Nothing to See Here, Move Along

July 2, 2021

This is fine….


MEXICO CITY, July 2 (Reuters) – A fire at an underwater pipeline connecting a platform operated by Mexican state oil firm Pemex at the Ku Maloob Zaap oil development has been brought under control, four sources said, after video footage showed flames shooting from the waters of the southern Gulf of Mexico.

No injuries or major impact on production were reported following the early-morning fire at the offshore complex, said the sources, from shipping companies in the area and Petroleos Mexicanos (Pemex).

Ku Maloob Zaap is one Pemex’s most productive projects, accounting for more than 40% of its 1.68 million barrels of daily crude production. The development was producing 726,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude at the moment of the incident, according to an incident report shared by one of the sources.

“The turbomachinery of Ku Maloob Zaap’s active production facilities were affected by an electrical storm and heavy rains,” the report said.


5 Responses to “Nothing to See Here, Move Along”

  1. Keith McClary Says:

    If it is natural gas burning, you probably shouldn’t put it out because then you get an explosive mixture – kaboom. So those pumper boats are just for show.

    Besides, CH4 is worse than CO2 for GW.

  2. painedumonde Says:

    I have it on good authority that Lucifer is a bit gobsmacked.

  3. Gingerbaker Says:

    “Besides, CH4 is worse than CO2 for GW.”

    I am not sure that is true, per se.

    1) Our appraisal of this is based on the the greenhouse effect of a molecule of CH4 vs a molecule of CO2. But the analyses are always very short term – instantaneous, which gives CH4 as 80-100 times more potent, 100 year (iirc) which gives a number of 25 times more potent.

    But, CH4 has a half-life in the atmosphere of only about 5 years. And CO2, in actual effect, has a lifespan in the atmosphere of thousands of years. So, we have to ask – are we using the correct lifespan analysis?

    2) I have seen writings by physicists who say that molecule vs molecule the re-radiation by CO2 is actually stronger than CH4, but CH4’s larger supposed effect is because it is a thousand times less concentrated than CO2. How that actually works is something that has never been satisfactorily explained to me.

    3) For this particular scenario – I think you are right. The CH4 if unburned, will go into the atmosphere and cause warming due to CH4, and then every molecule of that CH4, essentially, will become CO2, causing further warming. Since the source of this CH4 is fossil fuel, that CO2 is new CO2 added to the carbon cycle and will cause additional warming.

    4) But if the carbon in that CH$ was, say, from a biofuel, the carbon in it would represent normal carbon already included in the carbon cycle, and would be carbon that was just scrubbed from the atmosphere by the plant from which the biofuel was made. Therefore – and correct me if I am wrong – only the CH4 warming should be attributed to that biofuel CH4 and not attributable would be the thousands of years of its CO2 breakdown product.

  4. pendantry Says:

    The thing that got me about this was the statement I read that said that ‘there had been no leakage from the sundered line’ (or some such marketing bullshit).

  5. J4Zonian Says:

    Isn’t this one of the signs of the apocalypse?

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: