Tuesday, April 21, 2015

Smart Built Culture Answers




I presented a Smart Built Culture lecture today for Barie Hasib's WIN with BIM webinar series. The registered attendees asked a number of insightful questions which I promised to answer in writing on the blog. The questions and answers are set forth below.

If you have the opportunity to attend one of the WIN with BIM webinars I highly recommend it. David Philps, my good friend Ralph Montague and  Andy Hamer have all presented all with other BIM experts. More are scheduled throughout the year so don't miss the opportunity to learn from those in the trenches!

Also, if you have any questions regarding efforts within your organization to adopt a smart built culture please don't hesitate to contact me. 

QUESTIONS FROM REGISTERED ATTENDEES
Smart Built Culture Lecture
Hosted by BIM REC
James L. Salmon
Presenter

What does IPD look like now and what will it ultimately look like? I have seen IPD-light and IPD-like projects, both more successful than traditional contracts. What is preventing IPD wide spread use?

Commitment to Value

The AEC industry is committed to waste based business models and most stakeholders think they can make more money delivering planning, design and construction services under the old school model. The transparency imposed on the old school model by BIM and VDC causes great angst among those trying to hide the ball.

What is the economic model behind IPD that ensures the client gets best value but removing inefficiency, i.e., in an economic sense, what keeps the supplier "honest"?

Value v Waste

Value based business models, open books and transparent, open and honest communications.
IPD only works if those delivering planning, design and construction services expect to EARN a profit by adding value AND the owner is willing to PAY for the value received. If those delivering the services expect to EXTRACT profits from waste and inefficiency – i.e. because another stakeholder made a mistake – then your IPD project runs off the rails. Similarly, if the owner fails or refuses to pay for real value that is added, providers will rightly become disgruntled.
Negotiating a new generation compensation model that rewards providers for delivering value is a critical component of a good IPD agreement.

How do you convince firms to execute IPD contracts if they have resistance?

Trust.

Firms that passionately believe in their ability to deliver value are eager to sign IPD agreements.  Firms that doubt their ability to deliver value are reluctant to sign IPD agreements. Firms that passionately believe in their ability to EXTRACT profits from the failure of others on construction projects will never sign an IPD agreement.

Most resistance to signing IPD contracts comes from firms in the last category and it is highly unlikely those firms will ever sign an IPD agreement.

Even firms that believe passionately in a value based business model will be reluctant, however, to sign an IPD agreement with other firms because experience tells them somebody will screw them.  And they are right.  The key is to convince all the potential players that the legal framework through which the project is delivered is one that can collect the stingers from all the scorpions. That requires TRUST, the rarest resource in the AEC industry.

How to organise and run design charrettes [for a BIM platform and in an IPD environment] ?

Incrementally

Start with Katy’s Castle Workshops then move on to Charitable Doll House Events, then to Charitable Community Projects, then Pilot Projects and finally a real live Small Commercial Projects and the Real Projects on a regular basis.

How to model and evaluate (calculation/estimation/simulation) various lod stages in an open BIM approach?

A Lean Loop

Subject the modelling and evaluation process to a continuous improvement cycle. Capture institutional knowledge, share it and improve upon it.

What legal issues should we expect to find when choosing BIM and IPD? Is IPD the best delivery process when we speak about BIM projects?

The legal pitfalls encountered by designers operating on a BIM platform in an IPD environment include all the traditional legal issues with a few extra twists.

First, the scope and nature of the intellectual property associated with the BIM raises a different set of questions and concerns than those encountered in a 2D world. 

Second, the level of detail in the BIM and required of the designer tends to morph or become a moving goal post depending on what the BIM is expected to do and when.

Third, BIM is definitely emerging as the new standard of care in AEC and it won't be long before lawyers begin beating designers over the head with virtual renderings created on high end BIM platforms and arguing the designer should have used those tools and processes.

Best practices to transfer data not involved in IFC standards? (Survey, electrical namespace...) Could you suggest CAFM platforms (or just interfaces) with I/O Revit and/or AutoCAD integration?

