Thank you! This is why I have a very mixed opinion of Louis Rossmann. His heart seems to be in the right place, but he provides extremely slanted view of reality.
It would increase operational costs. The satellite lifetime is limited by propellant capacity (especially at the low altitudes where Starlink operates). Mercury thrusters would be significantly less efficient than the krypton thrusters they currently use, due to Mercury's higher atomic mass.
The torch would, most likely, be for emergency methane venting. They had previously used a torch for burning gaseous methane during de-tanking, but have since switched to a condenser to cool it back to a liquid. There would essentially be no reason not to continue that practice, particularly when they'll have a nearly unlimited supply of liquid nitrogen.
What it ignores is that to perform the maximum number of launches permitted under this new license will consume around 1% of the methane this would produce. This equipment will be be used, at most, a few hours every month, but he's producing numbers under the assumption that it would be running 24/7.
His arguments don't make sense. This environmental study is being performed so that SpaceX can make five orbital launches per year from Boca Chica, but ESG Hound's numbers would be for more than ten per week. I've pointed this out to him and he responded with personal insults.