Skip to main content

View Diary: Shale oil showers brings gas fires (96 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  skeptical (2+ / 1-)
    Recommended by:
    SpamNunn, 6412093
    Hidden by:
    progdog

    This entire diary is based on an assumption that the light visible from the gas producing areas identified is from flaring and that is what we see in the satellite photos.

    Why do you think that the light emitted by surface site lighting can be distinguished from light from flaring in those
    visible-range photos?

    •  Actually (23+ / 0-)

      The entire diary is based on the idea that flaring natural gas in the Bakken is destructive and stupid. But here are more images if this is what bothers you. And more here.

      Be radical in your compassion.

      by DWG on Sun Feb 03, 2013 at 11:39:09 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I'm still not convinced. (2+ / 1-)
        Recommended by:
        SpamNunn, 6412093
        Hidden by:
        progdog

        Show me the same images with both IR and visible light displayed separately to see how much of the visible light image is extinguished when looking only at IR would would see the flare emissions IR release.

        If the light is primarily from flaring and the flaring is significant, then NASA's tracking of carbon monoxide should also show the same effect.  Does it?

        If there is a gas pipeline to a well site that has been completed, there isn't any reason to flare emissions, but there are lots of reasons to keep operating site lighting.  

        I've not yet seen anything that demonstrates that the visible light images of the natural gas producing regions you're talking about are either solely or primarily from flaring.  

        Did NASA state a conclusion anywhere saying that the observed visible light images are predominately from flaring?

        Oil and gas production sites are usually very well lit, and leaping to the conclusion that natural gas flaring is the cause of the light displayed for that entire natural gas producing region seems to be a stretch to me.

        •  I am skeptical of your skepticism (15+ / 0-)

          NOAA's satellite images form the basis for monitoring program run through the World Bank.

          Inconsistent data and often under-reporting of gas flaring by governments and companies has complicated the global effort to track progress on flaring reduction. GGFR’s cooperation with the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to use satellite data aims to improve the reliability and consistency of global gas flaring data. This has now resulted in more consistent national and global estimates of gas flaring volumes from 1995 through to 2011.

          Be radical in your compassion.

          by DWG on Sun Feb 03, 2013 at 12:58:11 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  That was helpful, but not dispositive of the issue (2+ / 1-)
            Recommended by:
            6412093, Mathazar
            Hidden by:
            progdog

            I raised.

            That group is using NASA satellite data via some method to determine rates/intensities of flaring, and they mention the the ND region you're talking about, but that does not explain your claim that the visible impressions in visible spectrum imagery is from solely/primarily from flare operation.

            Are they using visible spectrum data or IR spectrum data?

            Has NASA used the same method?

            How do they distinguish between flare light and light from electric lights?  

            If the method by which translation of satellite imagery is done to make conclusions about site/geography of the density of natural gas combustion in flares is a methodology that is widely accepted, then these questions should have easy (and not defensive) answers.

            •  Concern troll is very concerned (6+ / 0-)

              Where are the operating lights in this photo? Do they need to take a picture of the fire coming out of the ground using the IR spectrum?

              http://www.nytimes.com/...

              Do you even bother to click on the links people post? Do you just spend time asking lots of questions to make it look like you're raising actual arguments? Is it possible people are being defensive because all you're doing is "raising questions" when the answers are right in front of your face? Do you care at all?

              Are you just wasting people's time with your concern trolling?

              "...we can all shut-up and go back to our caves." - Leonard Bernstein

              by progdog on Sun Feb 03, 2013 at 05:58:04 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  HR'able comment. Ad hom. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                MGross

                Disagreement is not a proper basis to HR.  You should take back your donut.  

                Many hands make light work, but light hearts make heavy work the lightest of all.

                by SpamNunn on Sun Feb 03, 2013 at 07:27:05 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Concern trolling is quite HRable. n/t (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  LarryNM

                  "...we can all shut-up and go back to our caves." - Leonard Bernstein

                  by progdog on Sun Feb 03, 2013 at 07:32:22 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  That's all you've got? You disagree, so you (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    MGross

                    throw out the concern troll tag?   Please.  Grow up.  I, too, question the premise of the diary and the accuracy of the statements made.  I am entitled to my opinion.  If you don't like it, you can say so, but you don't get to HR a statement just because you disagree.   Read the HR guidelines, and respect them, please.  

                    Many hands make light work, but light hearts make heavy work the lightest of all.

                    by SpamNunn on Sun Feb 03, 2013 at 07:39:04 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  You question the premise and the accuracy (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      LarryNM

                      ...but you provide no evidence to support your reasoning.

                      Unlike the diarist, who provided plenty.

                      All of the "questions" may seem reasonable, but there is no actual argument. That is the definition of concern trolling. Look it up.

                      "...we can all shut-up and go back to our caves." - Leonard Bernstein

                      by progdog on Sun Feb 03, 2013 at 07:42:33 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  I did. That's not what he did. (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        MGross
                        A concern troll is a false flag pseudonym created by a user whose actual point of view is opposed to the one that the user's sockpuppet claims to hold. The concern troll posts in web forums devoted to its declared point of view and attempts to sway the group's actions or opinions while claiming to share their goals, but with professed "concerns". The goal is to sow fear, uncertainty and doubt within the group.

                        Many hands make light work, but light hearts make heavy work the lightest of all.

                        by SpamNunn on Sun Feb 03, 2013 at 07:44:09 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

              •  I ask questions because they are instrumental (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                6412093, elwior

                in the search for truth.

                I'm not questioning claims that hydrocarbon flaring operations at oil production sites goes on extensively
                in North Dakota.

