Reducing Flaring: A Practical Path for Field Operations

Why Flaring Persists in Daily Operations

Most people outside the industry assume flaring continues because operators do not care. In my experience across projects at Shell and Aramco, the reality is more mundane. Gas gets flared because the alternatives are harder to schedule, harder to justify on a single-well economic model, and often disconnected from how field teams are measured day to day.

Routine flaring is rarely one big decision. It is the sum of many small ones. A separator trips and gas is diverted to the flare while the crew stabilizes the system. A gathering line is at capacity, so associated gas from a new well has nowhere to go. Compression is down for maintenance and there is no spare capacity nearby. Each of these is a reasonable local choice. Added together across a basin, they produce a large and avoidable emissions figure.

The point of view I have come to hold is simple. We treat flaring as an engineering design problem when it is mostly an operations and coordination problem. The gains that matter most come from tightening how we run existing facilities, not only from installing new hardware.

What Actually Moves the Needle

When a team decides to take flaring seriously, the early wins tend to come from measurement and accountability rather than capital projects. You cannot manage what you do not meter accurately. Many older sites still estimate flare volumes from process assumptions rather than direct measurement. Once you install reliable flare metering and make the numbers visible at the field level, behavior changes quickly.

A few practical steps have consistently delivered results for me:

• Meter every flare point directly and reconcile the data weekly, not quarterly.
• Tie flare volumes to operational reviews so field supervisors own the number.
• Prioritize compression reliability, since compressor downtime drives a large share of unplanned flaring.
• Build modest gas gathering ahead of new well tie-ins rather than after production ramps.

None of this is glamorous. It is maintenance discipline, better planning, and honest data. But the emissions reductions are real and often achievable within a single budget cycle.

The harder cases involve stranded associated gas where no infrastructure exists and volumes are too small to justify a pipeline. Here the honest answer is that not every solution is economic today. Small scale gas to power, reinjection for pressure support, and modular processing all have a place, but they need to be evaluated against the specific reservoir and market, not applied as a blanket policy. I am wary of one size fits all mandates that ignore field conditions.

Connecting Operations to the Energy Transition

There is a broader reason to get this right. As producing companies position themselves for a lower carbon future, the credibility of that position depends on the emissions intensity of the barrels we deliver now. Reducing flaring is one of the clearest, most cost effective ways to lower that intensity while the longer term shifts in the energy mix play out.

I do not view flaring reduction as a substitute for investment in cleaner energy. I view it as evidence that an operating organization can execute on emissions goals with the same rigor it applies to production targets. If a team cannot cut routine flaring, I have limited confidence in its more ambitious transition commitments.

The practical work is available to us today. It rewards discipline over novelty, and it builds the operational muscle that the energy transition will demand for years to come.