This is interesting. A process that takes recaptured CO2 from power plants, and uses it to produce oil. Not cheap oil. But lots of it.
@ about 4 years ago
Yellow Springs, OH 45387, USA
@ about 4 years ago
It doesn't have to be "cheap". As long as it's cheap enough. North American energy independence hopefully is around the corner.
@ about 4 years ago
New York, NY 10174, USA
Anyone trying to raise investment capital is naturally going to paint an optimistic picture. But If they are able to recover 50% of their estimated oil, at 50% higher cost, it still has incredible potential.
If it fails, it fails. If privately funded, that's no big deal.
Interestingly that article briefly broaches another hockey stick study that's currently getting eviscerated by statisticians for more splice and dice fraud
It might be better to use this development, if successfully executed, to establish much more favorable trade terms with those we import oil from
@ about 4 years ago
Montgomery, IL, USA
There's a major change going on today whereby a lot of the world is discovering that they might not have to rely so much on politically unstable countries for their energy needs. It isn't just up here.
And I say that this is a pretty welcome development geopolitically. Hopefully it won't be sabotaged by too many activists who think economic growth and cheap energy are awful things
I agree, we are a resource rich country and innovation will inevitably allow realistic expectations of energy independence....but I'm asking the question if the potential leverage is worth more than the independence
Seriously? We have enough natural gas, coal, and oil now to be energy independent for the next 200 years. It's about control. That's what elites do...create artificial scarcity which gives them control and power.
@ about 4 years ago
Vestal, NY 13850, United States
Is it better to control price domestically or to control trade globally?
They're controlling trade globally to control price domestically and globally. These elites are global citizens with little to no national allegiances. They jet all over the globe. Our energy prices are artificially high
in order to further their agenda. They're de-industrializing the west in order to weaken it.
How do they benefit by weakening this region
The west must be subdued in order to institute one world government. Do you not see the prophesies being fulfilled? Whether or not you believe my reasoning you must acknowledge that the west is being weakened. Why do you
suppose that is so?
Were we told by Algore and his govt-funded "scientists" that all the CO2 would raise temps?
And yet with billions of tons new carbon in the last 20 years temps have ...remained stable.
@ about 4 years ago
Shreveport, LA , United States
Scrags, I have no doubt that there are elements that would love to see the US become economically weakened...but it very well could come back to ruin them as well
If everyone demands a piece of the global economic pie, you will create a multiplication of fractions which will end up hurting everyone. The world is better off having one dominant and stable country.
Bob,, Much has been published about the causes of climate change. But little has been said about the level of sun activity. It too has a cycle that invariably affects the planets. It is, ultimately, the source of our climate change.
We need to regulate the Sun then, the President should get the EPA on that right away!
AMI,,, There needs to be a balance between regulation and production. The belief that regulation is evil, is as flowed as believing that corporations are evil. Both are necessary for the health of our economy and of our environment.
Agreed, right now the Sun has fantastic production numbers, but a horrible safety record
Seriously though, I think a politically balanced oversight committee is needed to ensure the legitimacy of the regulations currently in place and to review/approve any new regulation going forward
I'll agree with that. I'm sure that a lot of current regs have outlived their usefulness. The problem with new regs is the conflicting science. Everyone seems able to provide undeniable proof to support totally opposite conclusions.
There are regulations that were never useful to begin with
Consider China. We not only exported jobs, but also the manufacturing practices of 1950 America. In short order, they will need a large chunk of their accumulated wealth to clean up the mess. There is no free lunch, also no free dump.
Localized pollution can certainly become a huge issue. But let's get back to energy independence, global trade, and the new world order.
On one hand if energy goes up, the cost of transportation goes up. Which means some jobs may come back to America. On the other hand if energy goes down, our costs of production, goes down and maybe, jobs stay in America.
John Galt... Bernie Is A Socialist
@ about 4 years ago
Medina, OH, USA
Increasing production in America would definitely create jobs, because not one green energy company is feasible, without government kickbacks....... Even with free money they can't make money.
AMI,,The way I see it, our energy independence means little if the overall use goes up. Our current suppliers just supply others. The price stays constant. It would be nice to be an oil exporter again. But I don't see this changing anything other
than our trade balance.
JG,, There will be a weeding out of many alternative energy companies as the govt money dries up. Some will survive and prosper. GE and the like will gobble up the weaker but most innovative. The only threat to a continuing growth in alternative
energy is a continuation of cheap natural gas. That, I believe will be short lived. Producers are already realizing that over production is cutting their own throats.
