Climate Change: Arctic Ice Endangered By Russian Gas Blaze

Climate Change Arctic Ice Endangered By Russian Gas Blaze
WhatsApp
Facebook
Twitter
Telegram
LinkedIn
Print

Reports reaching the desk of Africa Daily News, New York has it that Russia is burning off significant amounts of natural gas as the cost of electricity in Europe soars.

According to experts, the gas would have initially been shipped to Germany.

Africa Daily News, New York gathered that the facility, which is close to the Finnish border, burns about $10 million (£8.4 million) worth of gas per day.

Scientists are also worried that soot from the burn will impact Arctic ice.

4.34 million cubic meters of gas are consumed by the flare on a daily basis, according to Rystad Energy’s analysis.

It originates from Portovaya, a new LNG plant, which is northwest of St. Petersburg. The first indications that something was wrong came from Finns who crossed the local border early this summer and saw a massive flame on the horizon.

Read Also: Tension As Russia Accuses Ukraine Of Killing Darya Dugina

The compressor plant at the beginning of the Nordstream 1 pipeline, which delivers gas beneath the sea to Germany, is located near Portovaya.

Since mid-July, deliveries through the pipeline have been restricted; the Russians attribute the restrictions to technical problems. Following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, Germany claims it was solely political.

But since June, researchers have noted a significant increase in heat emanating from the facility thought to be from burning gas.

However, since June, experts have seen a considerable increase in the facility’s heat generation, which they believe is coming from burning gas.

‘I’ve never seen an LNG plant flare so much,” said Dr. Jessica McCarty, an expert on satellite data from Miami University in Ohio.’

‘Starting around June, we saw this huge peak, and it just didn’t go away. It’s stayed very anomalously high.’

Capterio, a firm that addresses gas flaring, is led by CEO Mark Davis. According to him, the combustion was not an accident; rather, it was a planned choice taken for strategic purposes.

‘Operators often are very hesitant to actually shutdown facilities for fear that they may be technically difficult or costly to start up again, and it’s probably the case here,’ he said

Others think there might be technical difficulties in handling the massive volumes of natural gas being sent to the Nordstream pipeline.

Although it’s possible that Russian energy giant Gazprom intended to use that gas to produce LNG at the new plant, handling issues may have arisen, and the safest course of action is to burn it off.

A trade embargo imposed by Europe on Russia in retaliation to the invasion of Ukraine may also have contributed in this.

‘This kind of long-term flaring may mean that they are missing some equipment,’ said Esa Vakkilainen, an energy engineering professor from Finland’s LUT University.’

‘So, because of the trade embargo with Russia, they are not able to make the high-quality valves needed in oil and gas processing. So maybe there’s some valves broken and they can’t get them replaced.’

Demands for feedback from Gazprom regarding the flaring have gone unanswered.

Specialists claim that as long as the flare burns, it will cost more money and pollute the environment.

‘While the exact reasons for the flaring are unknown, the volumes, emissions and location of the flare are a visible reminder of Russia’s dominance in Europe’s energy markets,’ said Sindre Knutsson from Rystad Energy.

‘There could not be a clearer signal – Russia can bring energy prices down tomorrow. This is gas that would otherwise have been exported via Nordstream 1 or alternatives.’

The environmental impacts of the burning are worrying scientists. Researchers are worried about the burning’s consequences for the environment.

The primary component of the gas, methane, which is a very potent climate warming agent, is said to be far better flared than merely emitted.

Russia has a history of heating off gas; in terms of the amount of flaring, it ranks first among all nations, according to the World Bank.

However, the burning also contributes to other serious problems in addition to the daily emission from this flare of about 9,000 tonnes of CO2 equivalent.

The sooty particles created by partial combustion of fuels like natural gas are known as black carbon.’

‘Of particular concern with flaring at Arctic latitudes is the transport of emitted black carbon northward where it deposits on snow and ice and significantly accelerates melting,’ Prof Matthew Johnson, from Carleton University in Canada said.

‘Some highly cited estimates already put flaring as the dominant source of black carbon deposition in the Arctic and any increases in flaring in this region are especially unwelcome.’

Considering the effect of global warming, these emissions are dangerous to the surrounding; it’s possible to intensify the effect of climate change.

Africa Daily News, New York

WhatsApp
Facebook
Twitter
Telegram
LinkedIn
Print