Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by cmn32480 on Saturday November 26 2016, @12:13AM   Printer-friendly
from the bigger-problem-than-cow-farts dept.

Arthur T Knackerbracket has found the following story:

The development of oil and gas has a 150-year history in the US, with wells stretching across the nation from California to Texas to Pennsylvania. We continue to reap the benefits of the infrastructure we built in earlier eras. But the downside to this long history comes in the form of millions of abandoned, poorly documented wells scattered throughout the country.

Recently, a team of researchers examined some of the abandoned wells in Pennsylvania to build a better picture of how this history continues to impact us today. Measurements of methane emissions revealed that abandoned wells may still be a significant source of methane to the atmosphere.

Methane is one of the more common greenhouse gases, and its warming potential is 86 times greater than carbon dioxide over a 20-year period. So limiting methane emission is an important strategy to curb global warming. Unfortunately, little is known about the ways old wells contribute to methane emissions because they are outside of our greenhouse gas emission inventory system.

Despite the long presence of these wells in the US, there isn't much data about what happens to them after they're abandoned. Many attributes can influence leakage, including depth, plugging status, well type (oil or gas), geographic location, and abandonment method.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by HiThere on Saturday November 26 2016, @08:19PM

    by HiThere (866) Subscriber Badge on Saturday November 26 2016, @08:19PM (#433374) Journal

    CO2 has it's points, but I'd prefer liquid nitrogen for this case. CO2 gas is dilute relative to other air, and liquid CO2 requires a high pressure. And solid CO2 stays where you put it until it evaporates. Liquid Nitorgen is penatrative (because it's a liquid and doesn't stay in one place). Unfortunately, it would take a LOT of liquid nitrogen, because it keeps vaporizing before it gets close to the fire. Still even cold Nitrogen is heavier than warmer air, and it doesn't support combustion. But it would take a LOT of liquid nitrogen.

    --
    Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 1) by Francis on Sunday November 27 2016, @04:08PM

    by Francis (5544) on Sunday November 27 2016, @04:08PM (#433656)

    That's always the problem with things like this, scale. Just about anybody can put out a trash can fire if it's aways from other flammable materials. It's not that hard to do. But, when that flaming trash can is the size of a building, even if it's a literal can of flaming material, that becomes much harder to extinguish. Whereas a single house hose would probably put out the former, you'd need more than a few hoses to extinguish the latter and probably specialized techniques.