Posted on 07/23/2007 2:25:59 PM PDT by redwill
Technology to draw oil from rock in Rocky Mountain states and other unconventional sources is getting another look from companies and the government as the demand for energy increases and supply tightens, especially in the United States.
(Excerpt) Read more at upi.com ...
Oil was more than $78 per barrel Friday, nearing an all-time high. According to a National Petroleum Council report, commissioned by U.S. Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman and released this week, demand will exceed supply by 13 million barrels per day by 2030.
One potential major source of domestic oil is found in shale rock in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming. Interest and experiments rose and fell with the oil price spikes during the 1970s to early 1980s and have risen once again.
"It's an enormous resource," said Daniel I. Fine, an MIT research affiliate. The area was protected for the future with the creation of the Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserve in 1912. "It was understood that one day we would use it at a time when the technology and economics would be right," Fine added.
The oil found in these rocks is called kerogen, organic matter containing hydrocarbons that must be converted to oil and gas. It's unclear how much oil may eventually be produced, but the United States holds 60 percent of the world's shale.
On-site experiments to heat and extract the kerogen are starting on 160-acre tracks leased by the Bureau of Land Management. The 10-year research development & demonstration leases are intended "to test and demonstrate what are considered state of the art methods of recovering shale oil," BLM spokeswoman Heather Feeney said. They can be converted to commercial leases for oil shale after demonstrating commercial production capacity and a BLM review.
Shell is probably the leader in the field, said Jeremy Boak, project manager for the Colorado Energy Research Institute at the Colorado School of Mines. Shell expects to extract from 3.5 to 5 barrels for each barrel of energy used, Boak said, by heating the rocks underground for three or four years, after which the oil seeps through cracks so it can be pumped out. It's relatively efficient, he explained, because it partially refines the kerogen underground and brings it to the surface as fuels requiring little processing: naphtha, diesel and kerosene.
Chevron has partnered with the Los Alamos National Laboratory to recover oil from shale formations in Colorado's Piceance Basin. Fine explained that it will use explosives underground to fractionate the shale, then inject a critical fuel, which creates a hot gas and allows extraction. The need for water and on-site production will have a heavy impact on the environment, however.
Raytheon, known for numerous military technologies, has developed the use of radio frequency, or RF, technology with contributions from partner Critical Fluids Technologies.
John Cogliandro, program manager for Raytheon's oil from shale technologies program, said the new technology is powerful and environmentally responsible. Since it doesn't use steam or heat the actual rock, there's no residue that might enter groundwater supplies, he said.
RF heats much more uniformly and quickly through radiation that targets the hydrocarbon molecules. Cogliandro added that critical fluids release and move the oil, so that the oil seeps through cracks in the shale and is pumped to the surface.
Fine said Raytheon's technology is an advance over earlier microwave feasibility tests -- dating back to the 1980s -- because it heats the shale rock more quickly and it is easier to control while deploying smaller, cost-effective equipment.
Global Resource Corp. uses microwaves to extract oil from shale. While previous microwave tests didn't experiment with different wavelengths, GRC is using a continuing microwave system with variable frequencies. Operating in a vacuum, the microwave frequencies gasify, then condense the hydrocarbons, which turn into gas and liquid oil, said a GRC spokesman.
GRC is using the technology to reinvigorate older wells as well as draw oil from tires, petroleum-based plastics and automobile shredder residue. The company has patent-pending numbers for seven different technologies, and both the U.S. Energy Department and the state of Pennsylvania have given GRC a capped well for experimentation.
GRC CEO Frank Pringle said interest is growing, despite skepticism about the technology: "I know what my process can accomplish, but there's a lot of prejudice against us."
Raytheon is seeking to license its know-how to energy companies that are better able to apply the technology in the field. Oil companies experimenting with shale have shown significant interest in Raytheon's technique, but Cogliandro doesn't think they'll abandon current approaches.
