This Breaks My Heart

All oil wells produce a certain amount of natural gas as a by-product. The Bakken oil fields in North Dakota are no exception.

In the Southwest and Gulf of Mexico, this gas is captured, processed, and sent by pipeline for sale.

But the Bakken oil fields are not served by pipelines. The light,sweet (highly desirable) oil is shipped by rail to refineries. Yeah, we are back to the early 1870s in that respect. But natural gas cannot be shipped by rail. To prevent blowout (like the BP accident) the gas has to be flared off. You can’t just vent it as it contains hydrogen sulfide (rotten egg smell and very toxic).

How big is the problem? Check this out.

http://www.ceres.org/industry-initiatives/oil-and-gas/gas-flares-from-space

That is A LOT of gas being wasted. And that is a lot of money. Natural gas sells for $3.50 to $4.25 per 1000 standard cubic feet on the NYMEX.

Is there a solution? Of course. Get the government out of the way so that pipelines can be built from the northern plains to existing natural gas infrastructure further south. With pipelines (and natural gas processing plants) in place the flaring would cease and clean natural gas would be steadily available in the US for domestic use and for export.

As usual, the Obama junta is in the way.

 

Do you have any insight into why pipelines are opposed in those areas? Or, indeed, why pipelines would ever be opposed anywhere?

 

sour gas in a pipeline?

 

what i dont understand is that half of the country doenst have natural gas for heat at all..most liberals dont even know that..

 

"sour gas in a pipeline?"

Taxcutter says:
No. refined gas in a pipeline.



"Do you have any insight into why pipelines are opposed in those areas?"

Taxcutter says:
Environmental extremism, mostly centered in the SF Bay area.

 

We can certainly trust corporations to do the right thing.

 

That's not an answer, that's a dodge. Come on, tell me. What do the critics say? What objections do voices who are critical of such pipelines bring up when the discussion turns to pipelines? I know they're out there, and I know you know they're out there, so I don't get why you have to build a strawman about it.

EDIT: Taxcutter, methinks you have some 'splainin' to do.

 

so they have to build processing plants as well. obviously they have decided its cheaper to burn off the gas than build the plants and the pipelines. the Midwest is full of gas pipelines, no one is blocking more of them.

 

Yes and it is nothing to do with the growth in the oil field or that 70% of the gas is already being captured. And all this new expansion occurred while Obama was president. You probably should do better research before launching another rage-athon thread

 

Yeah. Somehow, in his haste to go into a tirade about how there's no pipeline from the Bakken fields due to Obama's ecologic war on capitalism, Taxcutter missed that yes, in fact, there is one. Just recently completed, in fact. Huh.

 

"We can certainly trust corporations to do the right thing."

Taxcutter says:
In this case, if you got government out of the way, corporations will fall all over themselves doing exactly the right thing.

 

With gas selling at $4 per thousand cubic feet and with a nearly limitless export market (Europe and China) the expense is trivial compared to the revenue. The cost of pipelines and processing plants is not the issue at all. The problem is that government regulations prevent building pipelines and processing plants.

With this much gas being flared off you could make money by building GTL (gas-to-liquid) plants that made gasoline and diesel from natural gas (accepting the energy inefficiency of the GTL process) and ship it off by rail. But GTL plants are subject to 40 CFR 52.21 and permits are a decade away.

 

"...70% of the gas is already being captured."

Taxcutter asks:
Where did you get that one? Or did you make it up yourself?

 

Citation needed. If it costs more to get the gas from point A to point B than the profits gained from said transport and sales, it's entirely reasonable to flare it off.

Like the one in that area that was just recently finished that you neglected to mention?

 

This morning gas transportation from Henry Hub in Louisiana to Chicago Citygate is being quoted at $0.87/DTh. 1 DTh = 1,000 standard cubic feet.
Assume Bakken is twice as far and transportation via a (current non-existent pipeline) would be roughly twice as much - say $1.75/DTh.
Since the gas is currently being flared off its wellhead value is zero. The morning NYMEX quote for natural gas at Henry Hub is $4.31/DTh so the $1.75 (cost) gas would be quite competitive and profitable.

The pipeline just completed was a small-diameter line for natural gas liquids (NGL) which runs down to an existing NGL line in eastern Colorado and feed the oil refinery at Cheyenne. This pipeline - interestingly enough - runs right through the Sand Hills and over the Ogallala Aquifer.

Bakken is central in the Keystone XL pipeline project. Keystone will carry the light, sweet crude from Bakken as well as the synthetic crude from Canada to the US Gulf coast refineries. Right now, all the oil from Bakken is shipped by rail rather than pipeline. The only railroad serving the Bakken field is the Burlington Northern- Santa Fe, which is owned by Obama crony Warren Buffett. All delay of pipelines protects Buffett's monopoly on shipment of energy out of Bakken.

Government is the problem. Because of government, natural gas lights the night sky over the Plains rather than fueling an American resurgence.

 

When oil comes to the surface, it often brings natural gas with it, and according to North Dakota's Department of Mineral Resources, 29 percent of the natural gas now extracted in North Dakota is flared off. Gas isn't as profitable as oil, and the energy companies don't always build the pipes or systems to carry it away. For a year (with extensions), North Dakota allows drillers to burn gas, just let it flare.

From http://www.npr.org/blogs/krulwich/2...ch-of-light-shows-up-in-the-north-dakota-dark

 

Natural gas isn't as profitable as oil, but it still profitable enough to justify a huge transportation and distribution infrastructure. Most of the existing gas infrastructure was built when gas was REALLY cheap - but not blocked by an intransigent government acting to preserve a crony's monopoly.

 

And here's another one who has a heart that is breaking! over nothing in particular but some imagined injustice of his Gestapo government taking away his rights to pull the wings off of houseflies. Gee, you people surely do have some problems Shirley!

 

Huh? Is that supposed to make sense?

 

Let me get this straight. American engineers only figured this out 5 years ago? That they could pipe the gas, instead of flaring it off?

Your education system is really broken.

 

I'm loving this thread. The train wreck is complete.

The Taxcutter Express set off at high speed, thinking it's destination was Obama-trollville.

The Fact and Reason Express set off, just after and a colision course was set... Two trains, one track. THe passengers on the Fact and Reason Express tried to help the victims of the Taxcutter Express, but it was too late.

 

What? During President Obama's tenure as President? That's IMPOSSIBLE! He has engaged in a war against oil. Just ignore the fact that the US is now a net exporter of oil products and the cost of gas hasn't dropped here. Just ignore that oil production is a a nearly 3 decade high.

Just ignore the facts and accept the right-wing's worldview. I mean, it's worked so well for our economy...

 

It is great isn't it! but let's keep in mind that his heart is breaking as we speak.

 

On the flip side, those pipelines have to cut through land that does necessarily belong to the oil companies, and those pipelines potentially can adversely impact those who live in the surrounding areas.

So, there appears to be a flip side to the coin. Should we ignore those who do not want to be adversely affected by a company maximizing it's profit at the sake of their safety, quality of life, and personal property values?

 

You have to laugh. Obama has proved to be the oilman's friend and production is reaching a point where the US is a net exporter of oil. G W Bush, noted oilman is responsible for one of the most successful green energy projects in the world. This partisanship dribble is really a dead end