We need to explore everything and at the current prices, getting oil our of oil shale may well be cost effective and we should start now.
Posted on 07/22/2008 7:56:45 PM PDT by Kaslin
Oil Development: In boldly announcing plans to unlock the crude in America's vast shale-oil reserves, President Bush is showing real leadership. Now only Congress stands in the way of a brighter energy future.
The quantity of oil to be found in this shale is almost unfathomable. The government conservatively puts it at 800 billion barrels. Other estimates say we have as much as 2 trillion barrels, though some of that wouldn't be recoverable.
As the chart shows, that could potentially give the U.S. oil reserves equal to three times those of Saudi Arabia. Indeed, it would be more oil than in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Russia, Venezuela, Iraq and Mexico combined.
These reserves, if fully exploited, could ensure America's energy needs for at least the next century, and possibly longer. As John Hinderaker of the popular Power Line blog notes, 1 trillion barrels of oil is roughly the amount of crude the world has used since oil was first found in Titusville, Pa., in 1859.
Peak oil? That idea, peddled by those who want the U.S. to stop using petroleum altogether, is simply false. America has plenty. We just have to take it. As the Department of Energy has said:
(Excerpt) Read more at ibdeditorials.com ...
...
It can be done, but it is going to leave a big mark, as in a scar. Will also require a lot of water, which is scarcer than oil in those parts.
the last time they started moving rock at parachute, co
the enviro’s went ballistic.
The eviro’s are anti-oil in all forms and they control the far left dem leadership who control congress.
Environmentalists oppose production and usage of oil shale, as it creates even more greenhouse gases than conventional fossil fuels. Section 526 of the Energy Independence And Security Act prohibits United States government agencies from buying oil produced by processes that produce more greenhouse gas emissions than would traditional petroleum.
Isn't that special?
I’ve read a report where the oil was literally taken out of the rock by microwaving it. Seriously.
“It can be done, but it is going to leave a big mark, as in a scar. Will also require a lot of water, which is scarcer than oil in those parts.”
I think you are wrong. The old process, which folded in the 1980s and was called “retorting”, and did this. However,new processes developed and demonstrated by Shell in Colorado can get at the oil “in situ” using ground heating techniques. It also uses quite a bit less water, which is re-used. For a good article on the history and a current status of Oil shale mining, see the following article:
http://www.dailyreckoning.com/rpt/OilShale.html
Actually, there was some very nice research done by Profs. Scriven and Davis from the Dept. of Chem. Eng at the U. of Minn. in the mid 1980s that found some ultra-low surface tension approaches for enhanced oil recovery. The basic idea is to use key surfactants to form ultra-low viscosity microemulsions that are easily pumped out. This research was abandoned when oil prices hit new lows and people forgot about the importance of energy independence.
Yep. It’s a Chevron/Raytheon process.
Biggest problem won’t be the lack of water but all of the arrowheads and pottery shards on the ground. Permitting for a conventional gas or oil well in these parts when on BLM land can take over a year.
Any sort of run-off issues?
Or we could just fully expose the glo-bull warming hoax and tell the ecofascists to toss our salad. Or round them all up and convert them to biofuels.
Maybe we could call it “Soylent Brown”?
What could do more to put the U.S. in a position that war for oil or
complete economic collapse were our only choices?
I'm not seeing any other result from these policies.
The primary evidence, the essential necessary evidence, that the greenhouse effect, and by extension CO2, is causing global warming doesn't exist. If the planet is warming this is proof positive that it isn't because of the greenhouse effect.
No Smoking Hot Spot (The Australian)
This is a short and easily understandable article showing the plain truth. The hinge pin that links global temperature to the greenhouse effect is missing. It is easily measurable and hundreds of probes have done so.
Written by the man who "DEVOTED six years to carbon accounting, building models for the Australian Greenhouse Office."
Interesting that the potential and proven Oil Shale deposits in both Utah and Wyoming are each larger than those in Colorado! By viewing the maps of these deposits, I would estimate that 3/4 of the potential lie OUTSIDE Colorado boundaries.
Right now Salazar is running a guerrilla campaign against mining for shale oil at the National level. Not too many others support him, especilly now that the country’s mood has shifted to drilling and internal production. If we can get/force Congress to lift it’s ban, or just forget to “renew” it, then it sounds to me that the Colorado Gov can’t stop things in the other states. When the good citizens of Colorado see the $$ flowing into Utah and Wyoming, then no more Democratic Gov for Colorado!
In the 53 years that I’ve lived in CO I have never been to that BLM land. I have wanted to go there but it’s a long way from just about anywhere. It is not classic CO mountain land. McCain and the enviro-wackos who worry about messing up “the Rocky Mountains” are full of horse puckey.
I like it!
And I say thank Heavens some idiot never named Garfield/Rio Blanco/Moffat "northwest park".
You mean to tell me the U of M faculty actually did something useful at some point in the distant past other than developing Honeycrisp apples?? I'm shocked!
LOL No kidding. I don’t know how forested it is but I suspect not much. I have pored over maps and studied regional plant books for the area (I’m an herbalist...sort of) and it looks like rolling hills covered with sage brush. No high peaks. No major rivers. No towns. No major towns or cities for miles in any direction. No tourist destination spots. No great fishing holes that I’m aware of. Just cattle ranching and elk hunting and the shale oil industry shouldn’t bother them much.
You won't find much on the maps because the blm and usfs spend most of their time massaging their next edition with a giant artgum eraser. Every new print shows fewer roads, streams, and ponds. You need stuff 30 or more years old to get a good handle on the real country. Just so you don't get too excited, I promise not to tell you where the 6 pound cutthroats school, where the usfws shocked a 45 pound pike, or anything about 40 inch lake trout, 18 inch brookies, or the graying.
We need to explore everything and at the current prices, getting oil our of oil shale may well be cost effective and we should start now.
The RAT governor of Colorado just said that we do not have the technology to get this oil from the shale. However the Canadains have been doing so for some time now and we import their oil. If the Canucks can do it why can’t we?
I have a big folder of maps my Dad bought in the late '60s. It was a recreation guide for four wheeling, fishing, hunting, ghost towns, gold mines ... it's not leaving my hands. Lots of roads that don't exist anymore. I also know where there are some great spots for cutthroats, huge unstocked rainbows and other feisty trout. Not BLM. No shale deposits involved. No motorized vehicles.
I believe the process is called “in situ” meaning “in place.” But it’s rather expensive. I grew up in De Beque, Colorado, in the heart of shale country, and was there when Occidental Oil closed up shop in the middle of the night, leaving hundreds unemployed.
The article at your link makes it sound as though Shell's "in situ" oil shale technology is not quite ready for prime time.
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.