"You'll see a lot of pilot projects out in the field being tested. They're going to find where certain technologies work best and then they'll analyze the economics of each," Cogliandro said.
Cogliandro has also received samples of oil sands, or "heavies," from Oklahoma and Texas on which to test the technology. Raytheon's methods had been tried successfully with Canada's tar sands and should work with the heavier oil sands, he said.
Both Raytheon and GRC say their technologies use one barrel of oil's worth of energy to produce 4.5 barrels of shale oil compared to one barrel for 3.5 barrels using older methods.
Boak said these technologies will have to prove how they can do as well or better than the newest techniques in the field.
"The big question for shale oil and heavy oil processing is how far you can make those waves reach out into the rock," said Boak. He emphasized the importance of field tests given the uncertainty in geological formations. GRC said the microwaves can be used as far down as can be drilled.
If the technology leads to commercial viability, only limited investment in refinery extensions and pipeline spurs will be needed because the industry can make use of existing regional refineries.
Microwaves?.........Hmmmm.......Sounds good. he Environazis will find a problem with it though.......
We need to do anything it takes to break our dependence on Arab oil. The lack of action in the face of growing public rage over gas prices shows how out of touch our “leaders” are...
Hogwash--the big question is how much the "microwaves" cost in relation to how much kerogen you get out of the marlstone---
They forgot to mention production cost. They also forgot to mention the oil industry report last week that the oil industry won’t be able to meet demand over the next two decades. This industrial process will cost more than simply producing oil from wells. Same as the last thread a couple days ago.
Sounds like a good margin.....
How about pull out of Iraq and let the Arabs have their war and shut down production for a few dozen years? That will break our dependence on ME oil.
“We need to do anything it takes to break our dependence on Arab oil. The lack of action in the face of growing public rage over gas prices shows how out of touch our “leaders” are...”
When we use up the Arab’s oil, we can start on our own.
Well, that would really suck. If we ceased depending on Arab oil, we'll have no reason to get involved in the ME conflicts and run out of places to invade, demolish and rebuild ;-)
We also need clear thinking about this subject; we're not really "dependent on" Arab oil. We get a majority of our oil from Canada and South America. And it's not even "dependence" per se that is the issue, it's the fact that certain actors use their oil revenues, and stranglehold on the control of big proven oil reserves, to do nasty things. But even if we somehow didn't buy any more "Arab oil" starting tomorrow, the rest of the world still would (oil is sold on the world market, not just to the U.S.), and thus would still fund our enemies.
The lack of action in the face of growing public rage over gas prices shows how out of touch our “leaders” are...
Some would say there's no "lack of action" at all, given our ongoing attention to security issues in the Middle East.
Also, maybe it's not that the leaders are out of touch, but rather, that you've overestimated just how much "public rage" there really is over gasoline prices. I don't really see it, myself. The crossover point will occur when a sizable majority stops its fetishizing of things like ANWR, and its irrational fear of nuclear power; I don't think we're there yet. Many people seem perfectly happy to pay approaching $4/gallon for gas if it means their precious "pristine" ANWR will remain untouched. And so, maybe our leaders are simply responding to that.
If the oil industry can't meet demand, won't prices rise, and thus, couldn't shale become viable, despite its higher production costs?
If they can extract for $20 rather than pay $78, what will they do?
—it also sounds like it came from the PR department , rather than the engineering staff—
The deal is this: production cost will be lower for pumping oil out of the ground. The process won’t beat that, ever.
The Stockholders better get the real scoop.......
Who is paying what?
The process is $20. Drilling and pumping is $5. Guess which product wins in the marketplace.
It doesn't have to "beat" it. Does it?
It can't even match it. Process oil will always cost more than pumped oil while there is oil to pump. If somebody wants to pay a dollar a gallon more just to have process oil they probably also stop at Starbucks every day.
BETTER ANALYSIS: Oil from ANWR WOULD meet need
Of course, Congressional 'leaders' haven't the 'stones' to sign off on that deal...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.