How Big Oil Could Help on Climate Change in Iraq

Reader Comments
Back to blog

Talk to the Syrians and the Iranians first. Report back with your results.

bob of CA 6:23AM February 10, 2009

that last comment was awful...come on man!

Wrongful Death Lawyers of AL 12:17PM February 07, 2009

Did you see the horrible news about today's Miami shootings with the masked gunman?

Personal Injury Lawyers of AL 1:11AM January 26, 2009

What is that guy talking about?

Liposuction of AL 4:31AM January 06, 2009

After reading the prior post, I should add that venting the natural gas is only worse from a climate change perspective... clearly the pollution impacts of flaring are intolerable. Reinjecting addresses both the pollution and climate problems.

Richard Plevin of CA 12:41PM July 31, 2008

Note that even worse than flaring is NOT flaring -- uncombusted natural gas (NG) about causes 25 times the climate change effect of the CO2 that remains after flaring.
Of course, best would be to capture the NG and use it, as the article says. But this releases the same amount of CO2 as flaring. The difference is that something useful can be done with the gas.
The amount of GHG savings achieved by capturing and using the NG to produce electricity depends on what is displaced by using the NG displaces, e.g. coal- or oil-fired power. In this case, the GHG savings is the difference in emissions from the displaced power and the NG-based power.
If the NG is used to produce more electricity that would otherwise have been generated (as suggested in the article) then there is no savings in CO2 vs flaring, although people will clearly benefit from the additional electricity.
In practice, any additional supply probably causes some of each of these effects. The point of all of this is that accounting for GHG savings is somewhat more complicated than it may first appear.

Richard Plevin of CA 12:36PM July 31, 2008

Just over twelve years ago, the Ogoni activist and writer Ken Saro-Wiwa was murdered by the military junta in Nigeria for campaigning against the ecological destruction of his homeland and for asking for a greater share of the oil wealth.
Twelve years after his death, the Niger Delta remains in deep trouble. As Reuters reported this week “A wave of violence targeting Nigeria’s oil facilities shows no sign of abating and may get worse, analysts and security experts say.”
The main target for Saro-Wiwa’s campaigning had been the oil giant Shell that has been extracting oil in the Delta since the late fifties.
Saro-Wwia accused the oil giant of polluting his beloved homeland and of operating to double standards, and of “genocide” towards his people. He wrote passionately about the polluted water courses, and the constant gas flaring that roared in the African night.
For over fifty years Shell has flared gas, as it was cheaper to flare it than use it. The ecological and human damage of this policy is incalculable. The company has ignored government law and law, and court order after court order to continue to flare and poison the African sky. To Ken and the people of Africa, Shell was and remains a climate criminal.
But suddenly big oil is being seen as the saviour of Iraq. It has taken some time in coming, but big oil’s defenders are now fighting back. Take the recent post by Marianne Lavelle, a senior writer for U.S.News & World Report.
In an article entitled “How Big Oil Could Help on Climate Change in Iraq” she talked about the needless gas flaring in Iraq and wrote about Shell’s master natural gas plan for Iraq.
Lavelle wondered “What if Big Oil’s moves in Iraq include addressing the fuel waste and needless climate burden of gas flaring? Even if the oil companies’ eyes remain on the prize of profitable oil production sharing agreements, the beneficial outcome of capturing natural gas—a cleaner fuel than the oil that Iraq now uses to generate most of its inadequate electricity—is something that has to be considered. I’d be interested in what people who care about climate change, energy supply, and the role of oil companies in the world think about the problem of putting out these fires in Iraq.”
My response would be to look at Nigeria and the lessons from there, because some fifty years after they started operating the oil companies have not put out the flares there. Back in 1992, Ken Saro-Wiwa wrote in his book Genocide in Nigeria: “As a final mark of their genocidal intent and insensitivity to human suffering, Shell and Chevron refuse to obey a Nigerian law which requires all oil companies to re-inject gas into the earth rather than flare it. Shell and Chevron think it cheaper to poison the atmosphere and the Ogoni and pay the paltry penalty imposed by the government of Nigeria than re-inject the gas as stipulated by the regulations”.
The lesson from Nigeria is one of ruthless exploitation and horrendous degredation. When people protest against Iraq’s Oil Law over the next few says, I am sure Saro-Wiwa will be with them in spirit, because it is a law that protects Big Oil above the people and the environment. And the lessons of Nigeria have not been heeded…
http://priceofoil.org/2008/02/20/why-iraq-should-remember-saro-wiwa/

Andy Rowell 9:32AM February 20, 2008

The list of 400 is a sham that has been thoroughly debunked in many places, including here http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/12/21/112933/48 and here http://climateprogress.org/2007/12/21/debunking-inhofe-report-over-400-prominent-scientists-disputed-man-made-global-warming-claims-in-2007-andy-revkin/
Flaring gas is a big problem, and a wasteful behavior no matter whether you deny global warming or not. Would you think it good for the air in your house to leave the gas stove on burning, day and night?
I have thought on may occasions about how the war in Iraq has added to the global carbon footprint. Oil well fires, bombs of all kinds, enormous military presence, etc. Thanks for bringing this specific problem to our attention. It is another measure of the horrible waste of the last 8 years -- doing nothing to address global warming, and making it worse by starting an unwarranted war. Shame.

David Sassoon, www.solveclimate.com of NY 7:25PM February 17, 2008

Over 400 World Wide Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007. See http://tinyurl.com/2dv6nz

Dr Coles of CA 9:34AM February 16, 2008

I am unaware of the relative amounts of CO2 from flaring. Nonetheless, my impression is that methane from agricultural sources comprises a bigger threat. In the agricultural sector, where Big Oil could help is to encourage more responsible (read less) use of fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides.
A more signifcant change by Big Oil would be fostering use of increasingly more responsible ethanol in the transportation sector.
Since either initiative could have a negative impact upon profits, my impression is that they are more comfortable destroying life as we know it on the planet while maintaining denial of such consequence.

jcwinnie 6:18PM February 15, 2008