it would be interesting to know if there have been any studies done on whether the pressure not to flare has led to an increase in venting. venting of course is of methane which as a global warming agent is at least 20 times more powerful than the carbon dioxide produced by flaring, even if it typically does not represent a local health risk. if there are fields in which flaring no longer happens but gas collection for in-field or commercial use has not happened either (which would be prima facie establishable from if the infrastructure had been put in place), the question has to be: where has the gas gone (since the field will still be producing it)? the economic incentive would be to vent it. it would be great to know if there are any studies on this.

Hi Johnny

Here is my understanding of how it works, based on the consultations done for this report: Regular sustained venting hardly exists today and is often more  forbidden  than flaring. It is still happening on an irregular basis in particular at gas fields in terms of emergency, gas wells testing, non-routine depressuring of processing equipment and gas pipelines, always for very short term (These situations should be monitored to avoid abuse). Routing venting is not safe for the operator due to risks of unanticipated accumulation and explosions.  In the case of lack of monitoring of venting, hard regs on flaring, limited re-injection capacity and limited market outlet, operators will shut in production - they will not rely on venting.

Let me know if you find contradictory results - happy to continue the convo!

A study should be conducted to see the feasibility