| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
mrgybe
Joined: 01 Jul 2008
Posts: 2181
|
 Posted: Mon May 07, 2012 10:26 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| feuser wrote: | | Last I checked, the production of fossil carbon fuels has ceded millions of years ago. Exxon is not producing oil, they're pumping it out of the ground. |
Check again. Oil and gas is still being formed as we speak. As for production vs pumping, I'm sure you have a point, I just don't know what it is.
| feuser wrote: | | Of course, Exxon will be prepared for the moment these wells run dry (or another energy source becomes cheaper). It's not an obligation, it is a long term business strategy. The only question here is, who should pay for the research that will potentially benefit Exxon or any other future energy company. |
The business strategy is really quite simple. Should I use shareholders money, and the accumulated expertise of 100+ years, to find new sources of oil and gas, and to develop technologies for the extraction of previously unavailable resources, secure in the knowledge that hydrocarbons will dominate for at least the next half century..........or should I pursue unknown technologies outside my area of expertise that, based upon history, will produce no return to my shareholders for decades, if ever? Hmmmm. As for who pays for R&D, I'm fine with any tax deductions for R&D being removed, provided they are removed for all companies. Just means that everyone will contribute to R&D at the pump rather than being borne by a much smaller population of taxpayers.
| feuser wrote: | Perhaps you think Hillary should have said:
"I want to take that taxpayer money. And I want to put it into a strategic energy fund that will begin to fund alternative smart energy, alternatives and technologies, so that oil companies can continue to sell us energy, long after the oil has run out." |
No. I think Hillary should have said. "I am a politician who knows absolutely nothing about the oil industry. Everything I say is for political advantage so I cannot be trusted. Any fund controlled by politicians like me will be administered in a thoroughly inefficient manner, and is quite likely to be used for something other than new energy technologies. Therefore, I suggest that we allow free enterprise.......the engine that has brought enormous prosperity to this country, and has put millions of dollars into my own bank account..........to find the solutions for our energy future. After all, they are the experts, I am not." |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
isobars
Joined: 12 Dec 1999
Posts: 11487
|
| Posted: Mon May 07, 2012 11:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Besides our known and relatively unlimited natural gas sources, I got no answer when I asked these self-implied oil gurus here about abiotic (unrelated to dead dinosaurs) oil. Is it real? Is it plentiful and constantly regenerated, as some world-scale experts contend? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
boggsman1
Joined: 24 Jun 2002
Posts: 2979
Location: at a computer
|
| Posted: Mon May 07, 2012 11:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| isobars wrote: | | Besides our known and relatively unlimited natural gas sources, I got no answer when I asked these self-implied oil gurus here about abiotic (unrelated to dead dinosaurs) oil. Is it real? Is it plentiful and constantly regenerated, as some world-scale experts contend? |
It is plentiful. You can ask Exxon ...they bought XTO for $41 Billion, and in today's market that deal would happen at half the price Exon paid. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mrgybe
Joined: 01 Jul 2008
Posts: 2181
|
| Posted: Mon May 07, 2012 12:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Less probably, but nowhere near half. A company the size of Exxon has to make massive investments to sustain itself and/ or grow. Most don't have a quick payback. Some fail. That's what free enterprise is all about............taking measured risk. I'm confident that, in the long run, this one will prove to be a good move. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
coboardhead
Joined: 26 Oct 2009
Posts: 1513
|
| Posted: Mon May 07, 2012 2:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mrgybe wrote: | | coboardhead wrote: | | However, Exxon is the largest "oil refiner"isn't it mrgybe? Large "oil producers" are, mostly, state owned. |
Owning refining capacity isn't the issue. The challenge is to find new sources of hydrocarbons to meet the expected 30% increase in demand over the next quarter century. Exxon production dropped 9 percent in 4Q2011 and 5.5% in 1Q2012. Those are big numbers. And Exxon isn't alone.
http://www.businessjournals.com/ci_20515686/exxon-mobil-production-oil-gas-drops
| coboardhead wrote: | | Of course, large energy companies are developing other strategies for a changing energy market...natural gas is one area. Exxon, for example, is also involved in solar (gasp). Shell Oil is producing geothermal energy. |
Exxon is also pursuing algae.......but only in a realtively small way. They are smart enough to know that their focus should be on their core business.
