Satellite Imagery Study Provides Check on Global Gas Flaring
01 September 2007
![]() |
Estimates of flaring from the analysis of satellite imagery. Click to enlarge. Source: NOAA |
A satellite imagery study by the World Bank in collaboration with the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) indicates that despite efforts to reduce the practice, global gas flaring has remained fairly stable over the last 15 years. The satellite data suggests a slight increase over the past few years, with an estimated 168 billion cubic meters (BCM) flared in 2006.
In 2006, the estimated global gas flaring volume of 168 BCM was roughly equivalent to 27% of the natural gas consumption of the USA (619.7 BCM, according to BP Statistical Review of Energy) with the associated loading of carbon emissions into the atmosphere.
Gas flaring reduction is a concrete and relevant contribution to climate change mitigation and the transition to a low-carbon economy. Oil-producing countries and companies should step up efforts in reducing flaring.
—Somit Varma, Director of the World Bank-IFC’s Oil, Gas, Mining, and Chemicals Department
![]() |
Gas flaring on an off-shore rig. |
Gas flaring is a widely used practice to dispose of the gas (mostly methane) that is a co-product of petroleum production in areas where there is no infrastructure to make use of the gas—e.g., for re-injection into the ground or for the production of liquefied natural gas for long-distance shipment.
Gas flaring is widely recognized as a waste of energy and an added load of carbon emissions to the atmosphere. It is, however, preferred to the companion process of venting: the release of gas without combustion. Venting is not only dangerous, but releases gases with higher global warming potential.
Reporting of flaring is voluntary, and there has been no independent method for estimating national and global flaring volumes. The purpose of the World Bank-chartered study was to investigate the use of earth observation satellite data for the detection of gas flaring and estimation of gas flaring volumes.
Top 20 Gas Flarers in 2004 | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Official Data | Imagery Analysis | |||
Country | BCM | Country | BCM | |
1 | Nigeria | 24.1 | Russia | 50.7 |
2 | Russia | 14.9 | Nigeria | 23.0 |
3 | Iran | 13.3 | Iran | 11.4 |
4 | Iraq | 8.6 | Iraq | 8.1 |
5 | Angola | 6.8 | Kazakhstan | 5.8 |
6 | Venezuela | 5.4 | Algeria | 5.5 |
7 | Qatar | 4.5 | Angola | 5.2 |
8 | Algeria | 4.3 | Libya | 4.2 |
9 | Indonesia | 3.7 | Qatar | 3.2 |
10 | Eq. Guinea | 3.6 | Saudi Arabia | 3.0 |
11 | USA | 2.8 | China | 2.9 |
12 | Kuwait | 2.7 | Indonesia | 2.9 |
13 | Kazakhstan | 2.7 | Kuwait | 2.6 |
14 | Libya | 2.5 | Gabon | 2.5 |
15 | Azerbaijan | 2.5 | Oman | 2.5 |
16 | Mexico | 1.5 | North Sea | 2.4 |
17 | UK | 1.6 | Venezuela | 2.1 |
18 | Brazil | 1.5 | Uzbekistan | 2.1 |
19 | Gabon | 1.4 | Malaysia | 1.7 |
20 | Congo | 1.2 | Egypt | 1.7 |
The new satellite imagery, commissioned by the Bank’s Global Gas Flaring Reduction (GGFR) public-private partnership, is showing that some countries are burning off more gas than what was initially reported.
The imagery has also reshuffled who are the top 20 gas-flaring nations, compared to previous official figures from 2004.
With a very significant increase in flaring volume according to the imagery analysis, Russia has displaced Nigeria as the top flarer. New on the list are China, Oman, Uzbekistan, Malaysia, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia.
To better comprehend which countries were reducing their flaring, and where flaring was increasing, NOAA scientists looked at satellite imagery extending from 1995 to 2006, and created color-coded, time-phased composite images that produced a new list of the top 20 flarers.
Because most gas flaring occurs outside urban areas, NOAA scientists were able to pinpoint burn-offs and convert their light intensity to measurable quantities of pollution, primarily from carbon dioxide.
