Skip to comments.Shell's Ingenious Approach To Oil Shale Is Pretty Slick
Posted on 09/03/2005 1:58:07 PM PDT by Mount Athos
click here to read article
Interesting article. Thanks for posting it.
I've heard that there are substantial deposits of shale oil here in the US - but economicaly, it's been unfeasable to drill for it.
Hopefully, this one will work.
One article says the reserves in the Green River deposit located in Wyoming/Utah/Colorado holds 3X the reserves of Saudi Arabia. Not a bad deal.
The US should do this on a massive scale, even if we just break even, for national security purposes and to SCREW OPEC.
If they will not allow the small footprint operation near ANWR
Never happen..not because it's not a wonderful technology, but the envrio-weenies will scream that we're going to destroy the habitat of the green-multi-toed-gila-lizard, even though it occupies only 1/2,500,000 of the intended drilling zone..but I agree, we gotta do something and the reserves in the U.S. would allow us to tell OPEC to go do something to themselves that is physically impossible..
OMG, can you imagine? We would be totally free of dependence on other countries for oil! That would be incredible.
Good post. Look at the Northern Rocky Mountains States and High Great Plains region USA/Canada, they have abundant domestic natural gas, coal bed natural gas, and coal and oil-shale and nuclear resources, so vast as to supply America's energy needs for at least 300-500 year to around $100 TRILLION. The Northern regions are the FUTURE for the USA and our energy companies, we don't need to go Hat-in-Hand overseas for our energy needs.
Shale oil uneconomical at prices below $30bbl. However, we have been considerably above $30bbl for sometime now. My husband has been saying this for weeks -- that we should be moving ahead with shale oil recovery. However, that still leaves the problem of refineries -- where do you send it?
The second part of his thesis is to build refineries on decommissioned military bases -- spread overa many sections of the country so that they are not such a big target for natural, or manmade, disaster. The Federal government has control over military land, and I think they would not need permits -- California and Florida enviro-weenies be damned!
My contribution to this thesis (and I thought of this days before Michael Savage mentioned it on air) is to re-open housing for refugees on those same decommissioned bases and employ the displaced workers to build the refineries! (Walk to work.) The women can be employed in clerical, or service jobs associated with constructing the refineries, or educating the children who live there. Outside teachers could be brought in if needed. Three problems solved at one shot and at minimal cost to the taxpayer.
This would be similar to WPA and CCC projects during the Depression. Win, win, win. We reduce our dependence on foreign oil, we rehabilitate displaced workers, we house and rebuild displaced families.
Alright, but it took them ten months to get 1,500 barrels of oil. That is not enough.
The Rats will protest....."We must protect the prairie dogs!"
hey no vulgar acronyms in my thread!
~ bookmarked ~
Now that Bush is a lame duck, maybe it's time for some executive orders to get this moving.... like Clinton did in the opposite direction.
what you're implying is that the evacuees coming out of new orleans learn to fend for themselves? who knows, it might work but you're still going to have a percentage of them (no idea what that percentage would be) that will still want Uncle Sam to take care of them..but, excellent idea..:)
by the way..what's the cost of uninhabited land in Colorado?? (not that I'd be interested in leasing it to oil companies)..:)
no worries I do it myself, trying to swear less
Nooooo! We must SAVE the land for the spotted snot fly and the narrow leaf shitweed!
Great news! Until the environuts do everything in their power to stop the spoiling of the "unspoiled Colorado wilderness."
I'm predicting that Katrina will deal a crippling blow to enviroweenies as well as 99% of anyti-military sentiment.
It was a small-scale test -- a lab experiment to determine economics and feasibility.
Forget it. Go with corn. It's the new oil.
But this was only a small test plot, 20 x 30 ft. And they turned off the heaters after getting that 1,500 barrels, because all they wanted to do was prove that the technology works.
I don't doubt that a large full-scale production effort will yield much, much more.
"Great news! Until the environuts do everything in their power to stop the spoiling of the "unspoiled Colorado wilderness.""
Screw them..if the people of Colorado say yes, then yes it is..the enviro-weenies can walk to work if they don't want to buy the gas that comes out of the wells..