| coboardhead wrote: | | Mrgybe, you have stated that Obama's halting of the rapid approval of the Keystone Pipeline will give China an opportunity to secure this oil. But, isn't the oil market driven by world demand? Should we be racing the Chinese in approving a pipeline that bisects the US for the purpose of supplying another source for world consumption of refined oil products? |
We've been through this before. Putting in place the infrastructure for a secure supply from a friendly nation will calm the fears of supply disruptions from unfriendly nations. The export spigot can be turned off at any time and redirected to the domestic markets. BTW, there are tens of thousands of miles of pipelines bisecting the US already.
| coboardhead wrote: | | I am not opposed to the Keystone Pipeline. The oil refiners in Texas are part of our economy. The US is an energy exporter of refined energy products. The profits provide taxes and pensions. However, I do not believe that we should be so desperate for energy that we make mistakes in these sorts of energy developments. |
Why is it a mistake? |
Mrgybe...the reason I pointed out that Exxon is the largest refiner was that you were quite dismissive of swchandler's comments about them being the largest energy company. Really it is about definitions, isn't it?
I do not share your altruist view of the energy companies. I see no reason to believe that the Keystone Pipeline spigot will be turned to domestic use...unless it pays better. I would expect nothing less as an investor.
I have not concluded that the KP is a mistake. What I do think is that mistakes should be avoided with careful study. Delaying the pipeline construction to perform this study may be appropriate.
The country is recovering from a recession caused by the collapse of an under regulated banking industry. Why would Obama's team expect that due diligance had been exercised in the previous reviews of this project? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mrgybe
Joined: 01 Jul 2008
Posts: 2181
|
| Posted: Mon May 07, 2012 4:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| coboardhead wrote: | | Mrgybe...the reason I pointed out that Exxon is the largest refiner was that you were quite dismissive of swchandler's comments about them being the largest energy company. Really it is about definitions, isn't it? |
No it isn't. Exxon is not the world's largest energy company by a large margin. The fact that one facet of their business is the largest doesn't alter that in any way.
| coboardhead wrote: | | I do not share your altruist view of the energy companies. I see no reason to believe that the Keystone Pipeline spigot will be turned to domestic use...unless it pays better. I would expect nothing less as an investor. |
We've also been through this before. If the mid-East cut us off this would become the more attractive market.
| coboardhead wrote: | | I have not concluded that the KP is a mistake. What I do think is that mistakes should be avoided with careful study. Delaying the pipeline construction to perform this study may be appropriate. |
Is more than three years not long enough for a government review?
| coboardhead wrote: | | The country is recovering from a recession caused by the collapse of an under regulated banking industry. Why would Obama's team expect that due diligance had been exercised in the previous reviews of this project? |
The reviews were conducted by the Obama administration, and the approval given by the Obama State Department.....before it was retracted. Are you suggesting that the Obama Administration thinks that the Obama Administration is incompetent? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mac
Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 3361
|
| Posted: Mon May 07, 2012 4:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
This has come up before, and we need to remember that mrgybe is a spokesperson for oil and natural gas, even when he is right. An adult conversation doesn't start with sneers about Solyndra, it talks about economics and how they are changing over time.
Those in the non-renewable energy business (new oil being formed at a rate to offset usage? Please.) don't really want to talk about renewable sources because, once investment is made in solar or wind there is no cost per BTU except that of depreciation of the equipment. That may not be trivial, and may well be enough to avoid or limit our investments in research, but it does require a little more thought than "Solyndra and Obama are bad."
Interesting little comparison here, although the numbers are kind of dated, http://www.consumerenergyreport.com/2010/01/19/prices-of-various-energy-sources/ Using a unit of one million BTU's natural gas comes in at $5.67, Powder River Basin coal at $0.56, and petroleum at $13.56. I don't think these numbers have a transportation cost, and they have no opportunity cost for either emissions of particulates or CO2, which are costs transferred invisibly to the public commons. I think that natural gas prices have come way down ($2.94/mBTU in January 2012) due to fracking, to where they are below coal. A number of things are suggested. First, the market is going to continue to search for alternatives to oil that are less costly; thus Exxon's response in investment in natural gas. Second, we have lots of oil, and we could double the cost with mitigation for emissions and still have a more cost-effective fuel than petroleum. Which, of course, means that the shrieks about a tax on carbon shutting down the economy are really not about shutting down the economy, but about market share and maximizing profits.
Just a note on fracking and the "sensible" energy strategy that the mrgybe's of the world want to return to. You've probably all heard about potential groundwater contamination in Wyoming, the Governor's attempt to delay EPA's report, attacks on EPA from Forbes, etc. Here's just a lead from the LA Times.
| Quote: | Reporting from Washington — The Environmental Protection Agency said that hydraulic fracturing, a controversial natural gas drilling process, probably contaminated well water in Wyoming, a finding sure to roil the debate about expanding natural gas drilling around the country.
The EPA's new draft report found dangerous amounts of benzene in a monitoring well near the town of Pavillion, in central Wyoming. |
My knowledgeable sources tell me that well run and well regulated fracking has little risk. Of course, the energy policy established by Cheney, based on the Exxon et al staff in secret meetings in the White House, doesn't ensure well run and well regulated fracking. We keep getting utter nonsense from the right about how regulation isn't needed (want to buy some tranches of sub-prime loans? Rated AAA.) and interferes with economic growth. Without a doubt, increased supply of natural gas at prices that discourages burning coal is good for the economy and the environment. Regulating it smartly would have resolved much of the controversy, which borders on hysteria, because of the secrecy of the energy companies. But business knows best, eh?
If someone could add some reliable information on what the Chinese subsidy of solar panels is doing to actual cost of electricity it would be helpful. Mrgybe, you know so much...enlighten us. How have those costs changed over time, and under what circumstances can they compete with natural gas at under $3/MBTU. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
feuser
Joined: 29 Oct 2002
Posts: 1286
|
| Posted: Mon May 07, 2012 6:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mrgybe wrote: | Check again. Oil and gas is still being formed as we speak. As for production vs pumping, I'm sure you have a point, I just don't know what it is.
|
My point is that continuing to pump finite (for all practical purposes) fossil resources without investing into the next generation energy is much like killing the cow to get at the milk.
Your point(s) below, is (are) a bit muddled by your boundless odium for all things Democratic.
Do you advocate that the public hand finance the R&D for that next generation energy, which will then undoubtedly be exploited and monetized by private enterprise - like public cold war spending laid the foundation for the wealth for what you're describing below to be the fruits of free-market enterprise?
In short: Socialize research and privatize profit? Whatever - as long as someone does fund research....
| mrgybe wrote: |
The business strategy is really quite simple. Should I use shareholders money, and the accumulated expertise of 100+ years, to find new sources of oil and gas, and to develop technologies for the extraction of previously unavailable resources, secure in the knowledge that hydrocarbons will dominate for at least the next half century..........or should I pursue unknown technologies outside my area of expertise that, based upon history, will produce no return to my shareholders for decades, if ever? Hmmmm. As for who pays for R&D, I'm fine with any tax deductions for R&D being removed, provided they are removed for all companies. Just means that everyone will contribute to R&D at the pump rather than being borne by a much smaller population of taxpayers.
...
No. I think Hillary should have said. "I am a politician who knows absolutely nothing about the oil industry. Everything I say is for political advantage so I cannot be trusted. Any fund controlled by politicians like me will be administered in a thoroughly inefficient manner, and is quite likely to be used for something other than new energy technologies. Therefore, I suggest that we allow free enterprise.......the engine that has brought enormous prosperity to this country, and has put millions of dollars into my own bank account..........to find the solutions for our energy future. After all, they are the experts, I am not." |
_________________
florian - ny22
http://www.windsurfing.kasail.com/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mrgybe
Joined: 01 Jul 2008
Posts: 2181
|
| Posted: Mon May 07, 2012 10:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| feuser wrote: | | My point is that continuing to pump finite (for all practical purposes) fossil resources without investing into the next generation energy is much like killing the cow to get at the milk. |
You will have no argument from me that new sources of energy should be pursued. I'm happy to see others do that while oil and gas companies keep the world running doing what they do best.
| feuser wrote: | | Your point(s) below, is (are) a bit muddled by your boundless odium for all things Democratic. |
Maybe just a hint of paranoia there.
| feuser wrote: | | Do you advocate that the public hand finance the R&D for that next generation energy, which will then undoubtedly be exploited and monetized by private enterprise - like public cold war spending laid the foundation for the wealth for what you're describing below to be the fruits of free-market enterprise? |
You didn't read my post. I have no problem with the removal of all R&D tax deductions, provided they are removed across the board. Let the people who consume the products, pay for the research in the price. That will, of course, hit those at the low end of the economic scale the hardest............but hey, it will make us feel good that there are no more of those ghastly "loopholes".
As for exploitation.......is a manufacturer and/ or marketer of Ka Sails exploiting the people who conceived and designed them? Or are they paying a fair price for the design and using their manufacturing/ marketing skills and resources to bring the design to the public? This type of disparaging innuendo about private businesses is both silly and hypocritical. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mac
Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 3361
|
| Posted: Tue May 08, 2012 3:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I have no problem with removing energy subsidies for fossil fuel-if, if, if. Those who know the fossil fuel business don’t necessarily know the other energy pathways. Even if they do, when they resort to simplification like “Solyndra” they are not adding to the conversation. A few interesting things are out there for those who are concerned that fossil fuels are subsidized by using public resources and not paying for the pollution generated.