Open Source BIM.html

My hope is that Bill East’s COBie tool and IFC will result in a common formatting and labeling schema from which the basic data can be hovered up onto a centralized open BIM.html data platform that can be mined by a variety of apps and tools.

The AEC is way behind other industries in the drive to master BIG DATA and we need to take advantage of our obsolescence by leaping over pitfalls that entrapped other industries. Countries on the African continent successfully leapfrogged our 18th Century banking system and went straight to electronic banking on cell phones. China is doing something similar with medical records and medical services. Construction should leverage BIG BIM – on an Open Source BIM.html platform – to leap frog from spread sheets to a web based data repository that can be searched via algorithms rather than by columns and lines.

The data flowing through the aqua duct is a miniscule portion of the BIG DATA available on the web and the AEC industry ought to focus on new generation apps and software tools that mine that data on an as needed basis. As I put it during the presentation, owners should be armed with a digital asset that creates and streams the right Variety of data in Volumes delivered at a manageable Velocity that enables the owner to extract real Value from that Verified data. In short leverage V5th .

Why is it very difficult to convince people to implement BIM for construction projects? What would most suitable benefits from BIM for a Construction Company?

Lack of Trust

Most enterprises are comfortable operating a waste based business model designed to EXTRACT profits from the failed Design-Bid-Build delivery model prevalent in the industry. The elephant in charge of the subconscious mind – where momentous decisions are made - doesn’t change unless something catastrophic occurs.

Constructors that adopt BIM enjoy immediate increases in efficiency and productivity and gain the ability to track key metrics from project to project more easily.  Constructability, material take offs, improved coordination between trades and the ability to leverage just-in-time delivery of construction materials are among the low hanging fruit available to general contractors and trade contractors.

When and who initiates discussion for doing BIM/ IPD on a project?

Visionary Leaders

Every stakeholder in the AEC industry that intends to remain in business needs to initiate the discussion in-house. Once a firm has a handle on BIM & IPD in-house engagement with key clients and crucial collaborative partners is the next best step.

Why has BIM not focused upon the most critical aspect... collaborative construction delivery methods?

BIM is only half the arch

BIM is set of tools and processes designed to carve blocks that make up the left side of the arch. Collaborative construction / lean construction / construction management / cultural change are all tools and processes – collectively (CM)X - that

How can the AIA E203-2013 BIM guide help the process?

These are good templates from which to begin negotiations.

Is there a difference between IPD contracts and IPD BIM delivery systems?

Yes.

An IPD agreement memorializes the rights, duties and responsibilities of the parties. As with any legal agreement, it serves as the mechanism whereby the parties’ legal relationships are established and adjusted.

An IPD / BIM delivery system is made up of an array of tools and processes used by stakeholders in the AEC to plan, design and construct facilities and or infrastructure. As with any system, the culture in which it is deployed matters a great deal and impacts the system as much or more than the tools and processes deployed within it.

BIM is well established in the Architecture/Building industry. How widespread is the implementation of BIM and IPD in the Civil/Transportation industry? Can you talk about some case studies about how BIM has been utilized on a Civil/Transportation project and quantify the benefits gained over traditional project delivery?

DOT in Arizona

The Department of Transportation in Arizona adopted BIM and modified their procurement rules and regulations to allow IPD Lite.

D-9 ripper dragged through a 10” gas main in Wyoming

Turn of the century clay sewer pipes in San Antonio

Moving less dirt less often

Modernizing residential infrastructure and delivering it just in time

Do you recommend that the Architect manage the VDC-BIM process in the Validation and Design Development stages of a project?

Leadership Baton

BIM and IPD leadership baton constantly changes hands.  Leader is the entity / person with the requisite skill set and experience to ensure success of a given phase of the journey.

Is there an international body tasked in global BIM implementation?

No.

The buildingSMARTalliance seemed poised to for the role but has not fully delivered.

A combination of practical grassroots leadership combined with visionary leadership from governments and the C-Suite leaders of leading AEC firms.

