Fact Or Fantasy? Scientists Turn Greenhouse Gases Into Gasoline

Honestly, why wouldn't the Western Oil Majors want this tech? Consider:

-Lower 48 production peaked back in the 70s (1978 by my sources) and has been declining ever since
-Alaskan production peaked in the early 90s (1992) and has been in decline
-The amount of oil controlled by NOCs is increasingly higher. Chevron, Exxon, BP, Shell, et al. now control less than 20% of the world's oil production.
-New discoveries continue to decline. Chevron only replaced 70% of its produced reserves in 2007.
-New discoveries are smaller and smaller. Despite the oil industry's impressive kit and endless resources, the most oil they ever found in a single year was in 1965. They have found less oil every year since.
-The new reservoirs are in difficult to produce areas and are in difficult to produce geological formations. No more Ghawars or Prudhoe Bays.

So why not embrace a new tech that could keep the "oil" flowing indefinitely?

The one downside I can see is initial setup cost. Consider that Suncor recently authorized spending $20,700,000,000 to expand production by 200,000bpd. That's an incremental cost of $103,500/barrel of capacity. To scale that to the daily U.S. consumption of 18,500,000bpd would cost $1,914,750,000,000 (that's trillion).

That's probably pretty accurate considering that the infrastructure build out isn't radically different.

— GreenPlease (View Profile)

Posted on 2/21/2008 9:21:28 PM | | Votes: 2   

Kiriller, I agree that the oil companies are motivated to squeeze every last penny out of oil before we run out so as to maximize the return on their investment, but oil companies are also motivated to stay in the energy business beyond the oil era.

Oil companies have many alternative energy research projects ongoing and I predict that whatever oil remains 50 years from now will be saved for the manufacture of plastics while a hydrogen economy takes over.

We will not run out of energy until the sun becomes a white dwarf star. Long before that, humans will no longer be able to tolerate the heat of an expanded sun and we will have to send human seed stock to colonize planets and stellar systems beyond our own. If we are still overpopulated at that time, billions of humans will be literally roasted by the sun.

— EnnNorak (View Profile)

Posted on 2/21/2008 9:34:21 PM | | Votes: 3   

If atmospheric CO2 gets too low, plant growth will stunt and our overpopulated planet will see food shortages that are unimaginable today. Perhaps new plant species will evolve based on silicon rather than carbon. Extra-low carbon dioxide in the atmosphere helps to create an ice age.

— EnnNorak (View Profile)

Posted on 2/21/2008 10:03:16 PM | | Votes: 2   

Nanking or Nanjing, in China, I think.

— Rupert (View Profile)

Posted on 2/21/2008 4:49:55 PM | | Votes: 3   

cdoke, you are forgetting about cheap solar cells that re just around the corner -- with solar energy converted cheaply to electricity, we can make all the hydrogen we want without polluting the planet.

— EnnNorak (View Profile)

Posted on 2/21/2008 9:25:20 PM | | Votes: 2   

I haven't forgotten anything. You tell me where I refer to the future of hydrogen production as opposed to the present, and I'll be inclined to view your message as rationally inspired.

— cdoke (View Profile)

Posted on 2/21/2008 9:40:59 PM | | Votes: 2   

I was hoping to answer you question as to why we are not using electrolysis of water to produce hydrogen. We will as soon as really cheap solar cells become available. I'm not looking for a pissing contest over this.

— EnnNorak (View Profile)

Posted on 2/21/2008 10:06:34 PM | | Votes: 2