Offshore flaring halves in four years but onshore hits record high

Flaring in the North Sea has halved in the past four years, the industry regulator announced today. But analysis by DrillOrDrop shows that flaring at onshore fields reached record levels in 2022.

Source: NSTA

The North Sea Transition Authority reported that offshore flaring in 2022 burned a total of 22 billion cubic feet (bcf) of gas. This was down 13% on the previous year and 50% lower than 2018, when volumes were 44 bcf, the NSTA said.

Flaring is where unwanted methane is burned, releasing the greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide.

The volume of flaring in the North Sea is vastly higher than on land-based oil fields. But the trend among onshore fields is going in the opposite direction to offshore.

Figures released by the NSTA this month show that the volume of gas flared on producing onshore fields has risen every year since 2019.

The volume for 2022, at 9,615m3, is the highest since records were first published in 2016.

Flaring in onshore producing fields in 2022 were 38% higher than 2018 and almost 30% higher than 2021.


Source: NSTA

The increase in 2022 was largely due to flaring at the Egdon Resources oil site at Wressle in Lincolnshire, where formal production began in July.

According to the data, Wressle flared more than 2,000m3 in six months. This was 23% of the total gas flared on producing onshore fields in 2022.

Egdon Resources has said it aims in future to pipe Wressle gas into the grid, rather than burn it.

Singleton and IGas

More than half the volume of gas flared on UK onshore fields in 2022 was at Singleton, operated by IGas, in the South Downs National Park in West Sussex.

In 2022, Singleton flared 4,903m3, slightly down on 2021 but higher than the totals in both 2019 and 2020.

Singleton has flared more gas than any other onshore field in each of the years that records were published.

IGas operates four of the top six onshore fields for high volumes of flared gas. As well as Singleton, the company runs Bletchingley (Surrey), Storrington (West Sussex) and Welton (Lincolnshire). These four flared two-thirds of the gas from UK onshore producing fields in 2022.

The NSTA said a fifth of the emissions from the North Sea were from flaring. Today’s announcement gave no data for onshore fields, where flaring is regulated by the Environment Agency.

But the NSTA said flaring at onshore terminals totalled 2 bcf in 2022. This was down 7% compared with 2021 and 44% lower than in 2018.

The NSTA said some flaring was unavoidable for what it called “safety and operational reasons”. But it said “more can be done to prevent the waste of gas needed to heat and power homes and businesses”.

Hedvig Ljungerud, the NSTA’s director of strategy, said cutting flaring was a priority that would support UK energy security and help achieve net zero emissions in the UK by 2050.

There have been growing calls for a ban on flaring on all oil and gas fields.

Earlier this year, a cross-party committee of MPs said flaring should be banned in the next two years. The government’s climate advisor, the Climate Change Committee, and the reviewer of the net zero strategy have made similar recommendations.

Venting, where gases are released without being burned, rose 5% offshore to 2.9 bcf in 2022, the NSTA said. This was mainly because levels were low in mid-2021 because of offshore maintenance shutdowns, it said.

The volume of gas vented on producing onshore fields in 2022 was down slightly on 2021 (1,349m3, compared with 1,389m3).

28 replies »

  1. There is no “trend” in UK on shore flaring. There is one site which has started to operate, and has been flaring whilst starting. It has an action plan to deal with that, going forward. Like when a baby is born, there is no trend in increased nappy sales!

    When it does get dealt with, will there be a report about the trend showing a large decrease in on shore flaring?

    As the final, official finding to allow this site to operate talked about the “transfer” of production from somewhere else, I wonder how much flaring over the horizon has reduced.

  2. Huge numbers onshore, we should be getting very worried about the impact of UK onshore flaring to the future of our planet………

    9,615m3 / year = 26,000 litres / day.

    Scientists estimate cows produce (emit) between 250 and 500 litres methane per day.

    Using the conservative figure of 250, UK onshore methane flaring is equivalent to 105 cows emissions.

    But the O & G methane is being flared. The cow production enters the atmosphere as methane.

    “The volume of gas vented on producing onshore fields in 2022 was down slightly on 2021 (1,349m3, compared with 1,389m3).” Or 15 cows…….

    Perhaps DOD should equate these horrifying numbers to cows equivalent for simpletons like myself to better understand the numbers?

    • The difference between naturally produced methane [CH4] from animal ruminants, insects, and wild life and the so-called ‘natural gas’ flare off, is that living animals synthesise methane from the existing grass and cattle feed they eat in combination with the water they drink and the air they breathe. The result is that cows don’t produce’ methane out of nowhere, they synthesise it from the already natural elements in the environment. The oxygen and nitrogen and CO2 in the air is recycled, the organic elements in the food are recycled, the oxygen and hydrogen [plus fossil fuel pollutants such as gas flaring] in the air are recycled and resynthesised by rumination, excretion and burping/flatulence. Human beings are also similar in that respect, as are all animals, insects, fish and land going, air going, and sea going life in that respect. –

      However, the so called ‘natural gas’ is not fresh from the existing environment, it is a result of the hydrocarbonising effects of fossilised plant and animal life going back millennia to the early carboniferous period up to the most recent fossilisation of plant and animal remains. The gas produced, is therefore not of naturally existing minerals/gases/plants and animals but that of millennia ago that has been buried and fossilised undergoing the decay of whatever was organic into hydrocarbonised elements, called ‘natural gas and oil’. But is in fact a process of anaerobic decay and fossilisation. ‘Natural gas’ is an additional methane [partly] gas, and has not been resynthesised from the existing environment. It is additional to the natural life of the planet. But from a far earlier time, in memoriam.

      So-called natural gas, isn’t just methane alone either, it contains a host of chemical by products that were combined during its decaying fossilisation and carbonisation processes from the surrounding elements in the strata, including combination due to heat and high pressure from the surface down.

