* The extra flaring is temporary, because gas pipeline which could/would be built isn't there [0]. The issue isn't capturing gas in general, but capturing it right away, this year. Your four-year power plant construction doesn't solve this.
North Dakota even has a shortage of oil pipelines [1]; they are shipping out oil by rail, at a $5-$10/barrel premium, rather than delay.
* The "interesting" part of the cost is the capture/distribution at the well. These wells are small and remote. There are 8,000 of them [2]. The amount of flared gas is just $25,000/year per well (naive average).
Already 70% of the associated gas is captured; presumably, the 30% that is flared is more difficult.
* If they extract shale gas on a large scale, they can build long-distance pipelines cheaply. There is no economic need to site power plants near the gas field -- this is a solution in search of a problem.
* If they extract shale gas on a large scale, the amounts would be much larger than the amount being flared: they will purposefully seek out gas pockets. What they're flaring now is gas they don't want to extract.
* There's incentive to delay shale gas projects: there's an enormous gas glut in the US, which is depressing prices. Things which could be otherwise profitable are temporarily not.
This is not proposing a shale gas project. No pipes. It's best thought of as a waste-to-product project, similar to companies who bake slag into bricks.
There is a supply of gas in search of demand. The infrastructure to move the gas does not exist and is costly to erect. The infrastructure to move electricity is easier to erect (do-able in the 4 years a plant would take to put up). The arbitrage is in converting the natural gas into electricity, which can more easily be exported. Again, no pipes.
Yes, there is good reason to delay shale gas projects. But this is not a shale gas project. The gas is an input. Low gas prices are a plus.
How would you get it from the 8 000 wells to the plant? Initially, probably by truck (they do this in Kazakhstan). Laughing? I recently worked on a deal that transported oil, by truck, from Oklahoma to the Gulf of Mexico, because there was insufficient rail or pipe capacity. The cracking spread was wide enough. The argument here is that the oil companies would be willing to part with the waste gas for a nominal fee, particularly if one could get an environmental agency on one's side. You'd be "buying" natural gas below market and selling electricity at market.
* The extra flaring is temporary, because gas pipeline which could/would be built isn't there [0]. The issue isn't capturing gas in general, but capturing it right away, this year. Your four-year power plant construction doesn't solve this.
North Dakota even has a shortage of oil pipelines [1]; they are shipping out oil by rail, at a $5-$10/barrel premium, rather than delay.
* The "interesting" part of the cost is the capture/distribution at the well. These wells are small and remote. There are 8,000 of them [2]. The amount of flared gas is just $25,000/year per well (naive average).
Already 70% of the associated gas is captured; presumably, the 30% that is flared is more difficult.
* If they extract shale gas on a large scale, they can build long-distance pipelines cheaply. There is no economic need to site power plants near the gas field -- this is a solution in search of a problem.
* If they extract shale gas on a large scale, the amounts would be much larger than the amount being flared: they will purposefully seek out gas pockets. What they're flaring now is gas they don't want to extract.
* There's incentive to delay shale gas projects: there's an enormous gas glut in the US, which is depressing prices. Things which could be otherwise profitable are temporarily not.
[0] http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/27/business/energy-environmen...
[1] http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405297020370750457701...
[2] https://www.dmr.nd.gov/oilgas/stats/historicaloilprodstats.p...