To ensure precise correlations, only nighttime photos under cloud-free conditions were analyzed.
Gas flaring harms the environment and wastes a cleaner source of energy that could generate much needed electricity in poor countries. The study’s estimates are a good additional source of information but satellite imagery has its limitations and uncertainties that we are working with the scientists to reduce.
—Bent Svensson, Manager of the Bank’s GGFR partnership
These sources of error and uncertainty include variations in flare efficiency, mis-identification of flares, non-continuous sampling, and environmental effects like snow reflection.
Nigeria, which for years was the No. 1 flarer, has been gradually reducing its output with the help of the GGFR. The partnership helped put together that West African country’s Kwale flaring reduction project—the first and biggest from Africa to be registered under the Kyoto Protocol’s Clean Development Mechanism.
Reducing flaring can be costly, and in a high oil price environment, oil development projects are highest on the list of the producing countries’ capital investment projects. In recent years, renewed efforts have been made to eliminate flaring, such as re-injecting natural gas into the ground to boost oil production, liquefying it for shipment to international markets, transporting it to markets via pipelines, or using it on site for generation of electricity or for distribution to nearby communities. Carbon credits also encourage those countries to undertake gas flaring reduction projects.
If they’re getting a 30 percent return on petroleum production and only 10 percent on natural gas after infrastructure costs, you know what they’re going to do. You have to balance them out.
—Bent Svensson
The GGFR partnership has grown to 14 oil-producing nations—including Nigeria but not Russia— that are responsible for about 70% of flaring worldwide. Gabon, Nigeria’s West African neighbor in the petroleum-rich Gulf of Guinea, will officially become the newest GGFR partner in the coming weeks. The partnership also includes 10 major oil companies.
GGFR doesn’t directly invest in projects, but it brings the countries and companies together to work on reducing barriers to gas flaring reduction. These barriers, particularly in developing countries, include: lack of effective regulatory frameworks and access to financing, insufficient infrastructure and poor access to local and international energy markets.
GGFR has undertaken gas-flaring reduction projects in eight countries, and a majority of GGFR partners have endorsed a global standard for flaring reduction. The partnership is assisting Algeria, Cameroon, Equatorial Guinea, Kazakhstan, Nigeria, and Qatar to meet target dates for zero or minimum flaring.
Collectively, GGFR projects underway will potentially eliminate some 32 million tons of greenhouse gases by 2012.
Resources:
In 2006, the estimated global gas flaring volume of 168 BCM was roughly equivalent to 27% of the natural gas consumption of the USA
That's incredible.
Posted by: jack | 01 September 2007 at 11:58 AM
What a complete and utter waste. If we're going to burn it we need to at least put it to some use.
Posted by: Cervus | 01 September 2007 at 12:04 PM
What a disgrace. A poor country like Nigeria is able to accurately report their flaring of 24 BCM whereas Russia report 14.9 BCM when they in fact burn 50 BCM. I don’t believe for one minute that Russia doesn’t know how much flaring they are responsible for. Russia is deliberately manipulating this information to look better than they are. Russia would be much better off in the long run if they were honest about their problems.
Posted by: Henrik | 01 September 2007 at 01:33 PM
All this while Gazprom is having trouble meeting market demand.
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | 01 September 2007 at 01:43 PM
Maybe we should call for NG markets after all, Iran wants to do that since they have almost no refineries to make gasoline but they are are just burning way NG like Jimi Hendrix burned guitars.
Posted by: Ben | 01 September 2007 at 04:35 PM
Maybe we should call for NG markets after all, Iran wants to do that since they have almost no refineries to make gasoline but they are are just burning way NG like Jimi Hendrix burned guitars.
Posted by: Ben | 01 September 2007 at 04:36 PM
NG in an inconvenient place, like an offshore rig, is a nuisance. NG in a pipeline headed to a consumer is an increasingly scarce commodity.
As the saying goes: location, location, location.