      *’ – – ‘*
      ‘Component Percentage
      Methane (CH4) 70 – 90 %
      Ethane (C2H6) – Propane (C3H8) – Butane (C4H10) 0 – 20 %
      Carbon Dioxide (CO2) 0 – 8 %
      Nitrogen (N2) 0 – 5 %
      Hydrogen Sulfide (H2S) 0 – 5 %
      Oxygen (O2) 0 – 0.2%
      Rare Gases (Ar , He , Ne) Trace ‘

      Therefore, what is partially flared off in gas flares is more than just methane as shown here, whereas animal ruminants, insects, sea and land and air life merely recycle the existing elements and resynthesise those into pure methane CH4, [1carbon/4 hydrogen] rather than the decayed elements from millennia ago that are being brought back to the surface and re-emitted into the environment.

      Therefore, the partially burnt emissions from gas flare off are therefore additional pollutant in the environment. Whereas animal ruminants and all life are essentially just recycling and resynthesising existing elements.

      • As someone has just texted me, there is also the natural by product of methane from swamps forests, oceans and wetland areas. Due to the bio-organic decay of plants and animal life in a watery environment, which is similarly the recycling and synthesis of the living natural environment as they were back in the pre fossilised environment all those millennia ago. The process is slower, but nonetheless is a recycling of natural plant and animal decay.
        The other element, if it can be called an element, is sunlight, solar radiation filtered through the atmosphere which provides not just light, but energy and heat, which allows all life to grow and thrive in the first place. Without which there would be no life at all. There used to be vast herds of wildlife roaming locations such as the great plains in Eastern Europe, and Asia, enormous forests and wetlands, all producing decaying matter, and pure methane. America and probably other places used to have billions and perhaps trillions of ruminants all producing pure methane, now sadly many of those areas are intensely aggriculuralised or paved over with concrete and steel in an industrial complex. But even there, methane is produced in crowded cities through waste products and bio-waste treatment plants.
        Whereas so called ‘natural gas’ and oil are additional pollutants in the modern environment.

        • It all depends on what your definition of modern is. As you have pointed out, the sources of methane are similar, methane generated 300 million years ago from dead plants etc or the more recently generated methane you mention above. All part of the material balance.

          The point I was making is that onshore UK gas flaring volumes are insignificant and irrelevant. Take 120 cows to the abattoir and onshore UK methane flaring / venting is totally offset, cumulative = zero.

          You appear to be very concerned about this, personally I would be more worried about methane released from melting permafrost and ocean floor hydrates.

          Methane from cows causes the same atmospheric impacts as methane from any other sources does it not?

          • The provided definition is perfectly correct. It doesn’t matter how much methane [that not further contaminated by additional hydrocarbonised pollutants as shown previously] which are produced by natural living ruminants are synthesised from the living environment naturally.
            Whereas with ‘natural gas’ flaring and all the other polluting activities, accidents and air, water and land contamination, is the danger to all life on planet Earth. That is contaminants from millennia ago that is being re-emitted back to the surface and is a totally unnatural addition [added] to the natural life production which was never a problem. The methane produced by ‘natural gas and contaminants, is CH3, which is decayed methane CH4. It is CH3 from fossil fuels, which is the type of methane found primarily in the atmosphere. CH4 quickly decays in around 12 years in the atmosphere back to carbon and hydrogen but causes around 28 times the greenhouse effects of CO2. – ‘Greenhouse gas emissions’ – ‘* – – ‘*

            Natural living ruminants, production of [uncontaminated with other contaminants] methane has done no harm to the environment and to plant and animal life for millennia. The methane produced by ruminants is naturally synthesised from the local living environment, and is resythesised from the ambient gases, minerals, organic food sources at the time into natural [CH4] methane, with some nitrous oxide and co2 from their waste. In other words, it’s a natural recycling system, not an additional load on the environment. Whereas, the combination of chemicals produced by natural gas is an addition [i.e. extra and above] to that of the natural methane that is recycled from the present environment by natural living animals such as ruminants. The facts speak for themselves.

            Perhaps a quick test would be to stay near to a cow or a herd of cows all day and all night, and then see how you well you feel afterwards, even with the really quite natural smell, which cattle farmers do all the time without any ill effects. Wear strong rubber boots and a warm coat.

            And then go and stand near an operating gas flare. I would not advise standing immediately downwind or upwind for that matter, since the wind direction changes, without protective clothing a heat shield and breathing respirators. Maybe a series of instruments capable of determining the effects would be more sensible. Then you would at least begin to understand what is the difference between a natural herd of ruminants and the off flaring of an untreated ‘natural gas’ methane partial combustion flare and all its contaminants.

            There is also plenty of scientific evidence to prove that the additional pollutants caused by only partially combusting the untreated raw ‘natural gas’ worldwide with all its intrinsic impurities and contaminants, worldwide [remember that the raw untreated gas would otherwise have to be sent to a gas treatment plant to remove the contaminants and add further combustion products before it could be used, otherwise its poisonous], is far in excess of all the ruminants you may wish to count anywhere you like in the world.

            Therefore, the totality of untreated so called ‘natural gas’ flares worldwide, which only partially combusts the untreated gas, is at least equal to, or exceeds that produced by the natural pure methane producing ruminants [as in not contaminated by further pollutants as already shown]. That is extra to the natural life of the planet. That is the problem.

            For proof of that, all that is required, perhaps refer to some scientific studies on the issue. It’s not how much natural pure methane [not contaminated by the additional pollutants as shown previously] is produced by living natural creatures and decaying plant matter, that has always been the case on the planet and will not change. The Earth has continued quite sufficiently with far more animals, plants and wildlife existing before man came along and started to destroy vast areas of it.

