High fuel prices: shale is the answer

The United States has an oil reserve at least three times that of Saudi Arabia locked in oil shale deposits beneath federal land in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming, according to a study released Wednesday.


Since 1981, Shell researchers at the company's division of "unconventional resources" have been spending their own money trying to figure out how to get usable energy out of oil shale. Judging by the presentation the Rocky Mountain News heard this week, they think they've got it.
...
On one small test plot about 20 feet by 35 feet, on land Shell owns, they started heating the rock in early 2004. "Product" - about one-third natural gas, two-thirds light crude - began to appear in September 2004. They turned the heaters off about a month ago, after harvesting about 1,500 barrels of oil.

While we were trying to do the math, O'Connor told us the answers. Upwards of a million barrels an acre, a billion barrels a square mile. And the oil shale formation in the Green River Basin, most of which is in Colorado, covers more than a thousand square miles - the largest fossil fuel deposits in the world.

They don't need subsidies; the process should be commercially feasible with world oil prices at $30 a barrel.

does this mean that the iraqis will be invading us in order to liberate us from our tyrannical government soon?

Let's hope they're right. It was a major and sustained price hike back in the 70's that made North Sea exploration viable. Before this, the relatively expensive technology for achieving deep-water drilling in adverse condition was prohibitive. Oil shale has long been an area where cost-effective and successful extraction was the obstacle. Maybe this crisis is strong enough to justify the spend that will see the problem solved on a longterm basis.

"Where will they put the refineries?", asked Mr. Nimby.

Griff wrote:

"Where will they put the refineries?", asked Mr. Nimby.

Put it

here .

Ronnie Reagan put a stop to alternative energy research back in 1980. The Western slope of Colorado was all set to go with the oil shale thing back then when the plug got pulled. I have camped in spots on the Uncomphaghre Plateau where I could literally set the rocks on fire because of the amount of oil shale present. The problem is that a very beautiful part of our country would be ecologically devastated, but its only a matter of time IMO. Refineries could be built in either Denver or Grand Junction.

The second item (currently) on this link gives more info on Shell's technology (being used in China) and oil shale reserves/recovery.

This article quotes prices for oil having to be sustained in the range $70-$90 to justify shale oil extraction - seems more realistic to me than the $30 quoted in the other article.

Cyclefrance wrote:

Let's hope they're right. It was a major and sustained price hike back in the 70's that made North Sea exploration viable. Before this, the relatively expensive technology for achieving deep-water drilling in adverse condition was prohibitive. Oil shale has long been an area where cost-effective and successful extraction was the obstacle. Maybe this crisis is strong enough to justify the spend that will see the problem solved on a longterm basis.

You are forgetting where most of the solution came from back in the 1970s. American cars were averaging under 10 miles per gallon. Homes were routinely constructed without insulation because energy was so cheap. Even in the 1960s, a large block V-8 American car did upwards of 17 MPG. So what changed? Japanese demonstrated 1960 American technologies in superior vehicles. Suddenly America cars were averaging over 20 MPG.

So what happened. Congress protected SUVs. SUV now average something like 12 MPG. Want to solve a shortage of energy. Look what happened in the 1970s. America threw bean counters into the rubbish. Patriots (also known as innovators) were finally empowered (sometimes by Federal law) to sell innovations that had been possible ten and more years ago. Suddenly America stopped importing more than 50% of its oil. New sources of oil had little to do with it. Innovation and the resulting efficiencies mostly solved the oil crisis.

This lesson of history is largely ignored by the former oil company executives that now dominate the George Jr administration and their spin.

Previously, a discussion about Horsepower per liter demonstrated how grossly inefficient American automobiles really are. It explains why an American consumes more than twice the energy every day to do the same thing as any Frenchman, German, Brit, Japanese, etc. You can assume that maybe one in ten consumed energy unit acutally moves that vehicle. Look at those numbers. Burn ten units of energy to only get one useful unit of work. It demonstrates why innovation and the resulting increases in efficiency have long been available - and stifled by a country that promotes a 1968 technology engine in SUVs, pickup trucks, and other examples of anti-American products.

