Gathering systems OR processes as described by Jan and Ron should have been part and parcel of the business strategy long before the rig arrived.

Again, being proactive would have avoided the situation the operators now find themselves and would have shown ‘due diligence’ by the operators.

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

It looks like the GOR is Large and rising

[ronwagn + 6,290]

1 hour ago, Ward Smith said:

Given that we know the decline curve on new wells is around 70%, how much investment should be expended on pipeline infrastructure, given that it should experience a comparable decline curve? 

Pipelines are just one option of many for using the natural gas. 

[PE Scott + 563]

I don't disagree with anything you guys have said. I'm a little surprised how passionate you all are about regulating flaring. It absolutely is a huge waste. About the only time I think there may be an excuse is if it's so sour it's too difficult to work with. Even then, some of you more familiar with the separation and processing side may know a good way to deal with that. 

If I were an oil exec, I feel like I'd recognize that one of the biggest issues is as @Douglas Buckland said, it tarnishes the image of the oil industry. This is where I think it would be beneficial to work with environmentalist and show that the NG can be put but to use producing clean energy and replacing coal(not just offsite at plants, but with modular field stations), serving as a feedstock for alcohol that can be turned into damn near anything, used for foam/gel injection on fracs as opposed to water, sequestered in flooding operations, piped offsite to market, used to produce water for crops, etc. 

As a company who's primary drive is to make profit, I can understand why flaring is attractive in places like the Permian. A market basically doesn't exist for NG. I think/hope that will change with the growing pipeline and export capacity. I'm always a little shocked that more NG isn't sequestered into previously deplenished reservoirs. It woul be easy to extract again in the future if/when market conditions were attractive(or the facilities @Jan van Eck mentioned became available) and it would be conserved as a strategic resource for the host country. Also, it would greatly reduce CO2 output, which would appease a large crowd.  I'm certain it all comes down to "If it don't make dollars, it don't make sense" mentality. 

Regardless, it's interesting to me that I think this is something both AGW believers and denialist can probably get behind. Perhaps this is common ground the oil industry should pursue if for no other reason than to save face.

 

My earlier comments weren't so much my personal attitude towards flaring, as I feel much the same way you guys do. This is a problem I often think about actually. It's more my realization that if nothing is done, flaring continues. If its heavily regulated somehow, probably a great deal of production will be halted in the U.S. and we'd lose some of the FF independence we've come to appreciate along with a large number of jobs (and flaring continues elsewhere). So, I've always thought both of those are uphill battles and it would be more practical to create a process by which it was economical and even profitable to process the NG onsite in some manner....especially if it was a net 0 CO2 process.

Edited December 16, 2019 by PE Scott

[canadas canadas + 136]

Given the public sensitivity these days to greenhouse gases and their emissions, perhaps getting companies that produce hydrogen gas (H2) from methane (CH4) to these sites to convert the methane to hydrogen could be a step since methane is the number one source for hydrogen production currently.  Another is to use onsite generators that can use natural gas to make electricity.