Drill Here. Drill Now. Pay Less.

American Solutions ^ | May, 2008 | Newt Gingrich

[wolf78]

Not quite. Ethanol from corn is, at best, a wash. It takes about 1 unit of energy to yield a unit of energy. That's why corn ethanol requires massive subsidies.

Well, I oversimplyfied. Fuel from corn grown near the Canadian border is just plain stupid, it's political pandering that hurts the taxpayer. Ethanol from Brazilian sugarcanes has a higher efficiency, but you still waste valuable farmland / sacrifice invaluable rainforest. It always depends on the exact point of reference, so : not exactly like ethanol. Second / third gen oil shale extraction and processing plants would have lower costs, the higher estimate was in response to what alternatives would cost TODAY.

However, while 1 to 9 is ok, 1 to 4 is rather inefficient, first gen biodiesel isn't much worse, second gen biofuels are most likely superior.

However, I'm not saying that it shouldn't be done at all, it's just that: petroleum still is more efficent and has less environmental impact.

My main point was twofold. Firstly, I wanted to counter the notion that oil prices will be e.g. $200 next year, $300 in 2010 and $400 the year after. Alternatives will come online, once the business case is sound.
Secondly, while noone needs to worry about the end of civilization as it is, the need to develop better alternatives than oil shale or coal to liquid is indeed urgent.

[roamer_1]

Shale formations can't be drilled. They must be mined and then processed. This processing will require huge quantities of fresh water, a commodity in short supply in the west.

Hardly. Outside of the Great Lakes, I can think of no other region with as much fresh water as the Rockies. What is holding it up is water reclamation- silting ponds, and processing to make the water clean again- Most of which is stalled by the bunny-huggers.

I read that the Bakken shale may contain 4 billion recoverable barrels, where do you get 500 billion?

You are basing that off the USGS survey, which is in dispute, or at least, is considered to be a worst-case scenario. I am speaking of oil in place.

See this:
ND.gov: Bakken Formation Reserve Estimates, Executive Summary (pdf)

There is indubitably a huge reserve of undiscovered oil and gas offshore. No one can know how much. It will take years to find and develop and it won't be cheap.

China is drilling it right now, just outside of our territorial waters. If they know where to look, I will bet you we can do better.

[Sunnyflorida]

“They’re are clean and CO2-neutral.”

Sorry but I see no advantage to being CO2 neutral. Why does this matter?

[TigersEye]

There are tons of oil in the world. There are tons of oil right here in America. Drilling for oil is temporary as in centuries.

[TigersEye]

...it would become the new oil and exactly the same thing would be said about it.

And countries would go to war to control it and politicians would play games with it even if it was as clean as spring water.

[aruanan]

And countries would go to war to control it and politicians would play games with it even if it was as clean as spring water.

Speaking of which, my uncle, who was a CEO of a major electrical utility for 29 years, told me that the plant's effluent was cleaner than the water that they took in but it was still subject to all sorts of regulations.

[wolf78]

Sorry but I see no advantage to being CO2 neutral. Why does this matter?

The advantage is that you can keep other fossil fuel reserves in the ground just in case (e.g. war etc.). You would reuse the same carbon atoms over and over again: Solar power / photosynthesis to bind the CO2 from the atmosphere and turn it into fuel, and releasing them again in your car engine.

The operative term here is market parity: If you can have a fully renewable energy source for approx. the same price as a fossil one, that simply is the way to go.

[Sunnyflorida]

I think you miss my point. Intentional? CO2 in the atmosphere is not a bad thing. Unless you are a scammer. I suggested CO2 should not be a consideration you seem to object while calling for coal gas!! You do not make a lot of sense - but a lot of people don't - burning ethanol also produces CO2 - again that is not the problem.

What is this nonsense about using carbon atoms over again. Plants use CO2 but we do not - as a fuel. We use hydrocarbons. We get energy by harnessing the by products of stripping the hydrogen off the carbon (heat, Charles's Law, etc).

Second, the notion of keeping oil in the ground “just in case” is non-sense. There is a lead time and investment cost to make it available readily in an emergency - you have to make in the upfront investments.

Meanwhile for all practical purposes there is a limitless supply of fossil fuels.

“If you can have a fully renewable energy source for approx. the same price as a fossil one, that simply is the way to go.”

BIG FRIGGEN IF.

So we have a practically limitless supply of fossil fuels at current prices. The alternatives for the foreseeable future are way more expensive. And it does no harm to use fossil fuels.

SO WHY NOT USE THEM.

[wolf78]

SO WHY NOT USE THEM.

Simple answer: Because conventional oil is cleaner and easier to retrieve. You use CTL and shale oil if you absolutely have to. Historically that's why Hitler and communist Estonia did. E.g. drilling in ANWR is by far a better solution: It's more efficient and environmentally friendly.

Second, the notion of keeping oil in the ground “just in case” is non-sense.

I never said that - with regard to conventional oil I said just the opposite.
Meanwhile for all practical purposes there is a limitless supply of fossil fuels.

At a cost! Conventional oil is cheap. Shale oil needs to be mined and processed. See above: You do it, when you have to, which means if oil prices drop, you won't do it. It's up to the market to decide. Everything else is socialist nonsense. That goes for ethanol from corn as well as for shale oil.

BIG FRIGGEN IF.

Renewables are no environazi mumbo-jumbo. Due to the high development cost of next-gen reactors wind energy in many regions of the US (of course not all, it's not windy everywhere) is competitive with nuclear energy. The cost associated with having to upgrade the grid and adding more pump stations etc. is comparable to the the financial risk associated with developing a next-gen reactor, because otherwise wind turbines are a low-risk investment.

With new silicon production capacity coming online and thin-film technology, even solar will be cost-competitive within 10 years.

That's with regard to electricity. With regard to algae biofuel we'll have to see.
So we have a practically limitless supply of fossil fuels at current prices.

ROFL. The problem is not supply, it's demand. Has been for the last years. Market economies spread wealth and once China and India have reached the same living standard as the US they'll have ten times the current consumption rates.

Either way, the market will decide and it's most likely not a question of either / or but rather of percentage of the total market.

So in conclusion: I am no scammer (actually I'm a libertarian). Nor do I object to coal gas - if the price is right, it will be done. Because that's what capitalism does: It goes for the most efficient solution. What I object to is the national socialist (n.b. not Nazi, but rather the economical model) thinking of "CTL is the silver bullet". Neither CTL or BTL are gonna replace conventional oil within three weeks or so, in fact we'll have conventional oil for many decades. It's a question of market share over time. And given that time horizon, next-gen-biofuels (algae, cellulosic waste) might be a large part of the answer.

[wolf78]

Ah sorry, forgot the last part.

I think you miss my point. Intentional?

If your point is: "Turn coal to fuel no matter what because we have plenty." then yes, I don't agree, because you have to consider the economic framework. As technology progresses, efficiency equals cost and certain biofuels (algae, cellulosic waste) promise greater efficiencies. Saying sustainable alternatives will never be cost-effective is like saying: We need faster mainframe computers, because noone needs notebooks and iPhones. The truth is: we need both.

Supply and demand.
Supply and demand.
Supply and demand.
Supply and demand.
Supply and demand.
Supply and demand.
Supply and demand.
Supply and demand.
Supply and demand.

[Ron H.]

Point made - point taken.

[Sunnyflorida]

“If your point is: “Turn coal to fuel no matter what because we have plenty.””

No it isn’t. Fossil will be cheaper than non-fossil for a long-long time.

You said, The problem is not supply it is demand. (or vice versa.) Sorry you do not understand economics. It is the intersection that matters.

Fossil will be cheaper than non-fossil for a long-long time. Never is forever and I never said that. I said for practical considerations we have limitless for the foreseeable future. Never goes beyond that. And I do not know what will happen beyond. Neither do you.

[Sunnyflorida]

You also said, “They’re are clean and CO2-neutral.”

I said, “Sorry but I see no advantage to being CO2 neutral. Why does this matter?”

You have failed to address the whole issue of CO2. Were you shooting from the hip? What to take it back?

[RightWhale]

The Arab Oil States are running 10-20% inflation because of the high price of oil. Saudi, Dubai in pain.

[thackney]

Where do you see it reported that high?

http://www.indexmundi.com/saudi_arabia/inflation_rate_(consumer_prices).html

Saudi Arabia: Average inflation rate hits 5.4%
http://www.menareport.com/en/business/228361

[RightWhale]

Try WSJ. They had a report on Saudi again today.

[thackney]

Thanks

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121209976399230769.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

They talked a lot about steel price rising. It sure has impacted the oil/gas industry.

[RightWhale]

Steel is very basic. That is how I maintain my interest in space mining. Yes, indeed.

[thackney]

That will probably be done with nanites; overturn the whole pricing structure.

[RightWhale]

Yes, it will change everything. All we need is one launch with the correct payload. Oh, and repeal the 1967 UN Outer Space Treaty.