[suihkulokki]

Until recently, gas was just flared at oilrigs. It was waste not worth shipping. I remember flying past Persian gulf and looking down at sea been light by gas flares. Now the gas is put in use, it is still burned into co2. But now it creates electricity and reduces use of oil and coal.

So if LNG terminal reduces flaring, it's "green energy" project. But if it is to increase fracking, it's just fossil fuels project.

[pjc50]

Indeed. To my mind, we really shouldn't start on fracking until flaring has been reduced to near-zero levels. It's wasteful and we can't afford the CO2 emissions.

[unexpected]

Companies and governments do not want to flare gas. That's money just disappearing. To use this gas, however, you need to have the infrastructure set up to take the gas - you need fertilizer plants, power plants, etc that can use the gas as power. In the Middle East, these are not always possible in remote areas, so they flare it.

Natural gas is green energy because it's reducing dirty coal power plants. LNG terminals have nothing to do with fracking. LNG terminals are just an export facility.

[kwhitefoot]

Routine flaring was forbidden in the Norwegian sector in 1971, see http://www.offshoreenergytoday.com/statoil-to-end-routine-ga....