            Methane emissions from natural gas flaring underestimated fivefold, US study calculates – ABC Science – By environment reporter Nick Kilvert – Updated Fri 30 Sep 2022 at 2:43pm –
            *’ – – ‘*
            The planet has thrived with far more animals and land/ocean/air life perfectly well for millennia prior to human beings causing additional anthropogenic fossil fuel chemical pollution. Look at the vast uncontrolled burn of ‘forever chemicals’ in the East Palestine Ohio train wreck, and compare that to where anything like that has occurred from natural living ruminants. Cows may produce pure uncontaminated methane, but they don’t burn off vast clouds of toxic chemicals into the atmosphere and contaminate two American states air, soil and water in any activity they carry out.

            It is very easy to prove that it is human activity, called anthropogenic activity, that has introduced far more methane and all the other chemical pollutants mainly derived from fossil fuel by products, into the environment. Whereas the previous ecological systems and the planets’ previous climate relative stability had been a life haven for every living creature.

            It’s activities such as gas flaring and similar activities worldwide that has plunged the entire planet into the environmental disaster that is so much in evidence all around us today.

              • CH4 breaks down with the presence of sunlight and chlorine, CH, chlorine is a product of fossil fuels and is leaked into the atmosphere. The result is that CH4 loses one of its hydrogen atoms and combines with one chlorine atom in the form of CH3 Cl, which then becomes chloromethane. That is called substitution, the other methane atom elements decay by losing their hydrogen atoms in similar methods all powered by sunlight and other gasses in its 12 year decay cycle. Otherwise there would be no natural decay of methane in the atmosphere. That is part of the decay of methane into its component elements,. – *’ – – ‘*

                That also happens with the presence of chlorine in fossil fuel by products such as vinyl chloride. Which was burnt in the uncontrolled explosion following the train wreck in East Palestine Ohio.

                • There is also natural chlorine in the form of an ionic compound called Calcium chloride which is an inorganic compound, a salt with the chemical formula CaCl2. [rock salt] There is of course salt in the oceans, where natural substitution can occur with methane in the presence of sunlight to produce chloromethane [CH3Cl].

    • OMG Paul! Look what you have done.

      Now there is green methane (good??) and fossil fuel methane (bad???). How about volcanoes?

      I have never seen so much environmental nonsense from those who try to claim the natural world as their own.

      What is the methane in Texas? Good or bad?

      Nope, YYLee, methane from fossil fuels is an existing element. Cows actually produce methane from rumination. They add methane. Without cows there would be no methane produced by cows. Methane from fossil fuels would still be there and being released naturally, or with some stimulation. As Paul has indicated, the amount being released from UK on shore sites is equivalent to a few cows. Easy, kill off a few cows and the balance is restored. Already been done-my local solar farm has proven to be a better source of income than the dairy farm previously operating on the same land. Job done-for the whole of the UK. I did prefer the cows, the landowner preferred the money. Was he being Green or greedy? (Following that “step forward” the next fields received planning permission for a housing estate as clever legal chaps/gals argued that a precedent had been set. Nice houses, only disruption to locals was the time it took to connect the gas main!)

      Actually, methane production from ruminants can be modified, to an extent. Unfortunately, it requires feeding of materials which have to be imported and I have yet to see a proper calculation around how many cow emissions are reduced compared to how many transport emissions are increased. What seems to be important is that someone makes a profit out of lowering cow emissions and retailers make more profit per meter of shelf space for an “enhanced” product. Such is life, buyer beware, there are many pups being offered for sale.

  3. Paul-the cows are needed to produce the green and pleasant country side in the UK! What was there before is still okay in small amounts but large amounts preclude a large population.

    Just be thankful there are few paddy fields in UK.

    It is all a little ironic as my understanding is that when flaring ceases/reduces at Wressle then oil production will increase.

  4. So CH3 is not methane? Nor is CH3Cl, as you note it is chloromethane. And the natural decay applies to all methane molecules, wherever the origin?

    I don’t recall chlorine in any of the oil and gas production I was involved in, other than in salt (from formation water and or salt formations) and in spent acid (that was introduced).

    Origins of atmospheric CH3Cl:

    “The most likely main source of methyl chloride has been thought to be oceanic emission, with biomass burning the second largest source. But recent seawater measurements indicate that oceanic fluxes cannot account for more than 12% of the estimated global flux of CH3Cl, raising the question of where the remainder comes from. Here we report evidence of significant CH3Cl emission from warm coastal land, particularly from tropical islands. This conclusion is based on a global monitoring study and spot measurements, which show enhancement of atmospheric CH3Cl in the tropics, a close correlation between CH3Cl concentrations and those of biogenic compounds emitted by terrestrial plants, and OH-linked seasonality of CH3Cl concentrations in middle and high latitudes. A strong, equatorially located source of this nature would explain why the distribution of CH3Cl is uniform between the Northern and Southern hemispheres, despite their differences in ocean and land area.”

    • I didn’t think you would be interested in the full chemical name. However, now you can see that chloromethane CH3Cl is still a methane by origin at least, but with one less hydrogen atom and combined or substituted with an additional chlorine atom. As you say, chlorine can be substituted by chemical combination with methane in many ways in rock or gas containing additional calcium chloride CaCl2 in salt water, or in the air above seawater, depending upon where the elements were formed in the distant past or in the present. Perhaps it is that free chlorine doesn’t exist so readily as a free ionic atom as it’s so reactive and has already combined or substituted with other elements, which may explain why chlorine is not found uncombined much below ground with fossilised deposits in hydrocarbons such as oil or in gas.

  5. The chemistry confusion was quite interesting in itself and I did wonder where it was going. When I arrived at “planets’ previous climate relative stability has been a life haven for every living creature” it dawned. A long road to nothing.

    As incorrect statements go, that is a classic, even for DoD. There have been no ice ages? Species have not evolved, with climate being one of the influences upon evolution? Solar activity has modified this planets’ previous climate dramatically for a very long time without influence from the humans that live on it. It is going to continue to do that until the planet is uninhabitable, unless those that live on it do the job sooner. There are many ways to do that.