A smart built culture makes sense but what about local building knowledge and construction. Will global BIM culture, somehow destroy our diverse and rich culture of building? As a BIM specialist, I find the methodology urgent and needed within the construction market. What about the technical side of this way of working? Only for technicians or also for owners and other people in general? Should BIM be more "easy" to use in order to reach more professionals?

Local Rules

Construction is like real estate, it’s all about location, location location. A smart built culture must, ultimately, be deployed on A project in A specific location.  Sure, the team may be global but the materials and labor must be sourced locally.

SMART BIM is the goal.

Smart BIM should be like the Web; Easy peasy lemon squezzy.

I don’t know jack about Revit.  And I couldn’t model a dog house on Dassault Systems CATIA platform. Nor can I model steel connections in Tekla.  But I know people who can use those tools.
When you log onto the web to reserve a flight you don’t care what makes Travelocity or Priceline work. You just want to type in your destination, the dates you have to travel and in return you want a list of flights. Once you have the list in front of you, you may need to sort by price – if price means best value – by departure time if that’s more valuable to you than price, etc. The digital asset we hand of to the owner of a building should allow that owner to interface, in simple way, with that smart building. Think Apple meets Google.

We always talk about BIM is needed for future, but still a lot companies are reluctant to embark on BIM due to the cost of investment and limitation of the software and process to help them adopt BIM. Do you have any advice?

Bite the Bullet

BIM & IPD are coming and those that don’t adapt will die.


Welcome to the Collaborative Revolution!

James L. Salmon, Esq.
Collaborative Construction
300 Pike Street
Cincinnati, Ohio 45202
Summary of Services and James L. Salmon's CV


Office 513-721-5672
Fax 513-562-4388
Cell 512-630-4446
JamesLSalmon@gmailcom


Collaborative Construction Website
No Silos Website















Wednesday, April 15, 2015

Fix the SYSTEM to Fix the PROBLEM - More Deming



Problems are myriad in construction.  Draw a three foot circle in the center of any random job site in the country, stand a 5th grader of average intelligence in the circle for 3 hours and he or she will report more failure than you could fix in three lifetimes. But the problems so identified are primarily red herrings.

Deming contended fixing the SYSTEM fixes the PROBLEM. And construction, like manufacturing when Deming was doing his work, needs a SYSTEM fix.

An example.

During a visit to a general contractor's job site the project manager spent the entire visit bragging about the company's new onsite inventory management system. The company spent significant time, energy and money formulating, perfecting and implementing the new inventory management system. In other words they struggled mightily to FIX a PROBLEM that manifests itself on virtually every construction project as a direct result of the broken SYSTEM the built industry utilizes to plan, design and construct facilities and infrastructure. That SYSTEM is called Design-Bid-Build and almost every government on the planet insists on mindlessly procuring facilities and infrastructure under that asinine SYSTEM.

A lean logistics colleague, a Deming disciple from the manufacturing arena, asked the young project manager, "Why manage the PROBLEM of excess materials on site when you could just ELIMINATE the problem completely?" His query back, "How could you do that?"  "By switching from the typical piece-meal construction materials delivery SYSTEM," [Which we all know is sacrosanct under Design-Bid-Build] "to a just in-time delivery SYSTEM," she explained.  

"Oh, that won't work in construction," he said. "because construction involves building a unique facility in a unique location and it would be like herding cats to coordinate all those deliveries."

Image result for facepalm


The good news for the young man is that is EXACTLY what her company, Stangate Management, Inc. does for construction clients.

The moral of the story? It is foolish and wasteful to tackle a PROBLEM without identifying its root cause because the vast majority of the time your will be better off fixing the SYSTEM instead.

That Deming was sharp cookie wasn't he? And that Margaret Del Favero of Stangate Management is no slouch herself.


Welcome to the Collaborative Revolution!

James L. Salmon, Esq.
Collaborative Construction
300 Pike Street
Cincinnati, Ohio 45202
Summary of Services and James L. Salmon's CV


Office 513-721-5672
Fax 513-562-4388
Cell 512-630-4446
JamesLSalmon@gmailcom


Collaborative Construction Website
No Silos Website















Thursday, April 9, 2015

A Little More Deming



Deming contended fixing the SYSTEM fixes the PROBLEM. And construction, like mfg when Deming was doing his work, needs a SYSTEM fix.