As export markets develop, we will see production increases. But I believe we have already seen the bottom in natural gas prices.
Why do you think their money will run out so quickly? Why not just lobby for more?
New York, NY 10024, USA
I'm sure they will. But the huge influx of cash built into the stimulus has mostly been doled out. Now they have to go head to head with every other lobbied interest. Even with the administrations blessing, that won't be easy.
Obama knows how to pick the winners..... Hehe unicorns and fairy dust would have been a better investment.
Middleburg Heights, OH
JG,, I believe wind generation is here to stay. And cheap natural has will only help the fuel cell industry. A lot of energy intensive companies will follow apple and google's lead by producing their own power.
The problem with both wind and solar is that these are intermittent and non-dispatchable energy sources.
New York, NY 10028, USA
They have their place but it ought to be niche where it belongs.
Yorkville, New York, NY
What's funny is those power plants are always called sustainable yet they are absolutely unsustainable from an economic point of view. Always needing subsidies.
Drew,,,Wind is absolutely economically viable. It's just unreliable. The use of wind generation to supplement standard generation during peak demand daylight hours is the answer. It will reduce the need to construct new fossil burning plants.
Our acceptance of gasoline as a primary fuel took a couple of generations. The same for natural gas. Change takes time. Even an obviously superior fuel won't be accepted overnight. Resistance comes from both consumers and the investment community.
I believe the answer is in maximizing the advantages of each region. Sun in desert, wind in the plains, coal, nuclear, water, etc....i've always been a proponent of incorporating solar panels and windmills into architectural designs as well
AMI,, That's a valid arguement. Most people don't realize there is a substantial transportation cost associated with electricity. even if we could produce enough cheap solar power in the west, it wouldn't be affordable in the east.
Not without subsides it isn't, and certainly not on the scale it's been done at. Subsidies and renewable mandates are basically required
Flexibility and energy output/transportation metrics that analyze down to the county level...we need to make this a situation of common sense and not about ideologies
If wind doesn't make sense but a combination of coal and solar does, so be it, we have many options and so many self inflicted restrictions and inefficiencies
I think JC is being quite silly though comparing wind to uptake of various fossil fuels. Fuels always burn, wind doesn't always blow.
Reliability is a key part of economic viability, because without reliability, you need tons of backup generators. And of course this adds to cost. So that's not some separate variable.
Drew, this is exactly why I said what I did. It would have been a great project for the stimulus package to have funded (but energy innovation doesn't fund broke pension funds or payoff unions)
Sorry Drew, I had to go watch my son's band perform at Seaworld. My wife is still there babysitting a bunch of high school kids. Ha!
Back on subject. Silly you say? I don't think so. Let me explain. I believe the fossil fuel generation industry is about as efficient as it's going to get. On the other hand, the wind and solar fields are wide open for innovation. It's still new, and
it's the sweetheart of the entire world.
Next,,Wind is unreliable. Batteries are very reliable. Other countries are already using battery storage along with fossil fuel, wind and solar to provide stable power to large cities. The fact that we
produce such a small percentage of alternate power makes a large battery installation unwise. But such an installation is cheaper than building and feeding a back up generation facility.
And I believe there will be major innovation in the area of large battery storage facilities.
My last point is that the subsidies probably are adding to current prices. As they go away the true market will reduce the cost of wind power.
Here's a start. In texas.
Another in Hawaii.
Any info advancements in storing the energy produced by electrical storms?
Aurora, IL 60505, USA
Seriously? I've never seen anything about that. That sounds like something the govt would pay a lot of money for you to study. But I don't know if it would cover the increase in your insurance rates.
Wind power is very reliable in Aruba, they have five really large windmills, but only three seem to working at any one time..... That is one windy island.
Did you know that when there's no wind, that the windmill uses power to keep the blades rotating.
It seems that while lightning storage is possible, the actual power that can be derived from one lightning bolt would not justify the cost
I've never seen that. They usually just sit there until the wind picks up. They might do that up north to keep them in balance due to ice and snow.
The larger ones use energy to get the arms in motion. If the wind isn't sustained over a certain speed, then it is possible that the unit could use more energy than it produces
Regional energy sourcing, it is the way to go....what works in one area, is ineffective or cost prohibitive in another
Or to have a new vehicle designed to utilize wind http://m.smartplanet.com/blog/bulletin/bladeless-windmills-a-new-source-of-wind-energy/16598
AMI,, That's pretty strange. It seems as though it would need a constant water source. It could double as a lawn sprinkler.
The Republicans can provide water, it will be polluted but an endless supply
YOU'VE BEEN WHITELASHED!
@ about 4 years ago
Brunswick, OH, USA
@jc the acceptance of gasoline is not comparable here. That was a decision made by the free market.
@ about 4 years ago
What we are dealing with today is the force feeding of nonviable energy sources through subsidies. None could compete on their own.
(aka crony capitalism)
AH,, Rockefeller was one of the premier "cronies" of our time. It's strange that you identify that as free market.
Was standard oil legislated into existences/profitability via favorable regulations and subsidies, or was Rockefeller an extremely effective and efficient entrepreneur?
Stroudsburg, PA 18360, United States
No standard oil was destroyed by the government.
Rockefeller was an effective entrepreneur. He also used his wealth to obtain govt. concessions that gave him an advantage over his competition. Mostly at the state levels. You could even argue that his practices actually benefitted the consumer.
But there was nothing free about the effects on his competitors. Eventually the lack of competition takes its toll on the marketplace.
The success of Rockefeller and standard oil was due to his effectiveness as an entrepreneur. Standard oil was good for the consumer and quality of life went up as a result. He bought up and out performed his competition.
Direct subsidies are only one form of govt market engineering. Another is the use of tax incentives. Or waiving royalties as was done to encourage deep water drilling. It's nothing new. And it's definitely not free.
I won't deny the benefits of the oil boom. But had the market been allowed to develop with unrestrained competition, whose to say it wouldn't have been even better?
The bigger issue was not the breakup of Standard Oil, but our loss of energy independence in the 20th century
Cronyism was a significant factor in the rise of standard oil or the selection of gasoline as you stated. This is certainly it is not analogous to the current govt backed green energy push on the back of the tax payer.
was = was not
@jg standard oil was actually in decline BEFORE the govt broke it up... Due to normal market forces... Oil discoveries in Russia etc.
AMI,, That was more of a free market effect than anything we've discussed so far. It was the fact that the easily procured oil in the US was gone. The middle east had gobs of it. What oil company would drill for twenty dollar oil, when they could buy
ten dollar oil overseas?
AH,, Like I said, subsidies come in many forms. Our highway system was promoted by the auto and oil industries. Fought by the railroad industry. If that battle had gone another way, America could look totally different.
There was/is plenty of easily accessible crude but why deal with excessive government regulation, psychotic environmentalist groups, and labor headaches when you don't have to
Agree, but that (unconstitutional) example comes much much later. What specifically are you talking about that makes the rise of gasoline (and standard oil) comparable to the green energy nonsense of today?
This is a good read:
Witch-hunting For Robber Barons: The Standard Oil Story
The govt simply should not be involved in the promotion of any industry. If left alone the market will deliver when the time comes - when it makes economic sense.
No, it was OPEC that changed the game. Why sell it for ten, when you could get fifty. That is the reason we are drilling five miles deep in the ocean, mining sludge in Canada, and fracking shale in the US. None of it easy. None of it cheap.
Govt intervention = cronyism = massive waste of taxpayer dollars = wealth redistribution to rise in govt favor
(rise = those)
We are drilling deep in the ocean because they can't drill closer to shore, the other two are innovative techniques that have been deemed cost effective by the private sector. There is no doubt in my mind that there is plenty of more easily
Accessible crude that cannot be drilled due to environmental restrictions
Wow, I actually get to argue with AMI. HA!
First,, The only reason any of those practices are economically feasible is because of the high price of oil. OPEC could take a page from Rockefeller's playbook, drop their price to ten dollars, and drive
Ami is right. There is plenty of accessible oil here that cannot be extracted due to govt restrictions and environmental regulations.
I'm unclear on what you mean jc. How is opec the reason we drill miles down instead of in the shallow waters of the Gulf? (where a BP type issue could have be easily capped btw)
the miners and frackers into bankruptcy.
Secondly. The reason they drill deep is money. Not regulation. The day congress waived the royalties on deep water drilling, they headed deep. That's where the profit is.
That is a myth that will jot die jc. Rockefeller underpriced his competitors simply by being more efficient. There is no evidence of price fixing whatsoever. Read the link above.
Price fixing to kill competition had many issues which are also detailed there. Doesn't work like when that Germany company (can't remember the name) actually did try it against Dow.... It backfired drastically.
AH,, I have read excerpts from the book. Does it go into the fact that he bribed state officials into granting him exclusive pipeline rights that gave him a decided market advantage. He was smart, no doubt about it. But also ruthless.
OPEC is only one part of the oil cost/price equation. And it can be made into a non factor. That said, my philosophy on fuel is similar to mine on energy. Multiple fuel sources should be considered, produced, and implemented based on the situation
That is presented as a combination of technology and logistics
I would not deny that he would and did rake advantage of that. It is afterall human nature to take the easiest path. The success of Rockefeller and standard oil was not dependant on cronyism. He was an efficiency powerhouse with or without it.
That stands in sharp contrast to the green energy industries of today. None has the capability stand on their own and I still maintain the comparison is not logical.
Ami... not on the backs of taxpayers. This should not be the role of govt.
In a perfect world government would be used to kickstart initiatives that are developed and managed by private industry. But this requires a low level of corruption
The market will deliver alternative energy when alternative energy makes economic sense. The consequences of the govt trying to push this before it is needed does nothing but harm.
Damn, now we agree again. Sort of. I don't see any way OPEC is going to be made inconsequential. Unless a better fuel source replaces oil on an international scale.
We will always have oil as long as we are willing to pay the price. Shale, tar sand
(harm to the economy as a whole - great for the crony beneficiaries of the federal govt's BS)
fracking, and arctic drilling are expensive processes. Simple as that. Unless Jed Clampet finds another wellfield, that's our future. I hope the estimates of reserves are accurate. But they seldom are.
Let me take a different angle....what makes a process expensive?
AH,, I won't even get into the solar arguement. But the main reason I believe that wind has a viable future is more from watching the actions of companies like GE and Siemans. They both have invested millions in production and R&D facilities.
Maybe it will be viable. It's viability shouldn't be tested on the backs of taxpayers.
I have to wonder is the motivation of GE that they believe it can become better and cheaper than fossil fuels or are they simply chasing tax credits?
They aren't noted for jumping into fad technologies. I believe they see a future in wind turbines, with or without subsidies. If the subsidized market pays for the R&D, and initial investment, so be it. Eventually, the product must stand on its own.
The latter is not a good thing because it diverts resources down dead ends.
I read an article about some geologist that believe that the heat from the earth makes oil, they believe that as rocks melt they release hydrocarbons in a gas form and condense into oil and natural gas in cooler voids. It's a interesting theory.
Kinda like Reagan's star wars ?
I couldn't resist.
JG,, I think I read the same article. Maybe we should be working with rocks instead of algae.
Jc, just wanted to bring attention to my last question
To whom it may concern..
I just got another text from my wife (the volunteer band chaperone) She is eleven hours into the bus ride home. She said she would see me in about six hours. She didn't seem amused.
Take her out for dinner?
AMI,, Let's do an analogy. To get water, I drilled a well one hundred feet deep, installed a casing, and dropped in a pump. I've been getting water out of that well for twenty years. If you lived on a desert island, you could take sea water, distill
it and get as much water. But your process would be much more time and resource intensive. America used to have, and the Saudi's still have my well. We now have to go through a process to acquire what we used to pump.
Recovery cost per barrel.
Tar Sands actually costs a little more because of the pre-refining and dilution required to send it through pipelines.
we should talk about what a liar Barack Obama has been about oil supply,reserves etc. because that's more important :-)
Columbia, OH, USA
Pink,, Just wondering how the well is doing. Have you received any production reports. Are you rich yet? Can you ride the pump arm?
well,the well is doing as well as expected but I'm not well to do enough yet... oh well, it's never enough
Sharon, OH, USA
Anybody know how many producing oil wells there are in Saudi Arabia? About 2000.
In the US? About 575,000.
Saudi average per well, 6000 bpd.
US average per well, 13bpd
The Saudi's are drilling a new oilfield. Their first expansion in twenty years.
I would think that average to be offset by the fact that many of US wells are private wells,smaller less ambitious wells????
was your point that Saudis had more oil under the ground?
Actually, I was suprised that their wells are still producing at that volume. About ten years ago, they started water injecting some wells to increase production. That usually signals the end of high output.
What we do also have though is massive amounts of coal and natural gas.
The only countries that even rival us for natural resources are Russia and China. If we could learn how to convert coal cheaply into a semi clean fuel, that $7 Saudi Oil would no longer be a benchmark
Within 10 years advancements in car engines will significantly reduce the demand for gasoline. The price will naturally rise and the need to import will be reduced
Yeah, coal to oil is considered to be feasible at around $125 a barrel. But they are working hard to develop a cheaper process. It could happen tomorrow.
Pink,, Speaking of resources/reserves, I found an article that is pretty clear on a couple of issues.
Trying to decode the terminology in many articles is just frustrating. The common use of the term shale oil is the worst. I've caught myself using it totally out of context.
You should be ashamed