    • Apparently you have no comprehension of chemistry at all. Not that it’s a surprise, There is no confusion in anything I have written, whereas the comments you provide, prove that its mainly made up from, once again, individual words out of context and misrepresentd with imaginary sophistry of your own. For example, where have I said ‘Now there is green methane (good??) and fossil fuel methane (bad???). How about volcanoes? I have never seen so much environmental nonsense from those who try to claim the natural world as their own.
      What is the methane in Texas? Good or bad? , except on your part. ‘

      Please show where I said any of that misrepresented nonsense anywhere in my post. There is a challenge for you.

      My comments regarding the natural decay of methane, I proved to be perfectly correct, and gave the correct chemical composition and name when asked, for more detail. But of course that would be far too inconvenient for that false narrative proffered in the place of any evidence from the inevitable sophistry, wouldn’t it.

      Are you also suggesting that you would advocate ‘killing’ a few volcanoes too? Perhaps that suggestion would be more sensibly applied by killing off a few partial combustion of gas flares, with all their additional contaminants and radon gas? To add radon gas to the list of contaminants in gas flares. Or would that be far too logical a choice to be made?

      There are a lot of estimates on the amount of methane emitted by ruminants such as cows. However, the feed, on which many cows are fed during their life, is very far from just pasture and grass etc. Particularly that not sprayed by artificial fertilisers, sewage and artificial chemical pesticides. The list of further entirely unnatural things in cattle feed are quite disgusting, and may well massively increase the amount of methane they produce, because cows are not capable of digesting such horrific additives in their multiple ruminant guts. it may be considered what effect it would have on a cows digestive system if it was fed on the chemical dioxins, pollutants and chemical derivatives that exude from the unburnt gas before it is flared off into the atmosphere? It would be a very short and somewhat terminal, cruel lesson.

      For example, *’- Cows Eat What?! 6 Surprising Things Fed to US Cows *’ – – ‘* – I’ve corrected some of the worst American spelling and grammar.

      ‘1. Antibiotics – This one is not a surprise, as the use of antibiotics in cattle feed is well-known and a frequent point of controversy. Just how much? A few years ago, the FDA tried to quantify how many drugs we feed cattle and came up with 29 million pounds of antibiotics in 2009. A report from the Union of Concerned Scientists put the figure at 24.6 million back in 2001, but they were only looking at non-therapeutic antibiotics. In total, they believe the true figure is closer to 50 million pounds of antibiotics each year.

      2. Roly, Poly Fish Heads – Fish and seafood by-products like crab, shrimp, and fish guts are considered a “good” source of cheap protein and are ground up into a meal that can be mixed with other feeds. This isn’t a new idea, but it isn’t widespread either, used most often by farmers and ranchers on the coasts, according to Mother Jones.

      3. Chicken Faeces – Nothing like recycling waste from other parts of the farm! In a recent On Earth story, Brad Jacobson revealed cattle farmers are increasingly feeding their livestock chicken poop. This questionable meal might contain features, bacteria, antibiotics, and heavy metals, and may even promote the spread of disease like mad cow disease.

      4. Ground Rock – Limestone, a rock, makes for great calcium and seems to promote growth, according to some research. One study suggested cows that eat limestone have more “desirable carcasses”, whatever that means. We should probably stick to grass.

      5. Sawdust – A feed ingredient that may be catching on due to its inexpensive nature, sawdust is technically plant material and after being soaked in nitric acid, it becomes digestible. So cows now eat it. (added nitric acid)

      6. Candy – (sweets in English) In an effort to slash costs and increase profits, livestock corporations have now begun feeding their cattle super cheap processed foods like cookies, gummy worms, chocolate, fruit loops and a whole list of candies. Wrappers and all, some farmers are finding cheap candy can provide a great source of sugar for cattle, which provides energy and makes them fatter. The practice of feeding candy to cattle began when corn prices skyrocketed. And rather than mess with unwrapping each piece for Bessie, wrappers are left on to save time. “I think it would pass through just like excess fibre would,” said one nutrition expert from Tennessee. Wrappers? Sugar? Since when do cows need sugar?

      The diet of the average American isn’t that great, but the diet of the average American cow is far worse. Their health is an afterthought in this age of production and consumption.’ Obese cows on sugar?

      There is also the added problem, in that the feed given to cows, particularly in the winter, consists mainly of grains, like soya and corn, most of which are cheap GMO products that no human in their right mind would eat, but cows are not given the option of choice. There has never been a study on what the cows were fed relating to their methane output.

      I suggest that anyone who thinks that cows only eat grass, like all the ruminants in pat millennia, will have a nasty shock, maybe they should change their diet to those shown above and see what it does to their health and digestion and how much methane they produce afterwards. Perhaps similar to the verbal methane produced in those comments.
      There is another challenge, anyone who cannot see fossil fuels as the primary source of pollution worldwide cannot afford to pass up, or pass out, you might say.

      There is something further to say in the next post on gas flares, and burning toxic chemicals in general, which emerged during the information on the East Palestine Ohio train wreck, and why the highly toxic ‘forever chemicals’ such as the TCDD dioxin which were deliberately burnt in that un-‘controlled burn’ that will cause damage to the health and fertility of generations to come [or maybe not to come if fertility is so severely at risk]. I’m always happy to correct the incessantly misleading, misrepresentative, and incorrect comments from those who know no better, whether they are inconvenient to the commenter, or not.

      • Oh dear YYLee.

        What is fed to some cattle somewhere in the world is indeed not to my liking, but that is why I chose where to buy my cattle derived product from. I live in UK and can make that choice pretty easily, even down to the individual producer. If I visit USA I can still make my choice but not quite so easily. I was employed as an animal nutritionist for some years, so would look with that eye not yours which seem to be very selective [Edited by moderator]

        Superb quality products from cattle in USA can be very readily sourced. Yes, there are poor quality products. Not everyone can afford the best quality products, even in USA. Shame, but such is life-and death. Those who buy the superb quality products think they might live longer or better. Most will be mistaken, but will find that out too late, or too soon.

