In reply to an earlier diary about the Planned Alaska LNG Project, someone asked "Is technology available to re-inject natural gas that comes up with the oil?" And so I ranted in reply as seen below.
Gas injection for enhanced oil recovery is usually CO2 because it reduces oil viscosity and it is cheaper than both Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) and nitrogen (N2).
Near the national capital of Three Affiliated Tribes - the Mandan, Hidatsa, and Sahnish Nation on Fort Berthold Res. near New Town, ND (down the road from Williston) Theodora Bird Bear’s story is of gas flares, prairie biome fire they cause and semi-trucks running amok to rip the Bakken shale field oil where in 2011 fully 30% of the natural gas that bubbles from the oil is "valued" as waste (by spring 2014 the amount of flare gas had doubled!), hence burned into the open system called our atmosphere.....
Since this "valued" flare gas is equally available nearly everywhere oil drilling and, to stimulate approximately one million historic oil and gas wells since 1940, fracking (for which are required 400 tanker trucks to carry water and supplies to and from the fracking site), why in the world are the corporatists agitating for the Planned Alaska LNG Project? Is Alaska LNG Project being ramped up for revenge, ignorance or evil? 'cuz I sure don't see any joyful goodness coming from it as it will melt permafrost and release methane that is anywhere from 200 to 400 times hotter as a greenhouse gas than is CO2. Maybe the Alaska LNG Project promoters just hate nature. Stupid wasichus.
I believe that for storing the gases they must be liquified as happens when cooled to nearly -160 Celsius degrees. So I think that would add more costs. LNG storage facilities have no requirement for cushion gas. But they are more expensive to build and maintain than new underground storage reservoirs.