Oil and gas behemoth, ExxonMobil, is reportedly diverting some of the natural gas it has no use for to power crypto mining operations, with a pilot program in North Dakota.
The company has partnered with Crusoe Energy Systems to convert the gas into power mobile generators used for mining operations on-site. The project launched in January of last year and the company is already looking to set up similar ones in Alaska, Nigeria, Argentina, Guyana, and Germany.
Projects like this one have been touted as a win-win situation, yet continue to fly under the radar as the mainstream media conversely harps on Bitcoin’s negligible environmental impact. Here’s a snippet on the matter from a previous issue we wrote last September:
So What’s The Point?
In the U.S., at least 1.5 billion cubic feet of natural gas is wasted through flaring (burning gas while drilling for oil) every day, resulting in significant environmental impacts. But now, instead of flaring it, the gas is being used to power onsite Bitcoin mining operations.
The Bottom Line:
The financial incentives brought to the table by Bitcoin miners can completely change the oil & gas industry, while making a positive impact on the environment. Sounds like they need to start selling some carbon credits too.
The news comes on the heels of another climate activist campaign dubbed “Change the Code, Not the Climate” advocating against Proof-of-Work (PoW), Bitcoin’s consensus mechanism. The activists, led in part by Greenpeace and billionaire Ripple co-founder Chris Larsen, argue that Bitcoin consumes an unsustainable amount of energy. While flawed, this stance isn’t anything new.
The campaign will attempt to lobby institutions in the industry that pledge an environmental, social, and governance (ESG) agenda, buy ads in leading publications such as the WSJ and NYT, and appeal to communities allegedly suffering from Bitcoin miners’ noisy activities to try and convince investors that Bitcoin could use a different consensus protocol that is supposedly both better for the environment and enables a similar degree of security.
Ohh, the irony…
- On one hand, we have an oil and gas empire making huge strides on flare prevention while also stabilizing the grid thanks to PoW. On the other, we have an activist group spreading lies for the “greater good” on how dangerous PoW is.
- Then, as Alex Gladstein pointed out, environmental activists “face a high threat of frozen bank accounts and de-platforming… Greenpeace has literally been targeted this way before and will need censorship-resistant fundraising tech again.”
- And let’s not forget about Ripple (XRP). Bashing Bitcoin here makes perfect sense. Bitcoin replaces banks. Ripple needs banks.
But bringing us back to the main point, if the campaign were to ever base itself on truthful research and factual arguments, it would never succeed. Be sure to watch each of these videos (exhibit A vs. exhibit B) to witness the unfortunate disparity.