Posted by: Lou Grinzo | 01 September 2007 at 04:41 PM
Considering how expensive natural gas is and they are still blowing it away, you can see how tough of a problem it is. Most of the places its flared are remote. Building a pipeline would not work. Having locals (if any) use it is the best idea. It is not pure so until recently it was not easy to run a generator off of it. (there are now good power systems made just for flare gas) So until they can find a good way to easily and cheaply liquefy and store it for transport there is going to be alot more wasted.
Posted by: hampden wireless | 01 September 2007 at 05:38 PM
Considering how expensive natural gas is and they are still blowing it away, you can see how tough of a problem it is. Most of the places its flared are remote. Building a pipeline would not work. Having locals (if any) use it is the best idea. It is not pure so until recently it was not easy to run a generator off of it. (there are now good power systems made just for flare gas) So until they can find a good way to easily and cheaply liquefy and store it for transport there is going to be alot more wasted.
Posted by: hampden wireless | 01 September 2007 at 05:39 PM
Purify it, polymerize it and pump it with the oil.
Posted by: Ben | 01 September 2007 at 05:57 PM
@ Ben -
simply shipping associated gas in oil pipelines as a gas would damage the pumps. Unfortunately, converting it into a liquid ("polymerization") implies the installation of an expensive Fischer-Tropsch or methanol generator process near the well head. If you know of a different chemical liquefaction technology, especially one suitable for small scales, please reply to this post.
One of the problems is that many of these countries do not offer a stable investment environment for Western companies. At the same time, they are interested in maximizing short-term return on investment in the production and logistics infrastructure. In that context, associated gas is more often than not a waste product.
Other than re-injection into the reservoir - which geology does not always permit - using associated gas to produce electricity appears to be the easiest way to avoid wasting it altogether. You will need to install a large electric power line. This is less onerous than it sounds in the context of an oil pipeline since the pumps along the way are powered electrically anyhow. In new pipeline construction, the incremental cost is basically the additional copper needed to carry the higher load.
On the other hand, the incremental *energy* cost of this electricity is zero. It should be economical to use it in primary aluminum production at a suitable location, possibly very far from the well heads or even off-shore.
Replacing steel with aluminum is a good way to reduce the weight of car bodies, which in turn improves their fuel economy. Plus, aluminum can easily and profitably be recycled.
Posted by: Rafael Seidl | 02 September 2007 at 07:01 AM
Unfortunately like FT, electricity generation is also expensive and useless if there no one near by that need the power, such as say a aluminum processing plant which has to be close to the alumina source.
I would go for pumping it back underground, jsut burn some to power the pumps.
Posted by: Ben | 02 September 2007 at 09:19 AM
My understanding is that most of these pumps require electricity be generated on site. I've heard that they used to ship diesel to the stations to run the pumps. Which is crazy if electricity can be generated on site using the waste gas. It looks like some of the microturbines run on this stuff without much processing. The electricity can then be used to at least run the pumping stations. Probably only a fraction of the gas produced though.
Posted by: measton | 02 September 2007 at 12:35 PM
Ben,
FT infrastructure is orders of magnitude more expensive than electricity generation from well head gas.
Posted by: John Schreiber | 03 September 2007 at 05:48 AM
Sure enough it is but is far easier to transmit oil over existing oil lines then to install electric lines over vast distances from remote oil rigs.
Posted by: Ben | 03 September 2007 at 07:51 AM
What percentage of total world NG use does flaring represent? That would be much more straightforward than saying the waste is 27% of the percentage of US consumption.
Posted by: Jeff R | 03 September 2007 at 11:01 PM
Does anybody know how much flaring volumes per well? What I am trying to find is whether small scale GTL makes sense? My understanding is that for every 1 barrel per day of diesel you need 10 Mcf of gas per day. So how small a GTL needs to be (bpd) for a gas flaring applcation to make sense? For example, for offshore application (where electricity conversion is not possible) is there enough gas being flared to justify a small GTL mini plant on the platform?
Posted by: Omar Sawaf | 09 March 2008 at 01:56 PM