
Why Engineers Can’t Stop Los Angeles' Enormous Methane Leak - timr
http://www.laweekly.com/news/what-went-wrong-at-porter-ranch-6405804
======
mkaufmann
On the topic of what went wrong I think this LA weekly[3] article is a much
better source. The main problem why the well can't be shut down is that the
security valve was removed about 40 years ago: "He pointed out that the valve
was old at that time and leaking. It also was not easy to find a new part, so
the company opted not to replace it.". Certainly a bad decision and it should
be checked if regulations need to be changed to avoid similar problems in the
future.

EDIT: The old version had used the wrong conversion factors, now corrected

The central number is the exhaust mass of 110,000 pounds per hour. So how much
is this really? This is about 50 metric tons of methane per hour. To be able
to compare it with other greenhouse emissions we can calculate the CO2
equivalent by multiplying with 0.01133[1] giving the rate of: 1247 metric tons
CO2e per hour.

Using the EPA Online tool[2] we can relate this to the toal emissions in
Calfornia or the US. The total emission of methan measured in CO2e for
California in 2014 was: 9,546,270 metric tons CO2e. Converted to a rate per
hour this gives: 1089 metric tons CO2e per hour.

So while the well is leaking it is releasing 114% of the normal methane
emissions of California.

Compared to all greenhouse gas emissions the well is causing an increase of
10% in california and 0.3%at the US national level compared to the emissions
from large facilities.

[1]
[http://www3.epa.gov/gasstar/tools/calculations.html](http://www3.epa.gov/gasstar/tools/calculations.html)

[2] [http://ghgdata.epa.gov/ghgp/main.do](http://ghgdata.epa.gov/ghgp/main.do)

[3] [http://www.laweekly.com/news/what-went-wrong-at-porter-
ranch...](http://www.laweekly.com/news/what-went-wrong-at-porter-
ranch-6405804)

~~~
strommen
> we can calculate the CO2 equivalent by multiplying with 3.6

3.6x is how much CO2 is produced by _burning_ methane (i.e. converting CH4 + 2
O2 => CO2 + 2 H2O).

Methane released into the atmosphere is 25x more potent as a greenhouse gas
compared to CO2. See Global Warming Potential of methane in your [1] link.

So 50 metric tons of methane per hour is equivalent to to 1,250 tons of CO2e.

~~~
tlrobinson
There's probably a really obvious answer to this really stupid question, but
why don't they light the leak on fire until they stop it?

~~~
eck
From what I understand, the gas is not flowing out of a pipe at ground level;
the leak is deep underground and it is diffusing into rock and coming up over
a wide area. It's not clear that combustion could be sustained in that
configuration. I have as much oil/gas industry experience as rube goldberg,
but I suppose if they put a huge upside-down funnel over the area maybe they
could collect it and light the top, but I have no idea whether the radius of
that funnel would have to be 10m or 10km.

I feel a good solution would be to implement a carbon tax, and an unburnt
methane tax at the greenhouse equivalent, and start charging the company the
estimated leak. I imagine their engineers would become more motivated.

~~~
Gracana
This video shows the gas coming right out of the pipe:

[http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/12/infrared-video-of-
hug...](http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/12/infrared-video-of-huge-
southern-california-methane-leak-makes-plume-visible/)

~~~
bri3d
[http://www.laweekly.com/news/what-went-wrong-at-porter-
ranch...](http://www.laweekly.com/news/what-went-wrong-at-porter-
ranch-6405804) has a very clear diagram of what's happening. The inner casing
of the well sprang a leak. The gas is blowing all the way back down the outer
casing of the well, then exiting adjacent to the casing. So, while the leak is
concentrated to an area directly adjacent to the well, it's not a matter of
simply capping the pipe.

------
strommen
To put this in perspective: the US emits 6,673 million metric tons of CO2e*
each year [1]. That's 18.2 million per day.

EDIT - I also had some numbers wrong! I was using the total leakage as the
daily leakage.

This leak is 110,000 lbs CH4/hr, 50 metric tons CH4/hour, 1200 metric tons CH4
per day, 30,000 metric tons per day of CO2e.

That's .16% of our nation-wide emissions. Or, about as much as a half-million
people.

*(CO2-equivalent, abbreviated CO2e, is used to normalize emissions of different gases. They are weighted based on their Global Warming Potential (GWP), which is a measure of how effective they are as a greenhouse gas. CO2 has a GWP of 1; Methane has a GWP of 25.)

[1]
[http://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/usinventoryre...](http://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/usinventoryreport.html)

~~~
kragen
A thing I find helpful in cases like these is to switch to using SI units:

    
    
        : user@debian:~; units
        2529 units, 72 prefixes, 56 nonlinear units
    
        You have: 6673 million tonnes per year
        You want: Mg/s
                * 211.45913
                / 0.0047290463
        You have: 110000 pounds per hour
        You want: kg/s
                * 13.859767
                / 0.072151286
    

For some stupid reason, every field invents their own idiotic and
idiosyncratic collection of slightly incompatible units: millibars, Torr,
kilograms per square centimeter, or psi instead of Pascals; pounds per hour,
metric tons per day, or metric tons per year instead of kilograms per second;
quadrillion Btu per year, kilowatt-hours per month, or horsepower instead of
watts; and so on. It's totally counterproductive and I wish people would stop.

~~~
Havoc
>every field invents their own idiotic and idiosyncratic collection of
slightly incompatible units

Well at least chip tech is still measured in nanometers and not beard-seconds.

------
HillaryBriss
This is a failure of both the So Cal Gas Company and government regulators.
And it will be interesting to find out:

1\. How much does So Cal Gas have to pay to the people of nearby Porter Ranch
(who've evacuated their community).

2\. How much does So Cal Gas raise rates on its millions of customers to pay
for this (because their $1 billion insurance policy won't cover the damages
and because insurance rates will go up for the next term)

3\. Which So Cal Gas executives will be disciplined or fired, if any?

4\. Perhaps most intriguingly, will anyone in any government regulatory post
be disciplined or fired?

~~~
scurvy
Sadly, the government will go along with the rate increase; just as the PUC
allowed PG&E to raise rates after razing San Bruno with a pipeline explosion.

~~~
HillaryBriss
I guess you're right.

Then, it's just a question of how much. And I suspect that question will be
hard to answer.

They'll probably bury the actual number with some accounting slight of hand in
customer bills.

~~~
polytap
Here's a little taste of how things have turned out since SCE and SDGE decided
to give up fixing and maintaining San Onofre:

[http://www.kpbs.org/news/2015/aug/03/counting-customer-
costs...](http://www.kpbs.org/news/2015/aug/03/counting-customer-costs-san-
onofre-closure-95-bill/)

------
eternauta3k
Why not light it?
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_flare](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_flare)

~~~
awjr
Because it creates a Door to Hell
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Door_to_Hell](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Door_to_Hell)

~~~
Crito
1) New tourist attraction.

2) From an environmental standpoint, isn't CO2 in the atmosphere better than
methane?

Lighting it would be admitting defeat. I suspect pride is a factor here.

~~~
HillaryBriss
It could start a fire in the nearby brush. With a little wind it could spread
rapidly to thousands of nearby dwellings.

~~~
mirkules
Exactly. I used to live near there, and the area is extremely dry and prone to
wildfires, for example
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porter_Ranch_fire](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porter_Ranch_fire)

------
ck2
Mainstream news completely failed on this one.

I guess it is not as "sexy" as the BP spill since it is not very visual and
you can't transmit "stink".

They are too busy covering whatever nonsense Trump is spewing each week.

------
bkeroack
To really grasp the full impact of this leak, you need to watch the infrared
video (since methane is invisible):
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rnbcsm0VzQM&feature=youtu.be](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rnbcsm0VzQM&feature=youtu.be)

It's been literally spewing out of the hillside _for weeks_.

------
hindsightbias
So, where was all this gas in 2002 or so when CA was being held hostage by gas
suppliers? I never heard of any reservoirs at the time.

------
jokoon
Can't they just capture it and store it instead?

~~~
maxerickson
Without looking carefully at it, I suspect the only nearby storage with enough
capacity to deal with it (if they could even capture it) is the thing that is
leaking.

~~~
ris
So why not capture it and burn it immediately in some safe way? (far enough
from the plume to avoid ignition worries)

Even if they didn't manage to harness the energy for anything this would
surely be better than letting the methane escape.

~~~
maxerickson
I don't know. That they aren't doing it at least suggests that it is not so
easy.

------
dguaraglia
Completely tangential, but: what's the deal with those people shots? I can't
tell if it's my mind playing tricks but they look heavily photoshopped (the
second one, with the couple on the street even looks like it was green-
screened.)

~~~
BIair
Guessing the photos are composites. The background is HDR, but HDR looks
horrible on people, so they were shot without HDR and layered in Photoshop. In
the second shot you can clearly see how the shadows are at different angles.

------
sparky_
There seems to be a common narrative in all of the recent (~5 years or so)
environmental disasters in the US - subjectively, most of them seem to have
been caused, at least in part, due to corporate negligence: either an
antiquated safety component in disrepair, or a safety component completely
omitted contrary to regulations. I'm not sure what the solution is, certainly
dispatching an army of inspectors is not cost effective. Just something that
stood out in my mind.

------
bagels
Why is the title of the post "Why Engineers Can’t Stop Los Angeles' Enormous
Methane Leak"?

Title of the article is: "WHAT WENT WRONG AT PORTER RANCH?"

Smells like clickbait, and the claim doesn't seem to be supported by the
source.

The article says "The gas company expects it to continue for up to another
three months." Sounds like they can stop the leak by drilling a relief well.

~~~
IvyMike
As dang mentioned (search the comments), they redirected the link, and the
original did in fact have that title: [https://motherboard.vice.com/read/why-
we-cant-stop-the-enorm...](https://motherboard.vice.com/read/why-we-cant-stop-
the-enormous-methane-leak-flooding-la)

~~~
bagels
Thanks. It was buried in a discussion about arithmetic. Dunno why he didn't
change the title though, no big deal.

------
ars
I wonder if they could dump huge amounts of liquid nitrogen on it - that would
freeze the methane from the inside and might stop the leak.

------
swayvil
would setting it on fire dispose of it?

~~~
CodeWriter23
Yes, and probably dispose of most of the San Fernando Valley at the same time.

~~~
bmm6o
So, win-win then?

------
gcb0
why they have so much more gas that they have to store in old oil fields?

------
ck2
apparently HN doesn't stop dupes anymore

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10801167](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10801167)

~~~
dang
That doesn't count as a dupe because it didn't receive any discussion. Please
see the FAQ.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html)

------
exolymph
this'll be fine I'm sure :0

