RRC not inclined to deal with flaring

[wrs + 893]

Looks like the RRC wants OPEC to stop flaring first.  They say that reducing flaring by 200,000mcf/day would cost 750kbd in oil production. Wonder what that would do to the price of oil?

https://www.spglobal.com/platts/en/market-insights/latest-news/natural-gas/021920-for-gas-flaring-fix-commissioner-suggests-opec-over-texas?ite=97754&ito=1449&itq=9ffb608e-f28c-49c0-8db5-d616a4e3d7ed&itx[idio]=121459

[Gerry Maddoux + 3,627]

Since flaring is giving oil and gas a bad name around the world, activating green environmentalists like nothing else, a good idea would be for OPEC and Texas both (as well as ND) to stop flaring. I imagine the price of a barrel of oil on the global market would increase by about $10, which would put it where it needs to be. 

And does the amount flared actually come to $1.6B a day in Texas (800,000 mcf/d)? Or did I do the math wrong?

No matter, this one thing is what all the alarmists focus on. The oil and gas industry (esp. Texas) has to work like the dickens to comply with what they have written down in their Statewide Rules (32, specifically), which doesn't say anything about OPEC. I get the logic behind their circular argument, but . . .

There were three people on that stage last night who have avowed to stop fracking: Sanders, Bloomberg and Warren. One of them is likely to win the Democratic nomination. The way the world is going, Trump may just be the last Republican president. Get one of those people in the Oval and we're either going to have states try to secede, or flaring is going to be the last of our worries. Some say the president can only stop fracking if it's on federal lands. If he or she has the full strength of Congress behind him or her, it's Katy bar the door.