36654
New member
The standard line from the petroleum industry is that capturing gas that is currently flared at the wellhead, and transporting it to market, is not economically viable at today’s NG prices. Mandating by regulation the capture of that gas introduces costs that are sure to be passed on to the consumer, either at the (NG) fuel pump or through the PUCs in the states in their regulation of NG rates for home heating. Costs of conforming to environmental and other regulations are universally recognized as inputs in rate determination. Or, the capturing of gas that is now being flared could be subsidized, which means finding a funding source for that subsidy, and I’d bet that source would be more likely to come from a surcharge on NG than from other general revenue sources. Bottom line is that if we want to minimize or stop flaring someone will have to pay the bill, and that’s probably going to be the NG consumer regardless of the use to which they are putting the fuel.
Best,
DeVern
Well, when the wetter NG (usable for petrochemicals and plastics) was discovered in the Dakota's, the NG activity in the Marcellus shale rapidly dropped and the associated enginnering firms vacated town. Even some of the pipeline projects to east coast export terminals have been dropped.
When the price of your product experiences a 75% drop, you either need a new product or really cheap labor.