Talk:Genie Energy

Is in-situ technology past the early development stage?

The only in-situ projects I've found that have ever actually produced oil were the three Shell trials (1981, 1995, and 2005), the last of which produced 1800 barrels over the course of a year, and the Swedish work near Kvarntorp, Sweden during WWII. The Swedish work was started by Fredrich Ljungstrom in 1942, reached a peak of 250 bpd in 1943, and was maintained as a research project until 1960 when all shale work was stopped due to lack of economic viability. Shell had a BLM lease to proceed with a larger project, but cancelled that, no doubt after coming to a similar conclusion that they did not have an economically viable technology.

Genie Energy's statement regarding in-situ technology is as follows: "We cannot assure you that we will produce or market shale oil or gas at all or in commercially profitable quantities...In-situ technology for the extraction of oil and gas from oil shale is in its early stages of development and has not been deployed commercially at large scale. AMSO, LLC and IEI may not be able to develop environmentally acceptable and economically viable technology in connection therewith."

Genie's statement about in-situ being in its early stages of development is correct not only regarding their own work, but regarding the status of in-situ technology in general. There is no justification for changing their statement to imply that they are only referring to their own proposed technologies.Jdkag (talk) 22:31, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

This statement is correct concerning the modern processes; however taking account works at Kvantrop or early trials in the United States, it is not correct to say that in-situ as a general method is in early stage. In the context of this article it would be correct to talk only about the technology proposed by IEI. Beagel (talk) 23:05, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

First, I want to comment that I am very respectful of the job you are doing maintaining the high level of articles related to shale. Regarding the issue of the stage of in-situ R&D, clearly, if Kvantrop or "early trials" had proven viable, we would see commercial operations today around the world. The current status is that oil companies have gone back to the drawing board to try to find a viable technology. I would call that an "early stage."Jdkag (talk) 00:40, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Viability of different processes and technologies changes over the time due to development and changes in economic, environmental, technological etc frameworks. Technology, which once was viable, is not in other circumstances. The same applies to oil shale technologies. The fact that at the current moment there is no viable in-situ shale oil extraction technology does not mean that there has not been viable technologies. Therefore, saying that in situ extraction is in its early stages is correct if we look at the situation in 21st century, but this statement is incorrect in historical perspective. At the same time, I don't see any need to discuss that in this article. As it was already said in the previous paragraph, IEI is planning to use in-situ technology and the statement that it may not be able to develop environmentally acceptable and economically viable technology is clearly understandable in this context. Beagel (talk) 08:09, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

As far as I know, the only historical period during which the "circumstances" may have made in-situ viable was when the Swedes were suffering an oil embargo by the Germans during WWII, but had excess hydroelectric capacity. Consequently, they decided in their desperation to produce shale oil, despite the large, negative EROEI and the cost of destroying the local environment. That is hardly an argument for the historic viability of in-situ production. If you know of historical "viable" projects besides that by the Swedes (which, by the way, processed shale that was much closer to the surface than the shale targeted by AMSO and IEI), we should add that info to this discussion.Jdkag (talk) 11:06, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Genie Energy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20130415044823/http://www.jta.org/news/article/2013/02/21/3120221/jersey-firm-wins-rights-to-drill-in-golan-heights to http://www.jta.org/news/article/2013/02/21/3120221/jersey-firm-wins-rights-to-drill-in-golan-heights
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://investors.genie.com/profiles/investor/ResLibraryView.asp?ResLibraryID=81534
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.unconventionalfuels.org/publications/reports/SecureFuelsReport2010.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:11, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Updates as of March 23 2019

Greetings Wikipedians - I work for Genie Energy, and would suggest the following changes to update the Genie Energy:

In this paragraph:

Genie Energy Ltd. is an American energy company headquartered in Newark, New Jersey. It is a holding company comprising Genie Retail Energy, a retail energy provider in the United States, and Genie Oil and Gas, which is pursuing a conventional oil project in the disputed Golan Heights.

Suggest adding the word 'exploration' after the bolded word 'oil' in the second sentence. Genie Energy did not find a commercially viable oil or gas resource and it is operating pursuant to an exploration license. The current wording suggests that this is production project, which is not accurate.

Would suggest amending this section and the Genie Oil and Gas section to include the fact that Genie announced the suspension of its exploratory drilling in the Golan Heights on November 17, 2017 <ref>https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/genie-energy-suspends-exploratory-oil-and-gas-drilling-program-in-northern-israel-300558113.html<ref> after preliminary results from its exploratory wells did not provide evidence of a commercially viable oil or gas resource in the Golan Heights. The Company has said that it expects to conduct a final test within an existing well before concluding its current exploratory program.

Some changes in management not yet reflected here: Howard Jonas is no longer the CEO. Michael Stein is now the CEO. Geoff Rochwarger is no longer the Vice Chairman.

In the Genie Retail Energy section, consider adding that in January, 2017, Genie Retail Energy acquired a majority stake in Lumo Energia, a Finnish supplier of renewable electricity. <ref>https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/genie-energy-enters-scandinavian-retail-energy-supply-market-300772805.html<ref>

Thank you! Wbulrey (talk) 17:16, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

 Done Beagel (talk) 19:38, 23 March 2019 (UTC)