During a recent visit to a general contractor's job site the project manager bragged about the GC's new job site inventory management program. The company spent a significant amount of time and energy formulating, perfecting and implementing the new program. My lean logistics colleague, a Deming disciple with StanGate Management, a Cincinnati based construction supply logistics firm, asked him why the company was managing the problem when it could ELIMINATE the problem by changing from a piece-meal construction materials delivery SYSTEM to a just in-time construction materials delivery SYSTEM.

My contention is that the legal SYSTEM in construction is broken and that broken legal SYSTEM exacerbates every PROBLEM that manifests itself in construction. Implementing a smart built culture requires a new legal SYSTEM and the new legal SYSTEM will solve many of the problems in construction.

Design-Bid-Build is a waste based delivery SYSTEM that supports and enables waste based business models.

Integrated-Project-Delivery is a value based delivery SYSTEM that supports and enables value based business models.

Which SYSTEM are your lawyers vested in?


Welcome to the Collaborative Revolution!

James L. Salmon, Esq.
Collaborative Construction
300 Pike Street
Cincinnati, Ohio 45202
Summary of Services and James L. Salmon's CV


Office 513-721-5672
Fax 513-562-4388
Cell 512-630-4446
JamesLSalmon@gmailcom


Collaborative Construction Website
No Silos Website















Monday, March 23, 2015

Lecture on Deming's Quest




As regular readers know I'm teaching portions of the masters level BIM Strategy course at Middlesex University in London. My next lecture will focus on Deming and his quest for continuous improvement. The lecture connects threads of thought pioneered by Deming and others to the lean construction processes applied by forward thinkers in construction today. The excerpt below captures Deming's thoughts on systems and forms the core of the lecture.

Deming viewed organizations as systems. Defining a system as a network of interdependent components striving for the same goal, Deming envisioned systems in which everyone gains, from shareholders, to customers, suppliers, employees, the community and the environment. Deming analogized to an orchestra to illustrate the concept, noting, “An orchestra is judged by listeners, not so much by illustrious players, but by the way they work together. The conductor, as manager, begets cooperation between the players, as a system, every player to support the others. There are other aims for an orchestra, such as joy in work for the players and the conductor.”

Viewing an organization as a system compels consideration of internal and external connections and interactions and eliminates silos. An integrated approach achieves real success by improving the quality of its products and services, to raising the entire esprit de corps of a company.

Is the system that makes up your organization healthy? Is it ready to deliver planning, design and construction services collaboratively in an integrated trust based environment?

Soon Collaborative Construction will announce a new initiative that focuses on solutions to the core problems faced by built industry professionals that want to operate in a trust based environment that supports and rewards BIM enabled planning, design and construction services in an IPD environment. I will keep readers informed as the initiative unfolds.
 

Welcome to the Collaborative Revolution!

James L. Salmon, Esq.
Collaborative Construction
300 Pike Street
Cincinnati, Ohio 45202
Summary of Services and James L. Salmon's CV


Office 513-721-5672
Fax 513-562-4388
Cell 512-630-4446
JamesLSalmon@gmailcom


Collaborative Construction Website
No Silos Website















Thursday, February 26, 2015

More Climate McCarthyism from Science Deniers




Science Deniers and well paid advocates of Anthropogenic Global Warming / Climate Change freaked out last week because the evil Koch brothers - among others - provided $1.2 million in funding to Willie Soon, a prominent skeptic of AGW.  The Guardian hyperventilated this headline "Work of Prominent Climate Skeptic Funded by Enery Industry" and the excerable Democratic representative from Arizona, Grijalva, quickly fired off a letter to 7 other prominent Climate Skeptic inquiring, "Are you Now or Have you Ever Been a Climate Skeptic"

This high dungeon by these Ass Clowns would be funny if it were not actually having its intended effect of chilling debate and driving real scientists, like Roger Pielke Jr. of the University of Colorado out of the field.  Peilke, one of those named by the excerable Grijalva's as a Climate Denier, wrote a blog post title "I am Under Investigation" detailing the incident in which he proclaims his intention to abandon the field to these fools.  I hope he does not, but his frustration is understandable.

