Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

4 Comments

  1. This makes me wonder why nobody has e.g. fired a flare into the leak to burn it off and eliminate the invisible poisonous plume.

  2. @E-P

    I suspect the answer would be that the resulting explosion would do nothing to stop the leak and might have some unintended consequences.

    I’m not sure why some sort of conventional flaring device has not been installed to continually flare off the natural gas. That is what the oil and gas industry normally do when the often unusable stuff insists on coming out of the ground with no place to go.

  3. Thanks for the post and the videos, Rod. The infrared video is particularly interesting when I think about it. The methane plume is dark – because the methane is absorbing IR in the band that the camera is sensitive to. Like a leather car seat in the sun, it’s warming up and trapping heat in the atmosphere. A very clear demonstration of how effective methane is at trapping heat.

    Also, the well is in a natural gas storage field, not a field that’s producing new gas. Leakage from storage facilities is just as important as leakage from wells. The EIA web site gives a weekly report on natural gas, including how much is in storage at http://www.eia.gov/naturalgas/weekly/ . Just shy of 4 billion cubic feet in storage as of December 9.

  4. Porter Ranch abuts chapparrel covered hillsides, in the midst of a drought. Shooting a flare into the plume would make sense if you had an idiot manning the flare gun, and ya had a real grudge against sprawling heavily populated developmants.

Similar Posts

  • Radioactive Tuna versus Chemical Aftermath

    In the past few days, both ad-supported commercial media and the social media universe have been filled with stories about how scientists on the US West coast were able to find traces of radioactive cesium and could conclusively link that cesium to the material released from the Fukushima nuclear power plants. Just in case you…

  • National Academy of Sciences moving towards BEIR VIII

    As has been reported in numerous articles here, there has been a large body of scientific research on the health effects of low level radiation published in the period since the last time the National Academy of Sciences produced a report on the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation. The BEIR VII Phase 2 report was…

  • Nuclear fission qualifies as “ultra low carbon” power; natural gas does not

    In the power system marketing wars, both nuclear fission and natural gas are currently labeled as “low carbon” sources of electricity. Even though nuclear fission reactors can be clean enough to run inside sealed submarines, the forces who oppose nuclear energy insist that there is enough CO2 produced in the fuel cycle and in the…

  • Atomic Show #195 – Health effects of low level radiation

    On Sunday, January 13, 2013, I had a conversation with Dr. Jerry Cuttler and Dr. A. David Rossin. Each of these distinguished gentlemen has a long history of working with ionizing radiation and studying its biological effects on human beings. Dr. Jerry Cuttler earned his PhD in 1964. He has performed radiation research, designed radiation…

  • ExxonMobil, XTO, and climate change strategy

    On January 24, 2014, the The Society of Environmental Journalists and the Woodrow Wilson Center’s Environmental Change and Security Program presented a panel discussion titled The Year Ahead in Environment and Energy. I found out about it via this tweet from Andy Revkin: Video: Enviro journalists on Keystone, gas boom, western drought, much more at…

  • Dramatic Footage of Fatal Refinery Explosion and Spewing Toxics in Venezuela

    One of the frequently repeated comments about the way that the ad supported media choses its coverage is that the media tends to focus on “if it bleeds it leads” and on telling dramatic stories. If that was true, why are stories about deadly, dramatic fossil fuel accidents told once and then forgotten while brief…