First, look at the oped piece by Mark Munro et al, “With proper reforms, solar has bright future.”
| Quote: | Last year, 2011, was a banner year for solar. Costs for solar panels dropped 60 percent, and installations were 10 times what they were in 2007.
Across the country, and especially in California, prices have gone down and employment has gone up in practically all clean tech sectors. Despite the recession, the nation has expanded domestic production of wind turbines and electric vehicle batteries, maintained a trade surplus in solar components and regained the lead in global clean energy investment.
But a recent string of bankruptcies, following the high-profile collapse of Solyndra in September, has begun to put a chill on solar stock values and led to hand-wringing about the future of the sector.
In reality, solar's troubles are more the result of industry growth than failure. New competitors are flocking into the market. Unit prices are plummeting to the delight of buyers, but profit margins for manufacturers are also shrinking. Markets are consolidating. In short, the increasingly international solar market is becoming fiercely competitive.
Much of solar's growth can be credited to generous government support. By supplementing federal tax incentives with state policies, California has become the largest solar market in the United States.
Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/05/07/ED4D1OEIMF.DTL#ixzz1uJR218Hi |
Next, look at something like this: http://www.slideshare.net/gwsolar/pv-status-and-pathways-stephen-orourke, prepared, it seems, by an investment analyst with Deutsche Bank.
Or this, from alternative efforts sponsored by the utilities in the Pacific Northwest, land of hydroelectric power:
| Quote: | May 31, 2010
Electric Energy Conservation Cost Effective
It is cheaper to cut demand for electric power than to generate more electric power.
PORTLAND, Ore., May 4 /PRNewswire/ -- Today the Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance (NEEA) announced that 13 regional energy organizations have pledged to renew their investment in NEEA with $192 million for the 2010-2014 period. NEEA's funding backs an aggressive plan to save the region 200 average megawatts (aMW) of power by 2014 at a projected cost of under 3.5 cents per kilowatt hour, enough energy to power 138,000 homes for a year, and at a cost less than any other type of generation source. NEEA's funding organizations are based in Idaho, Montana, Oregon and Washington and represent about 130 regional public utilities on behalf of Northwest energy consumers.
"Investments in energy efficiency are helping to lay the groundwork for a new energy future for America," said U.S. Department of Energy Assistant Secretary Cathy Zoi. "By continuing to promote energy-efficient technologies, the Northwest is helping to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, while creating green jobs and driving our economy forward."
Working through NEEA, the region has already saved a substantial amount of energy. From 1997 through 2008, the Northwest achieved 264 aMW of energy savings through its regional efforts, which is enough energy to power the cities of Spokane and Tacoma, Washington or 182,000 homes each year. These energy savings were achieved at a cost of about two cents per kilowatt-hour. Including the investment in NEEA, the region as a whole is expected to spend roughly $2 billion on new energy efficiency programs by 2014.
One wonders just how much electric power can be saved before the cost of additional demand reduction equals the marginal cost of more electric power generation. Demand reduction at lower cost effectively raises living standards.
That electric power saved at a cost of 3.5 cents per kwh compares with a US average national residental electric power cost of about 11 cents per kwh. Cutting electric power usage costs much less than generating more electric power. |
Or try this, from a study by MIT: http://dandelion-patch.mit.edu/afs/athena.mit.edu/dept/cron/project/urban-sustainability/Energy%20Efficiency_Brendan%20McEwen/LG%20EE%20Policy%20Sectors/Costs/Friedrich%20et%20al%202009%20-%20EE%20Costs.pdf
It won’t copy, so go there to see the details. But the bottom line is that energy efficiency programs have an average cost of $0.025/kWH, and are the best option.
So for me, the bottom line is that we collectively need to subsidize the development of solar technology to get it up and running and see when and where it will be cost effective. These studies don't suggest that it is cost-effective now, but they do suggest that the cost differential is coming down rapidly, while the cost for oil is continuing to go up rapidly. Certainly investing in energy independence for the United States makes sense, and does not have the hidden costs of paying the military bill for the world for energy shipping. But these studies show that the bulk of the economic incentives, of whatever sort they take, should go into conservation.
Except perhaps putting a little too much in the tax credit size for solar instalation, this is exactly what the Obama administration has done. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
|
Search
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Register