Why the Science Deniers who advocate reducing carbon emissions by 80% by 2050 - which would require the US to cut carbon emissions from 6 billion metric tons to approximately 1.2 billion metric tons, a per capita emission rate last experienced in the US in 1905-1910 - are flinging poo and rocks in the glass house of research funding is beyond me.  At least one journalists, Henry Payne in the article "Global Warming: Follow the Money", honed in on glass house argument.  Maybe these McCarthy style witch hunts will prompt more such investigations and the media will delve into the source of funding for the Science Deniers who advocate reducing carbon emissions by 80% by 2050 in hopes of slowing global warming by about 1.0 Degree Celsius over the next 100 years while they simultaneously agree that neither India nor China intend to commit economic suicide by depriving millions of their citizens of access to Hans Rosling's Magic Washing Machine.

I've always argued that Liberty, aka private property rights, Capitalism and Cheap Energy raise more people out of poverty than anything else.  And Hans Rosling's discussion of the Magic Washing Machine reinforces that argument. Let's hope the Science Deniers and the McCarthy style supporters fail in their latest efforts to stifle scientific debate.



Welcome to the Collaborative Revolution!

James L. Salmon, Esq.
Collaborative Construction
300 Pike Street
Cincinnati, Ohio 45202
Summary of Services and James L. Salmon's CV


Office 513-721-5672
Fax 513-562-4388
Cell 512-630-4446
JamesLSalmon@gmailcom


Collaborative Construction Website
No Silos Website















Wednesday, February 18, 2015

Designing for the Internet of Things




Professor Rodolphe el-Khoury has been selected as the new Dean of Architecture at the University of Miami.  He presented at the TEDx conference in Toronto where he discussed the concept of Designing for the Internet of Things.  Interesting thoughts.


Lots if interesting thoughts.


Welcome to the Collaborative Revolution!

James L. Salmon, Esq.
Collaborative Construction
300 Pike Street
Cincinnati, Ohio 45202
Summary of Services and James L. Salmon's CV


Office 513-721-5672
Fax 513-562-4388
Cell 512-630-4446
JamesLSalmon@gmailcom


Collaborative Construction Website
No Silos Website















Wednesday, February 11, 2015

3D Printer Prints Houses in China




More grist for the 3D Printer mill and the never ending uses of concrete.

A Chinese company uses a 3D-printer to print houses for rapid assembly in China.  Printing components from a mixture of sand, concrete and glass fiber, all materials processed from common construction waste, the process holds promise.

The commercial 3D printer used is over 6 meters tall and 32 meters long.

The video isn't the most slick production you'll ever see, but it will be of interest to most. 

 


Welcome to the Collaborative Revolution!

James L. Salmon, Esq.
Collaborative Construction
300 Pike Street
Cincinnati, Ohio 45202
Summary of Services and James L. Salmon's CV


Office 513-721-5672
Fax 513-562-4388
Cell 512-630-4446
JamesLSalmon@gmailcom


Collaborative Construction Website
No Silos Website















Friday, January 9, 2015

A Harsh Assessment of Architecture




I've been pleading with my architect clients for years to pay attention to the emergence of new virtual planning and design tools and, more importantly, the way those tools are being used to increase efficiency and productivity in the planning, design, construction, operation and maintenance of facilities and infrastructure over time.  Too many of those clients continue to ignore the impact of these new tools and processes and too many of them are ceding their seat at the table with the owners to general contractors.  Why architects refuse to embrace these new tools and processes has vexed me, but I continue to work with stakeholders in the built industry - including architects - who are prepared to move forward and improve the built industry as a whole.

The article excerpted and linked below addresses the insular mindset of modern architecture and provides insights into the angst felt in the profession. The clash between the architect's vision, the owners needs and the contractors ability to build what the architect designs speaks to the need for additional collaboration on the front end of projects. Anyone interested in forming an integrated team to pursue their next project should give me a call.  Meanwhile, the article excerpted and linked below may be of interest to stakeholders in the built industry who wonder why architects continue to resist the practical nuts and bolts effect of virtual planning, design, construction, costing, scheduling, operations and maintenance empowered by the effective use of BIM tools in an integrated project delivery (IPD) environment.

Architecture is suffering a crisis of confidence. More and more mainstream figures in the field are admitting that the profession has lost its way. As I previously mentioned, Frank Gehry, the world’s most famous architect, recently said that “98% of everything that is built and designed today is pure sh*t. There’s no sense of design, no respect for humanity or for anything else.” Architectural thought-leaders seconded and thirded him. And he’s since been fourthed by another. 
Last year, recognizing general public’s low opinion of architects, the American Institute of Architects (AIA), the trade organization for the profession, launched aneffort to “reposition” the industry by hiring marketing and brand-identity firms. (You can find a PDF of one of the Institute’s public opinion polls here.) 
And now The New York Times, the ultimate arbiter of elite opinion, recentlypublished an op-ed that declared, “For too long, our profession [architecture] has flatly dismissed the general public’s take on our work, even as we talk about making that work more relevant with worthy ideas like sustainability, smart growth and ‘resilience planning.’” The authors are not kooks on the fringe but architect Steven Bingler and Martin C. Pedersen, former executive editor of Metropolis magazine, both of them very much in the establishment.




Welcome to the Collaborative Revolution!

James L. Salmon, Esq.
Collaborative Construction
300 Pike Street
Cincinnati, Ohio 45202
Summary of Services and James L. Salmon's CV


Office 513-721-5672
Fax 513-562-4388
Cell 512-630-4446
JamesLSalmon@gmailcom


Collaborative Construction Website
No Silos Website















Monday, December 29, 2014

Utica Shale Paying Off for Ohio




Long time readers may recall a post from 2011 in which I wondered whether the Utica Shale formation, which unlike the shallower Marcellus Shale formation, extends well into Ohio, would be developed and become an economic boon to eastern Ohio. See, Uitca Bigger than Marcellus? It looks like that is exactly what has happened.

Below is an image reflecting the rise in production in the Utica since 2007, along with a map showing the Ohio counties beneath which the formation has been tapped to date.  My understanding is that portions of the formation extend all the way into Indiana as well, and that it can be tapped throughout the Marcellus by deepening existing wells in that formation.


Production in the Utica took off in 2014 and promises to be larger still in 2015.  The article linked below briefly summarizes the current state of affairs.  As I explained in a separate post that year cheap energy from cheap natural gas is likely to fuel renewed interest in manufacturing in Ohio and Pennsylvania.

Thanks to enhanced oil and gas recovery techniques the United States has become a force to be reckoned with in the international oil and gas market.  Our mature pipeline system and vast untapped reserves in the Green River / Fossil / Great Divide / Whashakie / Piceane and Uinta Formations in Colorado, Wyoming and Utah render us energy independent. It will be interesting to see how this impacts our foreign policy over the next 100 years.

  


Welcome to the Collaborative Revolution!

James L. Salmon, Esq.
Collaborative Construction
300 Pike Street
Cincinnati, Ohio 45202
Summary of Services and James L. Salmon's CV


Office 513-721-5672
Fax 513-562-4388
Cell 512-630-4446
JamesLSalmon@gmailcom


Collaborative Construction Website
No Silos Website















Wednesday, December 24, 2014

Carbon Dioxide, Coal, Oil & Gas




If global warming represents real danger then real solutions must be considered.  Instead, science deniers who insist the world is warming - even though it's not - refuse to embrace nuclear power and insist on policies that make carbon based energy more expensive. Likewise, many of these charlatans reject enhanced oil recovery out of hand. That is a big mistake. 

Enhanced oil recovery, a kissing cousin to fracking for natural gas, has the potential to reduce carbon emissions more effectively than any processes devised to date. The article excerpted and linked below makes a powerful case for subsidizing the process as a means of leveraging coal reserves, extending the life of existing oil fields, creating a whole new industrial sector while simultaneously rendering energy derived from coal and oil carbon neutral.

