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.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 26 2016, @12:31AM
Trump won. Global warming no longer a problem. Get over it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 26 2016, @12:39AM
Exactly.
The money has been extracted. All that's left is losses.
I don't want to hear it. Now wow me with the latest fracking profit reports.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday November 26 2016, @12:49AM
(Score: 2, Informative) by Francis on Saturday November 26 2016, @01:31AM
Do you have any idea how expensive that would be? Here's a hint, that fire you're referencing remains burning because it's impossible to extinguish. It will eventually burn itself out when all the coal in those seams are spent, but it's neither easy nor affordable to put a fire like that out.
Similarly, when it comes to decommissioned wells, it's not as easy as putting a cap on the top, gas can't just leak out of where you drilled the hole, it leaks out of the ground as well. Methane is lighter than air, unlike oil, so the soil doesn't keep the oil from rising into the air, gravity does. You'd have to build some sort of massive cap over many acres of land in order to prevent the methane from escaping the mines.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 26 2016, @01:39AM
A wild ass guess at triage suggests that some of the really gas old wells in PA and southern tier NY (and all over, really) are not leaking in significant amounts. Others have leaky valves and are leaking a little bit (I personally saw one of these about 1980 way out in farm country) and could be fixed with minimal effort. Others are worse and our resident alarmist Francis may be correct that these aren't worth fixing just yet.
But a measured approach is probably too subtle for anyone in a position to make a recommendation or ruling on this problem...
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Francis on Saturday November 26 2016, @01:45AM
Obviously, if there are ones that can be fixed for a reasonable amount, then they should be fixed, the bigger take home here is that this needs to be taken into account when commissioning and decommissioning wells and the oil companies digging them ought to be billed appropriately to take that into consideration.
I'd be skeptical that most of them can be fixed for reasons I've already outlined. But, if it's just a matter of repairing the sealing job, then definitely do that.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 26 2016, @03:48AM
Others are worse and our resident alarmist Francis may be correct
Wow! Wrong on so many levels! Multiple levels! OK, others maybe worse, maybe, Francis and you both do not know. But Francis our resident alarmist? He is only alarmed about paternity tests! He knows nothing, so he may be alarmed at that, but it does not affect anyone else. And finally: Francis may be correct? Do you realize what you are saying? Francis, who always posts based on what he does not know, if correct? Well, it could happen, I suppose. Random chance, broken clock, Francis. But could it be that you are saying that Francis actually knows methane? That would explain sooooo much. Seriously. Sooooo much.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 26 2016, @02:04AM
Do you have any idea how expensive that would be? Here's a hint, that fire you're referencing remains burning because it's impossible to extinguish. It will eventually burn itself out when all the coal in those seams are spent, but it's neither easy nor affordable to put a fire like that out.
Sure, I saw a documentary film about a coal mine fire, and the solution was to rape someone to death with barbed wire. Should be easy enough to do. Raping people to death is what American troops do best, right?
(Score: 1) by anubi on Saturday November 26 2016, @05:56AM
I was kinda hoping a release of large quantities of CO2 down to the burning area would do the trick. If the fire can't get enough oxygen, it has to go out. Problem is one may have to build a power plant on the ground above the burning area to get enough CO2 to do the job... that is forcing the power plant's exhaust gases down the mineshaft.
This is a raw brainstorm dump... so there are apt to be something overlooked. But then, this site is usually full of raw brainstorm dumps... a few of them useful, most not.
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Saturday November 26 2016, @08:19PM
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.
(Score: 1) by Francis on Sunday November 27 2016, @04:08PM
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.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Saturday November 26 2016, @03:42AM
The system has worked in dozens of coal fires across the United States, according to CAFSCO. In 2007, CAFSCO put out its largest coal fire yet, pumping more than 700 million gallons of foam into the Consolidated Buchanan No. 1 coal mine in Claypool Hill, Va. Cummins says Centralia could be put out in about a month, for about $60 million. “I understand the difficulties of the Centralia fire, but I know what this foam is capable of doing and I really believe we can put it out,” he says.
Stracher, for one, thinks CAFSCO can get the Centralia job done. “I’ve seen this foam in action and it’s really unbelievable what it can do,” he says. Rathbun, however, remains wary of the new foam technique because he has not yet seen it in use. Before PDEP would consider approving such a project, “we would need to see more evidence, track records, proof that it works,” he says. “Centralia is a huge project and we don’t have the money to experiment with it.”
Humanity doesn't stand still.
(Score: 2) by art guerrilla on Saturday November 26 2016, @01:14PM
it was discovered today that the foam constituents used to put out coal seam fires is now migrating to the aquifer and causing aliens to burst from the chest of anyone who drinks water from the aquifer...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 26 2016, @04:02AM
> Do you have any idea how expensive that would be?
When I was a little kid, my older brother shit on the living room rug. Mom told him to clean it up and he said, "Do you know how much trouble that would be?".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 26 2016, @05:24AM
I've been to Centralia. I walked beyond the "do not walk past here" signs. Most of the time you don't realize that there's a fire burning. Then your shoes begin to melt.
There's a reason that nobody's put out that sign, that people would rather give up their town and move away than fight the fire. It's just too expensive a proposition.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday November 26 2016, @05:37AM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 26 2016, @08:38AM
From Wikipedia:
"Although there was physical, visible evidence of the fire, residents of Centralia were bitterly divided over the question of whether or not the fire posed a direct threat to the town."
Sound familiar?