As demonstrated repeatedly in history, the solution is always found first and formost in innovation. Innovation is exactly what the George Jr administration is not promoting in things like their recent Energy Bill.

As I said elsewhere, I've been hearing about these alternative oil sources for so long that I'm very cynical about them -- over and above my normal cynicism.

So how much natural gas did Shell have to burn to get the 1500 barrels out? If that number is on the order of 1500, you don't have an energy source.

Is there any chance in Hell the environmentalists will let Shell (or anyone else) get at the Federal shale? I doubt it; if the United States sat upon the Arabian peninsula the environmentalists would ensure we had an oil shortage.

Refining, at least, won't be a big problem; it can always be piped to Mexico for that.

So how much natural gas did Shell have to burn to get the 1500 barrels out?

Not only heating the earth to 650 deg F but at the same time freezing the water in the earth around the heated part.
That sounds like turning on your heat and air conditioning at the same time......real expensive. :mg:

Well, you guys are making me feel better about the Uncomphaghre Plateau, anyhow. I love that place. Maybe it will be around a bit longer. I'm gonna head out there in a couple of weeks to camp among the fall aspen. I'll set a couple of rocks on fire for everybody. ;)

Cyclefrance wrote:

The second item (currently) on this link gives more info on Shell's technology (being used in China) and oil shale reserves/recovery.

This article quotes prices for oil having to be sustained in the range $70-$90 to justify shale oil extraction - seems more realistic to me than the $30 quoted in the other article.

Oil sands are very viable at $30. I wonder how much more difficult shale is than sands.

marichiko wrote:

I'll set a couple of rocks on fire for everybody. ;)

Do that. And take a picture or two. I'd love to see it.

Pretty difficult, Mith: the petroleum fractions in oil shale are solids, not fluids. The stuff goes through a pipeline about as well as solid paraffin wax, until you do stuff to it.

THE ONLY TRUE SOLUTION IS A REPLACEMENT FOR THE INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINE.

1. Welcome.

2. There's no need to shout.

3. Do you have a favorite thing with which to replace the internal combustion engine?

There will be no replacement for the internal combustion engine until every last drop of oil/blood/money has been wrung from the Earth/Humanity/The Global Economy.

Sorry, but juggernauts don't just voluntarily step aside. They die when brought down by either a bigger juggernaut or a very clever David. So far, there's an awful lot of squished flat Davids on the sandals of the Big Oil/Middle East juggernaut.

wolf wrote:

3. Do you have a favorite thing with which to replace the internal combustion engine?

Ooh! Ooh! Organic material! We should invent a bionic car, like the Cylon battleships.

I don't think the Cylon ships are organic - they are a metal ship filled with a pilot creature.

Now, Vorlons, Shadows, Moya, and Lexx were organic.

wolf wrote:

Do you have a favorite thing with which to replace the internal combustion engine?

The bicycle. Solve two problems with one bike, eating too much fat food and moving too little.

Or maybe even a little electric powered scooter.....you know.....the Segway. :)

yeah, I'll just BIKE to Cherry hill everyday. yeah. and then monkeys will fly out of my butt.

how about magnets? i like magnets. do you like magnets?

No, lumberjim, you're supposed to move to a 400 sq ft / person high rise apartment in the city right near your job and other necessities, so you can walk (or bike) to everything you need. It's the New Urbanist ideal.

Anyway, possible replacements for the internal combustion engine abound. Their common characteristic is they all have problems much greater than that of the internal combustion engine.

lumberjim wrote:

and then monkeys will fly out of my butt.

flying butt monkeys would be a good replacement for the i.c.e. ... the bigger the butt, the more monkeys would fit in it... the more monkeys it would take to haul. wide ass = more monkeys. it's a win win win for everybody but the butt monkeys. and as(s) long as we build them to fly and not talk...

russotto wrote:

No, lumberjim, you're supposed to move to a 400 sq ft / person high rise apartment in the city right near your job and other necessities, so you can walk (or bike) to everything you need. It's the New Urbanist ideal.

Yeah! Warehouse the workforce and only let them out when either you need them or they have to get some necessity of survival! A secondary bonus would be that much more land would become available for the Ruling Class to enjoy! :lol: