Why do we not hear the Global Warming folks chastising the Saudis for flaring off so much Methane?

Question

I read somewhere that the Saudi flares burning off natural gas from their wells is the brightest single light on the planet. Must be lots and lots of CO2 and H2O generated by such a massive set of flames.

Yet I never hear a peep about this waste of energy and source of "Greenhouse Gases".

Many winters I hear of folks in the USA freezing because of insufficient supplies of Natural Gas for heating, yet we do not bring it over in liquid form so we have sufficient to keep our population warm at times. Or are our leaders counting on Global Warming to eliminate the need for heating?

When a natural resource is being wasted, and "polluting" the atmosphere, where are the protests from the Climatologists, the Ecologists, and the Global Warming warning preachers? Does money talk that loudly to them?

And why does the UN Consensus not hit terrorists who release gases too?

Maybe we need a televised concert thrown downwind of the flared-off gas? Save money on lighting, especially at night!

Part of my question was why the UN does not crack down hard of the terrorists who blow up fuel lines and storage areas and release the greenhouse gases...surely the Consensus, and the IPCC, realize what that does...yet I see no efforts to really control terrorism or guard these places to prevent the pollution caused by their repeated breaching.

Answer 1

This was the case thirty years ago. Methane is now captured and not flared. May be reinjected or shipped as LNG. Satellite pictures indeed used to show middle eastern flares as a big feature to be seen from outer space at night.

Edited Comment http://www.intertanko.com/pubupload/curt.pdf contains some information on trade routes

Answer 2

They would have to boycott, demonstrate every nation that has oil and natural gas wells.
United States
Canada
Venezuela
Trinidad
Nigeria
Russia
Saudi Arabia
Iraq
Iran
United Kindom
Norway
Algeria
Indonesia
Netherlands
Kazakhstan
Turkmenistan
China
Italy
Brunei
Malaysia
Myanmar (formerly Burma)
Mexico
Australia
New Zealand
Bolivia
and more

Some companies use the waste gas to generate electricity for their refining processes but the excess has to be burned off. Right now it is economically to store all the waste gas.

Note to think about:
Petroeum Jelly (Vaseline) was a waste product from oil. It was discarded until some economic value was discovered or created.

Good Luck.

Answer 3

The problem is that capturing, condensing and shipping the natural gas often takes more energy than the gas contains. In a nation like Saudi Arabia, with abudant sources of the much more energy-rich petroleum, it makes no economic sense to capture the gas. Burning it off is the simplest solution. Finding a way to capture the gas on-site and somehow sequester it would be a great advance, but shipping it around the world is unlikely to be a parctical alternative.

Answer 4

What "Global Warming folks" ?

Both the United States and Saudi Arabia have been severely chastised for attempting to corrupt and censor the findings of various environmental science groups like the IPCC. The United Nations showed unusual courage and multilateral solidarity with it's report on the censorship and disinformation campaign by these two countries. Both governments have been somewhat less aggressive in their attacks since then. The issue you mention is one is one of a very long list of criminal acts amassed by the two countries.

Answer 5

TG is correct about the technological aspects of it. It's not easy to transport natural gas long distances. Usually it's transported by pipeline.

It's not just Saudi Arabia that burns natural gas, there are locations in Africa that do it too. The residents hate it, but they don't have the infrastructure to make use of the gas, so it's most economical for the oil companies to burn it. To answer your question yes, environmentalists are trying to push for an alternative to make use of the natural gas rather than burning it.

What is this terrorist attacking "UN Consensus", by the way? Is it some secret UN army? And how exactly do you figure that environmentalists are making money from the Saudis burning natural gas?

Answer 6

Why do you think of Russia and Canada are combating over who owns the seabed under the North Pole? using fact its MELTING, genius, and that's crammed with OIL they're going to be able to extract whilst the ice is long previous. Do you think of those honestly everyone seems to be naive? they could make billions and that they understand what's going on. the only reaon they are going to do it quite is by using the fact EARTH IS WARMING UP. in case you do not have faith tree hugers, beleive in businessmen.

Answer 7

The idea is to get away from petrol all together...

They would not be able to do that if we weren't such great customers!

Here's what YOU can do about Global Warming without worrying about the rest of the world:
http://www.wisepagan.com/article003.html

Answer 8

Because you're not listening.

follow this logic. Environmentalists are for higher fuel standards, and a reduced use of fossil fuels. Saudi Arabia produces a large percentage of oil. In their production process, natural gas is burned off. Therefore, buy reducing consumption as environmentalists are advocating you reduce the production and by association reduce the burned off methane.

Answer 9

because the one supposed to bark is the main beneficiary of this, no sound is created. future encounter is against pollution forgetting the present encounter against religion!

Answer 10

If you haven't heard about it, you haven't been listening. Here's a sample of what you've missed:

http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTGGFR/64199955-1103819378762/20298989/MarRas.pdf
http://www.boston.com/news/world/europe/articles/2007/06/21/russia_top_offender_in_gas_flare_emissions/
http://www.climatelaw.org/gas.flaring/report/section6