        Just to help you out somewhat, your attachment spoke about “limestone”. Limestone is added to nearly all supplementary animal feed and without such there would be serious animal welfare issues. OMG, so are vitamins and trace elements, so is salt (sodium chloride.)

        [Edited by moderator]

        There are masses of studies upon exactly that and how to modify via what is fed. As you don’t know what is fed, and why, the more complicated bit about what many ruminant nutritionists spend their time on is not really to be expected but please don’t assume others are in the same position.

        [Edited by moderator]

        If anyone else wants to explore the reality, try yucca, and follow the trail-for a start.

        • No. You are quite incorrect once again. As in all of my posts, the facts speak for themselves, and that is another of those incontrovertible facts all by itself. Again anything which, it appears, can’t be handled is ignored, only to concentrate, completely incorrectly, on individual words taken out of context and entirely misrepresented, rather than the facts and the truth I have provided for your education on the subject. Provide the quotes of anything I have written as misrepresented in those comments, which you appear to have even misread what you have written yourself and completely misrepresented anything I have written. That requires proof, please provide it, instead of slipping into yet another yawning chasm of sophistry and delusion.
          In that post above, it is written, ‘Your comment about studies upon cows methane output related to what they eat is pure fabrication’. That is again also incorrect. If you have any contrary proof of the truth about the additives fed to cows, then you can provide a link to the documents or scientific studies and I will consider the efficacy of your standpoint, which, up to now, has been less than factual, or relevant.
          You have also contradicted yourself yet again, you write that ‘Your comment about studies upon cow’s methane output related to what they eat is pure fabrication’ and yet you then write that

          ‘Limestone is added to nearly all supplementary animal feed and without such there would be serious animal welfare issues. OMG, so are vitamins and trace elements, so is salt (sodium chloride.)’

          So there you admit that the information I provided you with, including the link to the origin of that information, is in fact correct and that you agree with it. Contradiction of such claims, once again, does not exactly assure one of any factual consistency in your already proven to be incorrect assumptions and openly unfounded opinions.

          As I said previously, that you need to try to prove that what I have written is in any way related to your subsequent incorrect claims. Which has nothing to do with your comments, which merely proffer yet more spurious incorrect misrepresentation and misreporting, to the point of the usual typical denial of the facts and the truth of anything I did write.

          The comment above bears no relationship to the subject of chemistry, which was the subject of the discussion that it was felt necessary to pursue by some rather than admit to the fact that cows and other ruminants are nowhere near as dangerous to the living environment worldwide in terms of health and fertility, food production and air and water pollution.

          The long list of chemicals and by-product derivatives of fossil fuels, be that from flares, accidents, and TCDD dioxins that pore out of fossil fuel plants and extraction sites. What is evident from that post, that there is no knowledge or competency at all. A subject which, incidentally, I am professionally proficient and practised in. Then please provide the evidence that I said anything that you claimed I said. Which I did not. As usual, once again, the denial of your incorrect spurious claims do not help with those comments’ credibility in any way whatsoever. Denial without proof of contrary facts, links or any verification that it is anything other than vague opinion with foundation, does not convince anyone

          Returning to that unfounded opinionated comment above, what you write simply reveals that ‘Your unfounded unverified comment about my real factual and linked proof to studies upon cow’s methane output related to what they eat is your own pure fabrication, not mine, so please stop pontificating as if you are a fountain of scientific knowledge if you have no proof or facts to contradict anything I have written on the subject.’

          With all of that proffered nonsense over and done with and out the way, as I had written previously, there is further information that indicates just why flares even exist, and why burning off dangerous pollutants resulting from the fossil fuel industry derivatives and by -products are preferable for the industry to dealing with the chemicals on site with its costs and publicity.

          • Try yucca and follow the trail.

            Not difficult. There are other trails.

            It was yourself who suggested the nonsense “there has never been a study on what the cows were fed relating to their methane output” That is fabrication. You may not be aware of them-because there are many-but that is not what you posted. [Edited by modeator]

            No, I did not contradict myself, they are two separate statements, one is about methane output one is about supplementary feed. Many trials have been done on both. Supplementary feed still needs to provide basic minerals to animals-including calcium, otherwise it would hardly be supplementary feed. That is about animal nutrition. The most plentiful way of accessing calcium for livestock is from limestone. I have yet to find a cattle farmer I could fool by saying to him/her “I have formulated this ration for you but I decided to not meet the calcium requirement as someone doesn’t like limestone being quarried for the purpose. The vet. bills will be your responsibility, and you probably will require antibiotics”

            Either way, keep on digging, and no-one will notice the avoidance of the molasses and what cows would prefer if given an option.

            It was yourself who decided to post about such matters, YYLee. It wasn’t illuminating. More smoke than light. [Edited by moderator]

            • HaHa! i must have hit a nerve? Two attempted justifications for the price of none. Still evading the facts. What a train wreck of a denial and nonsense that was? That has all the hallmarks of an unfortunate premature burn explosion, with all the inconvenient toxic fall out, doesn’t it.
              Still providing no proof whatsoever in anything said. No facts, no links, no documentation, just more attempts at unsubstantiated opinion, denial and blatant evasion. All unsuccessful.

              ‘Reduce Emissions While Improving Animal Welfare’??
              ‘* – – ‘*
              The cows should wear masks? Maybe it’s going to be masks for toxic ‘gas flares’ next? [now that really would make some common sense]. And even bigger masks for methane emitting volcanoes? [just a joke?]

