America’s Most Unlikely Energy Project Is Rising from a Louisiana Bayou | Hacker News Reader

America’s Most Unlikely Energy Project Is Rising from a Louisiana Bayou

bloomberg.com

31 pointstim_sw12 comments

Oh, they finally got that LNG terminal turned around from import to export. I'd heard that was in the works, but hadn't followed up.

This is way better than flaring off natural gas, which is happening in North Dakota on a scale so large it lights up the area like a major city and can be seen easily from orbit.[1] About 27% of North Dakota natural gas is being flared off, which is embarrassing.

[1] http://www.ceres.org/industry-initiatives/oil-and-gas/gas-fl...

If you don't let people build new pipelines....

The more conspiracy minded note that Berkshire Hathaway is benefiting mightily from this: https://www.google.com/search?q=berkshire+hathaway+railroad+...

Which natural gas pipelines are being held up exactly?

The real problem is the price (i.e. excess supply and lack of storage capacity):

http://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/rngwhhdd.htm

Natural gas has been down for a lot longer than the oil price, and even with hydraulic fracturing there hasn't been much incentive to produce or capture the gas. The deeper shales in Ohio and Pennsylvania produce other hydrocarbons along with gas, so they were seen as a better bet (up until a year or so ago anyway).

The railroads (and utilities, and really everybody) benefited more from the drilling enthusiasm of a few years ago than they ever would by holding up a pipeline.

The interminable holdup over the Keystone pipeline does not exactly encourage new investment.

You don't seriously think companies are going to waste millions planning out a new line if they have no idea when (if ever) it would be approved.

The material being piped is already worth less than it costs to drill and produce, so there is no reason to even consider a pipeline.

When gas is over $7 and oil is over $80 then there might be some interest, but it is going to be a while.

New pipelines are not the answer and never have been. Allowing companies to turn the landscape into a waste land of pipelines is not some answer. I think a lot more people would get educated about pipelines if we started proposing running them through San Francisco and New York and I for one would like to see that happen since new pipelines are supposedly such a great economic boost.

Color me educated: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/23/nyregion/gas-pipeline-bene...

Also this 1.5 miles form my home: http://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20130109/west-harlem/plan-co...

A couple people posted natural gas pipelines in NYC, here's the bay area: https://www.kqed.org/assets/pdf/news/NG%20pipeline_Bay%20Are...

Natural gas pipelines most certainly run though major cities.

Your picture is from 2012. North Dakota made multiple efforts in 2014 to reduce gas flaring. 2/3 is currently sold offsite, 3% is used on-site, and the rest is flared. The goal is 15%, but lack of pipelines is causing some real problems. 27% is what you get when you have federal discouragement in developing infrastructure to handle it. Plus, the government learning curve on difference between fracking and traditional oil rig lifecycle is the embarrassing part.

[edit: also the volume of natural gas has jump by factors which makes improvements and volume sold rather large]

There is a whole 200 mile difference between the distance of ND to LA then PA to LA, so why is it "far away North Dakota"? I'm betting its going to easier to get from ND than PA.

Paging mods for title change

Reply on news.ycombinator.com