Is it easily expandable? That is the question. Or are they going to have to drill one million holes, each one producing 1,500 barrels in 10 months?
bookmarked for later reading/research
"Forget it. Go with corn. It's the new oil."
So are you suggesting somehow one can crack all the fractions, e.g. benzene, naptha, etc., desiel/jet/heating fuels, upward to various classes of gasoline etc., from corn oil?
If not, don't we still need petro oil, to provide us with the literally thousands of fractions that are then used for making hundreds of thousands of end products, e.g. pharmeceuticals, plastics obviously of thousands of types, lubricants of all varieties along with the chemicals that they require to perform in a given way........blah blah blah, endlessly. Will corn oil provide all those end products we depend on and industry cannot exists without?
"Economical" is a function of BOTH cost of production AND the price you can sell it for.
In this case, the biggest variable is "what can we expect to sell it for over the next "x" year?". Up until now, the oil companies have been operating under the assumption that, over the long term, they'll be unable to sell oil above that price.
Fight for an Energy-Independant USA...NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Then, first phase, you target something on the order of 1/2 of estimated possible production. And ramp up from there. Call it 2-3 years on a ''crash'' basis, 5 on a ''normal'' basis.
Once the process is started, it's self-propagating, assuming only that new shafts are added on a systematic basis.
What I can't figure out (doubtless Shell have figured it, of course) is how to capture the liquid fractions. Why won't they just seep away?
Any thoughts, folks?
That is a pretty damned good idea.
How 'bout natural gas....we need that to make fertilizer.
No gas? Uh, Houston, we have a problem.
Drill now. Build now.
We need supplies and refining capacity NOW.
The solution of course is nuclear power to extract the oil, but there will still be a large "scar" where the oil shale has been mined. (Open pit I suspect). The answer is that it never has been free, energy will always take some toll on the environment.
But the time for this investment may not be here yet. We could dig in and find that more light sweet crude is available in the Middle East, (because we are being sandbagged) and the price could fall to below $30 and leave investors beholding to the government for the money to run the oil shale plant.
Of course we could and should start on the nuclear power now.
"However, that still leaves the problem of refineries -- where do you send it? "
The good part about this process is that the oil is collected almost refined as is. The benzenes and smaller alkanes are the first to get collected. Those are the gasolines and jet fuels. Followed by heavier stuff, which may be able to run the heaters.
The Rats will protest....."We must protect the prairie dogs
...for the varmit hunters Texasproud,Eaker,Squantos, and a few other freepers.
What I'd like to see additionally along these lines is the establishment of a good number of coal-oil facilities. Easy to build, easy to operate and comparatively inexpensive, technology well-known, and produce a nice clean product that's almost #2. Absolutely feasible (if built on/near existing pipe) w/crude at or above $26-27. Less than that, really, if one amortises the start-up cost over, say, 25 years.
Further, coal oil (if we would push it) would have the huge advantage of almost immediately reducing the amount of NG being burnt just to heat. NG should be feedstock, not fuel; it's much more valuable in that role.
something you might want to ping?
As asked earlier, how do they prevent an enormous loss of liquid via seepage?
"We need supplies and refining capacity NOW."
Yep. Problem is how much money will our oil companies put up, to make a future profit. And if they are willing, always goes back to decades of environemental wackos/congress keeping us from becoming totally oil independent as we once where.
As we have read for years, oil shale processes have come and gone, for various reasons. Unless you have a totally united congress and executive branch that would not change course for some twenty years on the issue, I don't see how what we all would like to see happen will come to past.
They probably suck em out and distill them into liquid.
I think it's about time we tell the environazis to go suck a rock. We must remember that their carping is designed on a plan to destroy our society.
It's a dichotomy; the liberal "contituency" support the (so-called) "leaders" because they think they share goals. But while the constituency wants for example religion destroyed because they don't want their behavior and attitudes to be held up to examination and judgement, the leadership wants it destroyed because they want Big Brother to be considered the source of natural rights, not God.
That way Big Brother can take away as easily as he gives. When I started evaluating liberals' behavior and statements in that light, I started seeing their ulterior motives a little more clearly.
Anyone want to take bets that the ecofacists will show up in force to denounce this big oil intrustion on to the sacred burial grounds of the dung beetle or whatever?