              But, it has been suggested, really it has, that why not cover the whole of the earth with one enormous umbrella of sun reflecting aerosol dust? [calcium carbonate [CaCO3]]. [how much energy to get it up there?] Deny the sun to the Earth? That sounds like some crazy sun concealing weapon, doesn’t it, and all on the theory that cows are more dangerous than fossil fuel ‘forever chemical’ by-products. Which is just as crazy as killing cows, not gas flares. Who said that?

              The Chinese and Bill Gates have already thought of that one. – ‘ – How a giant space umbrella could stop global warming – ‘ *’ – – ‘* I’m surprised that someone hasn’t proposed ‘killing the sun’? Or perhaps using it as a giant gas flare? Stranger things have been said by some, only too recently. Even stranger things have already been said. Kill the cows? Kill anything but gas flares?

              ‘Bill Gates support for ‘bonkers’ study of dimming the sun is ‘grossly irresponsible:’ – *’ – – ‘* This subject has transformed into some sort of B movie script.

              Perhaps it hasn’t occurred to anyone, that shielding the sun doesn’t actually solve the fundamental problem, which is reducing the insane pollution worldwide from fossil fuel pollution from lit and unlit leaking gas flares and disused capped sites. Which are far more toxic to health and fertility than all the ruminants on the planet will ever be. Then there are fossil fuel by-products of highly toxic chemicals polluting the air, soil, water and food. Just to make more money at the expense of everyone else. Which brings everything back to the real subject for discussion. Just like the odd suggestion for killing the cows, not killing the gas flares worldwide, it refuses to address the problem, it merely attempts to control the symptoms.

              Moving on to reality, which is gas flares.

              ‘Revealed – Huge gas flaring emissions never reported’
              *’ – – ‘*

              What is the reason for gas flares and prematurely burning highly toxic fossil fuel by-products?

              • [Edited by moderator]

                The subject was about levels of methane flared in UK, on shore. Paul did the calculation, and put it into context. (To put it into further context, between 2018 and 2022 the numbers of breeding cattle in UK have declined by around 100,000, which will have also had a knock on decline into numbers of fattening cattle. You can calculate the approx. decline in methane output from that source quite easily, and compare.) [Edited by moderator]
                “Making more money at the expense of everyone else”. Hmm. As a user, YYLee, you could reduce the everyone-but you don’t. You add to the demand. People who don’t like the way cattle are reared decide not to consume cattle derived product, whereas with yourself you decide to consume the products of an industry to whinge about the industry-and hospitals and railways and cattle feeding. With such diverse demand from everyone else what on earth would happen if they were not supplied with their fix?

  6. As some of my information was deemed to be inconvenient, other bits of FACT:

    If animals are given an option, which many feeding trials do, they do not always and in fact, rarely chose the best nutritional option. Don’t need to get too complicated but think DOG. Not feeding of dog, but to dog. Cheese? Fresh meat or rotting meat?

    Give a cow a feed option-and it will chose-molasses!! Sugars! Grazing it will chose grass with a high sugar content over grass that has a lower sugar content. Huge inputs go into pasture management to achieve exactly that. Not just in USA but across the world. Give them too much and they will gorge until they kill themselves. If fences are not strong they will break them down to do exactly that. How many people are there who think farmers just enjoy the exercise of moving an electric fence each day and there isn’t another reason?

    Choice feeding trials and experiments are legion. Sometimes, what an animal choses to eat can be provided, other times there are nutritional problems and they need to be adjusted. Methane output is only a small part of that, but is considered in many trials and used by many producers. However, cattle are ruminants still, so what can be achieved will always be modest.

    • [Edited by moderator]

      next it will be humans daring to try to breathe near a wasteful inefficient gas flare, lit or unlit, that are claimed to be creating the methane and pollution? But never the inefficient polluting unrefined gas flare that is to blame? Oh, no!

      No, of course not! How could a lit, or unlit, gas flare franticly struggling ineffectually to deal with all that Methane (CH4) 70 – 90 %, Ethane (C2H6) – Propane (C3H8) – Butane (C4H10) 0 – 20 %, Carbon Dioxide (CO2) 0 – 8 %, Nitrogen (N2) 0 – 5 %, Hydrogen Sulfide (H2S) 0 – 5 %, Oxygen (O2) 0 – 0.2%, Rare Gases (Ar , He , Ne) Trace, and Radon Gas?
      Possibly be blamed more than a ruminating cow [with a mask] which dares to produce Methane [CH4] and ?? By naturally digesting grass and anything else it’s forced to eat, like – ‘1. Antibiotics – 2. Fish Heads – 3. Chicken Faeces – 4. Ground Rock – 5. Sawdust – [with added nitric acid] – 6. Candy – (sweets in English)?

      ‘Dairy Cows: How Long Do Dairy Cattle Live? Do They Suffer?’ – *’ – – ‘*
      But will they kill gas flares? Nope, but it was stated that the cow should be sacrificed.

      What is the life span of a cow? 4.5 to 6 years before slaughter. What is the lifespan of a lit, or unlit, polluting gas flare? The life of the oil/gas well. And after, if it’s not lit. So the real figures begin to emerge and the facts of comparative life spans even out, if not exceeded, by worldwide the gas flares, lit and unlit. How many of those and leaking disused wells across the world still belching out unrefined pollutants?

      Poor cow. [wasn’t that a British film?]

      [Edited by moderator]

      More Al Gore Rhythm’s in those posts if ever I saw one, or two, or three, or, how many is it now?
      No. It’s a dead duck. [Are the ducks going to be killed, or forced to wear masks as well?]

      [Edited by moderator]

      • The strategy of blaming the cows, ruminants, ungulates [hoofed animals] and any other creature on earth doesn’t even attempt to address the far worse pollution to air land water, oceans and food, additives in off the shelf products and the health and fertility destroying ‘dioxins’ from the fossil fuel industries own toxic pollution agenda.

