Emissions Soar as Flaring Frenzy Breaks New Records

[ronwagn + 6,290]

On 12/14/2019 at 11:35 PM, Jan van Eck said:

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.

Please see https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2019/08/f65/Natural Gas Flaring and Venting Report.pdf 

http://insideenergy.org/2014/07/01/north-dakota-to-stop-flaring-so-much-natural-gas/

Edited December 16, 2019 by ronwagn
added reference

[ronwagn + 6,290]

20 hours ago, Jan van Eck said:

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!

One more way of many could use the new electrical lines designed for wind farms. Simply install modular turbines and produce electricity from the natural gas. It can be sent on the same lines that wind turbines are using. See this https://www.currentargus.com/story/news/local/2019/12/13/permian-basin-electrical-grid-continues-grow-amid-oil-and-gas-boom/4407988002/

[Jabbar + 465]

Midstream player Kinder Morgan's Permian to Gulf gas pipeline was supposed to be completed next month.  

Some landowners filed a lawsuit earlier this year over right-of-way and eminent domain issues. Held up construction. I hear now end of 2020 is new target date for completion. 

Big pipe.  Will help but more is needed. The depressed NG prices are delaying Final Investment Decisions.

Edited December 17, 2019 by Jabbar

[Otis11 + 551]

 

On 12/15/2019 at 3:21 AM, 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?

 

Subsidies unfairly benefits those with the best political connections rather than the best solution. Subsidies benefit special interest groups, but are usually not the best solution for the public at large, nor the industry. (Coming from a guy with reasonable political ties in Texas).

Grant money will take a decade or more to actually fund a solution and scale to the point it makes an impact.

IMO - the best solution is simply a establishing a price on flared or vented gas... Say $4/mmBTU flared, and $7/mmBTU vented. This would allow the operator to make a calculated decision on whether to pay the connection fees or flare, overdesign compressor capacity or pay to flare when things go down, clean up gas to sell or just flare what's too sour to be useful, buy compression to reinject into formations for later, or flare, Design low pressure flare or use a VRU or pay the extra venting fees, etc, etc. There are real situations where each of these is the optimal choice - but we as an industry need to be able to see a cost and make reasonable decisions. This will push future development toward the most responsible operators.

(Disclosure - I benefit from the current situation, however 1) I think being more responsible with this resource is just the right thing to do and 2) I think once people start designing their facilities, deciding which wells to drill, timing well pops, and generally just planning ahead more than 3 days in advance - this won't be that painful of a transition. For responsible operators it may even lower costs as it incentivizes the build out of better infrastructure .

 

On 12/15/2019 at 4:03 AM, Douglas Buckland said:

“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.

Wow... while we're generally not too drastically different, I definitely wouldn't say we see eye to eye most the time. But I could agree more... pretty much word for word.

On 12/15/2019 at 7:34 PM, Douglas Buckland said:

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’.

Again - fully agree. Thanks Douglas!

[PE Scott + 563]

12 minutes ago, Otis11 said:

Subsidies unfairly benefits those with the best political connections rather than the best solution. Subsidies benefit special interest groups, but are usually not the best solution for the public at large, nor the industry. (Coming from a guy with reasonable political ties in Texas).

Grant money will take a decade or more to actually fund a solution and scale to the point it makes an impact.

I can't argue any of that, you are absolutely correct. That's why I generally prefer free market to government intervention. However, as @Douglas Buckland said; if companies aren't going to do the right thing on their own, a gov carrot or stick may be required.

Something I think would be interesting is if a process was developed to use the energy from excess gas to power water purification systems that enable produced water to be used for something like agriculture. Maybe this already exists and I just don't know about it. 

[Otis11 + 551]

4 hours ago, PE Scott said:

I can't argue any of that, you are absolutely correct. That's why I generally prefer free market to government intervention. However, as @Douglas Buckland said; if companies aren't going to do the right thing on their own, a gov carrot or stick may be required.

Something I think would be interesting is if a process was developed to use the energy from excess gas to power water purification systems that enable produced water to be used for something like agriculture. Maybe this already exists and I just don't know about it. 

There are a lot of uses for the gas - throw a turbine out there and use it to generate power, and put back on the grid. Use it to run water through RO membranes and clean for other uses (or even recycle for fracking - RO can purify up to 94% of the water btw - so would reduce waste to only 6%. Lot lower SWD needs), burning for power and using to run cryptomining rigs all packed into air conditioned shipping containers (seriously - seen it all now). There are a million options.

The problem is all of the above is either uneconomical, or - even if it is economical - the returns are lower than using that capital to drill new wells. So no one does it (or very few, anyway). 

What's best changes from situation to situation - I prefer the companies decide rather than the government... and in some situations flaring or venting might honestly be the best choice...

Which is why I strongly push for reasonable 'fees' - just charge for the wasted gas and let the companies make the best decisions for them in each scenario. 

$4/mmBTU flared, and $7/mmBTU vented. That's not enough to kill continued responsible development in either basin, (and it's not enough to stop the flaring...), but it is enough to incentivize responsible behaviors and encourage adequate planning by the operator.

My 2c.