In essences, the article argues for an energy policy the supports and enables decarbonization rather than existing policies that increase the cost of fossil fuels while doing little to reduce carbon emissions.  The excerpt below describes the process.

Drillers have long understood that they leave most of their product in the ground. As oil is pumped, the pressure underground drops and it becomes harder to extract what remains. Typically, only about one-third of the oil in a given location can be economically removed. As a result, many supposedly “depleted” wells actually still contain most of their oil​—​just waiting for a technology that will make it economical to extract it.  
In the early 1970s, drillers in west Texas figured out how to do just that, and the remarkable secret to their success was carbon dioxide. Pumping carbon dioxide into depleted wells not only increases the pressure, it also acts as a solvent, helping to separate oil from the cavities in the rock where it is trapped and the water it is often mixed with. This process enables oil companies to extract as much as another third of a site’s oil​—​essentially doubling a well’s productivity. 
One might think that such a remarkable technology would be an overnight sensation. But in fact, we are nowhere near capitalizing upon EOR’s full potential. Since the 1970s, oil companies have injected about a billion tons of carbon dioxide into “depleted” wells, producing roughly 2.5 billion barrels of oil. About 6 percent of the oil produced in America is now extracted using this technique. We know it works​—​but it’s still a niche market. 
What’s holding us back? A shortage of carbon dioxide. The carbon dioxide used in EOR operations is predominantly geologic​—​companies tap into underground deposits and extract CO2 for enhanced oil recovery and other commercial applications. That’s how it’s been done since the 1970s, but two important things have changed in recent years. Climate change has become the preeminent environmental concern, and new studies have shown that there is much more oil reachable through EOR than had been previously understood​—​so much so that geologic carbon dioxide supplies aren’t nearly sufficient. If we want to get that oil, we’ll have to capture carbon dioxide from industrial sources, such as coal-fired power plants. 
Which brings us to the interesting place we find ourselves today: Our nation’s top environmental goal is reducing carbon dioxide emissions. And one of our top energy priorities is maximizing production from domestic oil reserves. Capturing carbon dioxide from power plants and using it for EOR could produce billions of barrels of oil while simultaneously putting billions of tons of carbon dioxide underground forever. Yet policymakers are doing next to nothing to take advantage of this unique opportunity. Instead, Washington is preparing to fight a pitched legal and political battle over proposed EPA power plant regulations that will, even if implemented, make barely a dent in America’s carbon emissions.

Read the whole thing.  The author walks you through the history, the policy and the economics of enhanced oil recovery in a well reasoned essay that will leave advocates and opponents of AGW theories wondering why we aren't aggressively pursuing the policies outlined therein.

In the conclusion the author contends:

Carbon utilization is not receiving nearly the attention it deserves. We should be having a national conversation about enhanced oil recovery; instead, we are obsessed with issues that are almost trivial in comparison. The basic facts of the matter seem clear: Carbon capture and sequestration is probably indispensable to any pragmatic approach to decarbonization, and EOR appears to be the only practical way to underwrite the extensive up-front costs of developing carbon capture and sequestration technologies, infrastructure, and markets. 
Using carbon capture and sequestration to enable enhanced oil recovery is the path to keeping coal in our energy economy while simultaneously achieving our environmental goals; without it, we are likely to lose both battles. The choice is between a declining-but-not-disappearing coal industry that can’t invest in innovation and a thriving, productive industry that could develop effective carbon management technologies. EOR could produce tens of billions of barrels of oil in America while sequestering billions of tons of carbon dioxide and driving over $800 billion in investments in decarbonization and energy production technologies. And it would establish a different model for meeting the climate challenge: Make decarbonization technologies affordable and productive rather than trying to make carbon-intensive energy more expensive.

Welcome to the Collaborative Revolution!

James L. Salmon, Esq.
Collaborative Construction
300 Pike Street
Cincinnati, Ohio 45202
Summary of Services and James L. Salmon's CV


Office 513-721-5672
Fax 513-562-4388
Cell 512-630-4446
JamesLSalmon@gmailcom


Collaborative Construction Website
No Silos Website