        Pollution from the fossil fuel industry has been proved to be far worse than any or all, ruminants, ungulates [hoofed] ducks, or any other wild or domestic lifeform, even including human beings, at least those are not part of the problem.

        Are they not for one second consider killing the wasteful polluting gas flares and all the other pollution leaks. Industrial venting and dumping, old leaking well sites, unmonitored and leaking pipes. Vast areas of polluted land and seas. try masking hundreds of thousands of hectares of polluted land water, that are emitting pollutants. Accidents where it is chosen against all logic to burn off in an un-‘controlled burn’ several severely toxic ‘forever chemicals’ such as the worst of them all TCDD, [chemical analysis detailed previously] that will pollute the air water and land, and humans including animals which will damage their health and fertility, their children and babies for generations, if they do get to have babies that is? That is the real scenario for global warming greenhouse effects? And they want to kill the cows too?

        Apparently it is a ‘fix’, and is a typically recognisable pattern, for some who ignore the truth and the facts, to never produce truth and facts themselves, and then attempt to blame cows for their own pollution.

        Oh, Yes, I’ve spotted that pattern, once again, and it’s precisely what was admitted before.
        Do you remember these words?

        ‘The truth and the facts don’t speak for themselves, they are manufactured into nonsense to create a fake narrative. Why? Because it is possible to do so, and some take delight in doing so.’

        Those were your own words, weren’t they? Is it any surprise to understand that those words apply precisely to your own fake narratives, as shown here on this page?

        Why do gas flares exist at all? Why was the un-‘controlled’ burn caused deliberately days after the East Palestine Ohio train wreck? Those are the real questions.

        [Typo corrected at poster’s request]

        • For those interested in where all this nonsense has developed, take a look at the Associated Press report by David Klepper:

          “Pro-Russian accounts spread misleading claims and anti-American propaganda about the Ohio train disaster on Twitter. Accounts identified by Reset, a London based nonprofit that studies social media impact on democracy, and shared with Associated Press.”

          Part of the report:

          “Posts predicted an increase in fatal cancers and others about unconfirmed mass animal die-offs.” Sound familiar?

          There is more, for those interested. A chilling attempt to play the audience.

          Felix Kartte, a senior advisor at Reset, said the report’s findings indicate Twitter is allowing Russia to use its platform like a bullhorn.

          If it looks like a con, has been identified as a con, it is a con.

          Yes, there are real questions to be answered. They were answered for me some while ago.

  7. So there it is seen that the newest Al Gore Rhythm Inconvenient Truth im-posters are now so frantic in their arguments, that they are now reduced to calling on a politically engendered anti-Musk disinformation article in order to drop the dead gas flare/unmasked cow argument? Which was the main subject until now. Is it now such a failure in any argument presented by them so far, that in an attempt to cover that up and to further obfuscate the issue, that anyone daring to report the facts and the truth, which incidentally, did not originate from twitter, or any other social media inlet/outlet, but from honest reporting, is now to be accused of promoting Pro-Russian propaganda? Is that now to be the carrion call for any or all facts and truths about the worldwide toxic pollution health and fertility effects from the fossil fuel industry products and by-products?

    Here is yet another of those as yet unanswered challenges for you. –

    Where have I said in any of my posts, that the facts and the truth about the East Palestine, Ohio train wreck to which I have provided links to local expert observations and facts, are in any way ‘anti-American’, or ‘Pro-Russian’?
    Where once, anywhere, have I ever written anything that is ‘Anti-American’, ‘Pro-Russian’ or ‘Anti-British’ for that matter?

    I shall await your reply with unabated breath.

    I suppose I should be surprised at the usual source of anti-factual denial of the truth for promoting a blatantly politically extremist accusation. However, from previous experiences from that source, it’s no surprise at all.

    Apparently the proffered article is to be used to provide an excuse to avoid actually addressing their sacrificial attempts to kill the [masked] cows, but leave the provably totally wasteful polluting [list of toxic polluting gasses provided previously] lit and unlit [unmasked] gas flares worldwide completely untouched and not permanently sealed shut?
    Which is a worldwide problem. Incidentally, Russia is just as bad if not worse in that respect, so there is no bias there either, quite the opposite.
    But here it is seen, they still propagate the denial of any attributable blame for that blatant pollution whatsoever. There is still the avoidance. There is still the obfuscation. There is still the utter failure to admit even to the Russian fossil fuel operations, considering their much worse pollution and gas flares? Because by association with those facts, the Russian Gas flares, [also lit and unlit], condemns their own lit and unlit abandoned gas flares and their worldwide pollution consequences of the health and fertility of everyone.

    Highly toxic pollution, particularly that flared off, or exploded in un-‘controlled burns’, or just vented into the atmosphere unburnt. Obeys no arbitrary political boundaries or political dogmas, wars, infighting, propaganda, or financial gain or poverty. It just kills, quickly or eventually, regardless.

    For those who actually read that post provided above, you may have expected a full link to the source of the quotes supplied. So that the written quotes could be checked independently as being representative of what was claimed in the quotes? However, as with so many times previously, such an honest informative approach to anything regarding the facts, or the truth, has yet to be seen. And which is still entirely absent, perhaps because links mean that a traceable independently verifiable origin of source might be made.
    So, in order to fill yet another gap in the usual empty narratives. I trawled through the Associated Press pages. [not a very rewarding exercise, I have to say]. Only to find that the offending article was buried down the bottom of a two list of reports. Perhaps to illustrate how little it was approved of. So for those who would rather read the full article, rather than accept a couple of selected paragraphs. Here is the actual article for you all to make up your own mind whether there are any facts or truth written there, or is it just another of those ‘opinions’ that appear to be so preferable to facts or truth,[Question – where has that become evident previously?]. The article itself appears to be based upon an anti Elon Musk propaganda exercise. [where has that also become evident previously].
    See – ‘Pro-Russian accounts spread misleading claims and anti-American propaganda about the Ohio train disaster on Twitter ‘ – *’ – – *’

    It’s worth noting that David Klepper, derives his report from the original author, Felix Kartte, who is an ‘advisor’ for a London based organisation called ‘Reset’’ However, if you look up – *’ – – ‘*.
    ‘It states that – ‘The RESET editorial office is located in Berlin. This means that our content tends to have a European perspective. But climate change and social justice are issues that affect us all – and smart solutions are being worked on around the globe. With, we want to provide a platform for all of these.’ Therefore, whether ‘Reset’ is based in London as stated by Associated Press, or that the editorial office is the only part of the organisation based in Berlin, would be the subject of further research by anyone who is ‘interested’ enough to establish the truth.

