NASA Confirms Russia Is Burning Unused Gas Sent to Europe

NASA confirms Russia is burning gas not sent to Europe

The NASA has confirmed that Russia is burning the gas it does not send to Europe. The data, reported by ABC, has sparked a discussion far beyond the headline: is this a masterstroke, a calculation error, or simply standard industry practice? The short answer is that all three can be true, and the detail matters.

What NASA confirmed and why it is not news

The headline is blunt: NASA confirms Pilingui is burning gas not sent to Europe. What it does not say is that burning surplus gas is an old practice in the industry. At processing facilities, pressurized pipelines are protected by relief valves to prevent pressure from exceeding certain limits; when this happens, gas is vented or burned. At oil wells, onshore and offshore, it is common to see these flares lit 24 hours a day. One has been burning since 1971, and no one has asked for explanations.

Nighttime photos of the Persian Gulf in the 1970s were lit by these flames. In Algeria, there are lights in the middle of the desert larger than those in Algiers. In North Dakota, what looks like a large city is the Bakken field burning gas. NASA has discovered nothing new: it has simply put a dated label on something that has been happening for decades.

How much gas is burned worldwide and why it is not utilized

The volume is the uncomfortable part. Annually, the equivalent of 1.4 times Algeria’s production is burned, according to a calculation circulating in the thread. It is not a minor figure. The reason it is not utilized is no mystery: stopping gas extraction is not turning off a tap. Doing it poorly can damage the reservoir, and storing surplus requires deposits that do not always exist or are full. When there is no ready buyer or pipeline to transport it, gas is burned. It is cheaper than stopping.

Here begins the disagreement. One part of the analysis argues that Russia lacks storage capacity for so much gas and, having lost the European customer, is left with a surplus it can only burn or shut down. The conclusion drawn is that Moscow is finished. Another school of thought responds that burning the surplus keeps global supply low and prices high, and that Russia earns more by selling less to China and India than by selling much to Europe. It is the technique Apple uses with its products, they say, applied to gas.

The unclosed calculation: does Russia gain or lose from this?

The argument that Russia benefits has logic that needs unpacking. If gas not reaching Europe is burned, global supply falls. If supply falls, prices rise. If prices rise, each cubic meter sold to China or India commands a better price than before. In passing, Europe pays 40% more for gas from the United States, according to a calculation circulating in the thread. The full calculation, item by item, yields a surprising difference, and it is the kind of number to scrutinize before drawing conclusions.

The contrary scenario also has its logic. If Russia burned gas for fun, it would not be seeking new pipelines to China. Building that infrastructure takes time, and until it arrives, the surplus has no outlet. Burning is the emergency exit, not the strategy. In three months, one of the more exaggerated versions circulating claims, Russian GDP per capita would surpass London’s center. No one believes it, but the phrase well summarizes the tone of the discussion.

What happens with the European winter

The other front of the issue is Europe. German industry is the first to feel expensive gas: if prices multiply, producing weapons or cars in the Ruhr basin costs more than doing so elsewhere. Some argue that Pilingui is burning precisely the gas that would feed those factories, thereby weakening countries sending weapons to Ukraine. The logic has a circularity worth noting: if Europe stops buying, Russia burns; if Russia burns, Europe pays more; if Europe pays more, its industry suffers. The circle closes by itself.

The question hovering over everything is what happens when winter arrives. Circulating forecasts speak of skyrocketing inflation, industrial closures due to lack of electricity, and a dependence on raw materials not resolved in a quarter. There is no consensus on whether this is a catastrophe or a manageable nuisance. What there is, however, is an uncomfortable certainty: gas burned in Siberia does not heat any home in Europe, and the price paid for what does arrive is set by a market that does not look at who is left without heating.

---

The analysis gets stuck at the same point where it began. Burning surplus gas is an old, documented, and boring industrial practice. NASA confirming it does not make it a masterstroke nor proof that Russia is collapsing. The only thing that changes is who pays the bill, and that part remains unclosed.