                What I am questioning is the claim that solely on the basis of visible spectra satellite imagery data...what is presently being depicted in photos in the diary....that a conclusion can be made that the visible light features in the photos depicted
                demonstrate a case that the light depicted was primarily/solely from flaring and not from overall petroleum exploration site lighting features----such exploration/production sites tend to be well lit.

                What I am trying to figure out is whether the group that is using NASA satellite data to make quantitative estimations of
                annual standard cubic feet of natural gas flared is using any visible spectrum NASA imagery at all.to make these claims.   I'd like to learn more about exactly what method developed by what model does that group makes their estimates of annual volumes of natural gas flared.   In the event that only IR methods and imagery is utilized, and not visible spectrum imagery.....I think that point needs to be clarified because doing so helps any user of the data and the projections of gas flaring it shows.    

                Any method of prediction of natural gas combustion from flaring based on satellite imagery and thus detection of electromagnetic radiation must depend on some type of a model that makes assumptions about heat release from open air combustion of natural gas (thus my question about IR data and not visible data) or release of light in the visible spectra.   Any model confronting the problem of
                light generation in petroleum exploration operations will have to address light generation from both natural gas combustion and from the extensive electric lighting present.

                When a user of a model makes use of the data generated by application of a model it is always an appropriate act of
                scientific and engineering stewardship to evaluate the model, whether model algorithm provides results which are accurate, able to be replicated and are otherwise scientifically defensible.

                I ask these questions because I've seen a lot of imagery from NASA's MODIS platforms on the Aqua and Terra satellite show active burning locations which always include forest fires, but will also sometime indicate industrial sources, like molten slag pits at steel mill sites.

                When discussing the products of visible spectrum satellite imagery data from NASA....I think a fair question of satellite data interpretation is a proper one to raise.   The diary cites the visible light pictures as the evidence of the existence of a claim that the light seen is from flaring and not from other types of industrial lighting commonly present at these sites.   That claim may or may not have anything to do with whatever model method is actually used by that group to quantify annual natural gas combustion from flaring.   My questioning is based on my experience that dramatic claims have to be explainable, and that is always part of the search for truth.

            •  strictly speaking you are correct in asking (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              progdog, 6412093, Calamity Jean

              for IR data for the photographs.

              but do you see how much visible light is present ?

              and do you see how that compares to a major metropolitan area , and how it's not, you know, a major metropolitan area ?

              maybe you should explain to us how in the world a gas field would need that much artificial lighting ?

              I'm afraid your righteous indignation doesn't seem very sincere.

              big badda boom : GRB 090423

              by squarewheel on Sun Feb 03, 2013 at 07:05:07 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

        •  The wells aren't being completed... (11+ / 0-)

          ...and massive flaring is occurring at the site.

          It would take me a while to track down the data, especially on a Sunday afternoon when I'm doing other stuff, but it's well documented.

          I've seen the summary graphs, I believe from EIA; if I can find it quickly I'll post a link.

          “Better the occasional faults of a government that lives in a spirit of charity than the consistent omissions of a government frozen in the ice of its own indifference.” -- FDR, 1936

          by SolarMom on Sun Feb 03, 2013 at 01:42:36 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  "Oil and gas production sites are usually very (4+ / 0-)

          well lit" - That's a gross overgeneralization. Things like drilling rigs and gas plants need a bunch of light, but are not numerous. Completed holes, the vast majority of the sites in any field, use very little light, because there are no people there, only machinery. We're looking at a picture with the bakken field having a light signature at least equal to the of Minneapolis. For all of that light to source from electricity there would have to be roughly as many people in Williston as there are in Minneapolis, and that just ain't so.

          There can be no protection locally if we're content to ignore the fact that there are no controls globally.

          by oldpotsmuggler on Sun Feb 03, 2013 at 05:41:59 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  CO? (0+ / 0-)

          Really?  That's your argument.  NASA doesn't track CO at that scale since it is a well mixing has.  Now way EPA has monitors at that density

          Hay hombres que luchan un dia, y son buenos Hay otros que luchan un año, y son mejores Hay quienes luchan muchos años, y son muy buenos. Pero hay los que luchan toda la vida. Esos son los imprescendibles.

          by Mindful Nature on Sun Feb 03, 2013 at 06:29:51 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Uprated for a BS HR. (0+ / 0-)

          There is absolutely no reason to HR this comment.  None.

          Many hands make light work, but light hearts make heavy work the lightest of all.

          by SpamNunn on Sun Feb 03, 2013 at 07:25:55 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  It's flat out concern trolling and nothing more (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            LarryNM

            "...we can all shut-up and go back to our caves." - Leonard Bernstein

            by progdog on Sun Feb 03, 2013 at 07:34:33 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Liar. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              KenBee

              Concern trolling would be saying "My motivation for raising this concern is because I want to pretend this problem doesn't exist."  This is not an instance of that because the person you like to lie about by calling a "concern troll" is on record as saying that the fact that the flare off is occurring is NOT whats being disputed here.  ALL that's being disputed is the claim that this  flare off (the existence of which was now being disputed by the person you dishonestly call a "concern troll") is the source of the visible lights on the map.  That's not the same thing as claiming the flare off isn't happening.

    •  I've seen natural gas burned off for years. What (19+ / 0-)

      really bothers me is think about if they had spent those bazillions on clean energy?

      The work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives and the dreams shall never die. ~ Edward M. (Ted) Kennedy

      by cherie clark on Sun Feb 03, 2013 at 12:21:19 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  HR'd for concern trolling (0+ / 0-)

      "...we can all shut-up and go back to our caves." - Leonard Bernstein

      by progdog on Sun Feb 03, 2013 at 06:00:22 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site