    Looking at the article linked to there, the sheer number of the same wording is reproduced and posted by so many other so called ‘independent’ sources. [just do a search for – ‘Pro-Moscow voices tried to steer Ohio train disaster debate’, – It’s everywhere] all of which were published in just the last day or so.

    The accusation of a ‘Pro-Russian’ chatbot AI wave surge, is strangely matched by the almost identically similar wave surges from all these apparently captive copy-bot sources? Obviously, what is source for the ‘goose step’, is source for the ‘prop a gander’

    However, as usual, it’s much better to leave the reader to decide whether the proffered source and its implied insinuations, are a genuinely factual account of the claims, or the result of a very similar copy-bot wave surge to attempt to close the East Palestine Ohio train wreck pollution subject down as being ‘Pro-Russian’ even to discuss it?

    I’ll stick to the facts and the truth, which speak for themselves. Whereas the others, as demonstrated in their very own posts, have admitted that their common practice [or pattern], is to write such self-defeating statements, as the following –

    ‘The truth and the facts don’t speak for themselves, they are manufactured into nonsense to create a fake narrative. Why? Because it is possible to do so, and some take delight in doing so.’ Fiction really is stranger than fact it

    Touché de nouveau, mon petit politique poulet.

    [Text added at poster’s request]

  8. Well, there you go folks!

    Pretty desperate stuff, but then raising the Ohio train crash was exactly that. The Ohio train crash that suddenly elicited a large amount of social media comment with misleading claims. The content of the posts were all remarkably similar and were examined and highlighted by Felix Kartte, and to be seen on what were identified as Pro-Russian accounts. That is the background.

    Some of the common ground?

    Posts predicting an increase in fatal cancers and others about unconfirmed mass animal die-offs. Sound familiar?

    Amongst the smoke and mirrors that remains the interesting aspect. Buyer beware.

    For those who may be worried about their fertility or their life duration, perhaps just check the world population statistics and life expectancy since fossil fuels started to be used. Worried about animal fertility? Chat to a farmer about their expected lambing numbers per ewe compared to generations gone by.

    Unfortunate correlations that many try their hardest to deny, yet the facts are evident for all to see. Goodness, the human population is actually relying upon products derived from fossil fuel to prevent their fertility growing the population too quickly!

    • HaHa! I suggest the words ’emperor’ and ‘clothes’ in their commonly associated relationship, are most appropriate at this juncture in that respect, or the lack of, for those remarks? I feel the urge to avert my gaze, such is the exposed spectacle that emerges there.
      In spite of having proved everything I have said on the matter, with facts, links, verifiable documentation, expert knowledge and scientific reports. In every subject raised, the last gasp of desperation, I have to say, which is apparently desperate and frantic in its attempts to ignore being entirely wrong on every count so far. You then retire into some unsubstantiated political diatribe aimed at Elon Musk and twitter, as if that denies the truth and the facts about the East Palestine Ohio, train wreck and the deliberately insane action of causing an un-‘controlled burn’ of many highly toxic TCDD ‘dioxins’ from fossil fuel derivative and by-product chemicals. Which were deliberately exploded into the atmosphere, the water, the land and the animals for which there is plenty of evidence from the very people that live there. All the facts and the linked and documented proof of which I have provided for your education to date. And yet all of that evidence for the truth and supported by links, is apparently all denied in favour of an unsubstantiated claim that the millions of concerned American citizens are somehow ‘Pro Russian’ AI chatbot agents?

      Just what is being denied by you? That it happened at all? That the films of the explosion and mushroom cloud, both from the ground and from the air, were somehow faked? That the contents invoices for the Norfolk Southern train which was carrying the tanker carriage chemicals as listed were falsified? That the films of dead animals near the train wreck, taken by the residents of East Palestine, were not true? That the health effects that many of the residents after the un-‘controlled burn’ were not true? That the films taken of the chemicals in the water were faked? That the EPA does not have a ‘Superfund’ legislative document that enables them to take the land to clean it up, then sue the owners for millions of dollars for the costs, and then if they cant pay, take their land and sell it off to other organisations? That the chemical ‘dioxins’ such as TCDD, which is the result of burning Vinyl Chloride, the most toxic of all ‘dioxins’ so that it is called a ‘forever chemical’ has both severe health and fertility effects that one part per billion is a potentially lethal amount, which is proved to cause cancer and decrease fertility in adults and born and yet to be born babies?

      Yet another challenge for you, explain and provide in scientific, linked and verified detail, just what about all of that, you attempt to call anything there a ‘con’, as you put it.

      And I’ll challenge you once again, please provide verified and linked proof, that the ‘Reset’ article is anything more than a similarly desperate attempt to shut down the East Palestine, Ohio train wreck un-‘controlled burn’ is anything but the truth?

      Once more, I will wait with unabated breath [twice].

      I have proved everything about the toxic health and dire fertility effects of ‘dioxins’ and phthalates worldwide to be true and accurate, and have provided all the facts and links you need. Denial of that, indicates something less than a rational attitude on your part. Should I be surprised? No. Not at all.

      Touché encore une fois, par la vérité, mon petit poulet de propagande politique.

Add a comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s