Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Bush Proposes Rules on Oil Shale Development
The Salt Lake Tribune ^ | 07/23/2008 | Patty Henetz

Posted on 07/23/2008 7:46:48 AM PDT by kellynla

The Bush administration on Tuesday released proposed rules administering commercial oil shale development on public lands in Utah, Colorado and Wyoming to provide "critical rules of the road" for investors.

The rules would govern lease management and royalty payments should extracting kerogen from rock for further refining into fuel ever prove economically feasible - an open question given the likelihood of carbon taxes, lack of available Colorado River water and a host of environmental protection restrictions.

The rules proposed by the Department of the Interior are part of an election-year push by Republicans to support development of oil shale, which a Rand Corp. study last year said could yield as much as 800 billion barrels of oil.

"As Americans pay more than $4 for a gallon of gasoline and watch energy prices continue to climb higher and higher, we need to be doing more to develop our own energy here at home, through resources such as oil shale," said Secretary of the Interior Dirk Kempthorne. "Instead, I find it ironic that we are asking countries halfway around the world to produce more for us."

(Excerpt) Read more at sltrib.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Extended News; Front Page News; Government
KEYWORDS: bush; energy; environment; oil; oilshale; rand
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-53 next last

1 posted on 07/23/2008 7:46:49 AM PDT by kellynla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: thackney

ping


2 posted on 07/23/2008 7:47:06 AM PDT by kellynla (Freedom of speech makes it easier to spot the idiots! Semper Fi!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kellynla

bump


3 posted on 07/23/2008 7:49:59 AM PDT by lesser_satan (Cthulu '08! Why vote for the lesser evil?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kellynla
should extracting kerogen from rock for further refining into fuel ever prove economically feasible - an open question given the likelihood of carbon taxes,

Carbon taxes. The new Nigerian scam.

4 posted on 07/23/2008 7:50:35 AM PDT by TLI ( ITINERIS IMPENDEO VALHALLA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kellynla

I’m curious...what’s the process (if any) by which oil shale companies replenish the land after extraction?


5 posted on 07/23/2008 7:54:27 AM PDT by Slapshot68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kellynla

There are approximately 3 TRILLION barrels of oil in oil shale reserves, world-wide. Of that 3 TRILLION barrels, the US has at least 62% of proven oil shale reserves, or about 2 TRILLION barrels.
The cost to refine that shale is estimated to stabilize around $50 per barrel.

Why are the democrat/socialists against US energy independance ?


6 posted on 07/23/2008 7:56:28 AM PDT by Para-Ord.45
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Slapshot68

Replenish what? Have you ever seen the WY-UT-CO shale areas? Mostly a moonscape to start with.


7 posted on 07/23/2008 7:57:07 AM PDT by SAJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Slapshot68
Some of the methods like Shell's are in-situ.

It is accomplished by drilling, below ground heating and pumping. The top side is essentially undisturbed.

Raytheon has a similar method using radio frequency technology to release the oil without removing the shale.

http://www.shell.com/home/content/usa/aboutshell/shell_businesses/upstream/locations_projects/onshore/mahogany/dir_mahogany.html

http://www.raytheon.com/newsroom/feature/oil_shale06/

8 posted on 07/23/2008 7:59:04 AM PDT by thackney (life is fragile, handle with prayer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: SAJ

Turn it into a big ATV park.


9 posted on 07/23/2008 7:59:59 AM PDT by heckler (wiskey for my men, beer for my horses, rifles for sister sarah)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: All

Reference for some trying to stop this:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2049339/posts?page=2#2


10 posted on 07/23/2008 8:01:01 AM PDT by thackney (life is fragile, handle with prayer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Para-Ord.45
You get all kinds of estimates about LT production costs from shale. Shell were talking up $36 after 5 years, then raised it to $38-40. Chevron think (or, at least, have thought) that their microwave process is even less costly.

I've always thought these were lowball numbers, but, notwithstanding, $50 sounds pretty high.

Of course, who's to know what extraneous costs the bozos in goobermint will impose on this production, eh?

11 posted on 07/23/2008 8:01:13 AM PDT by SAJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: thackney
so the “water issue” is a non-issue?
12 posted on 07/23/2008 8:03:12 AM PDT by kellynla (Freedom of speech makes it easier to spot the idiots! Semper Fi!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: kellynla

There was also reference on Free Republic to another shale oil production that produced water.


13 posted on 07/23/2008 8:06:19 AM PDT by thackney (life is fragile, handle with prayer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: heckler
Fine with me. Remember, after producing the kerogen, first, you've got a lot of very hot rock for a while. Second, the production sites figure to be completely sterile for a while.

There ought to be some sort of mkt for the sterile rock residue, too. Lining rail track, for instance -- this would save railroads from having to use any soil sterilant. Perhaps even pressing the residue shales into some sort of building material, even billiard tables.

This whole deal is nothing but win-win-win for the nation...which, I think, is why the envirokookfanaticdingbats are so adamant about not allowing kerogen from shale to be produced.

14 posted on 07/23/2008 8:07:35 AM PDT by SAJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: thackney

Can you use salt water steam?


15 posted on 07/23/2008 8:07:47 AM PDT by patton (cuiquam in sua arte credendum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: thackney

Okay, but what I am wondering , critics claim that there isn’t enough water to do this. Is that inaccurate because of the present technology?


16 posted on 07/23/2008 8:11:17 AM PDT by kellynla (Freedom of speech makes it easier to spot the idiots! Semper Fi!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: kellynla
The King Ritter will not be happy and will dig in his heals for invading his territory.
17 posted on 07/23/2008 8:14:27 AM PDT by mountainlion (Concerned Conservative.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kellynla
Not an engineer, but the Raytheon technique should not be water-intensive at all. How water-intensive is microwave cooking, eh?

Shell's technique involves lining production areas with ice, and recycling much of the water involved. It **sounds** as if there might be a considerable amount of net water usage, but, again, I'm not an engineer.

18 posted on 07/23/2008 8:16:06 AM PDT by SAJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: mountainlion

Which is why we should START in WY and UT. Then, when King Ritter of Spendthrift sees all the revenue accruing to those states, he’ll get on board.


19 posted on 07/23/2008 8:17:06 AM PDT by SAJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: kellynla
Found the reference, but I'm not familiar with project (yet) to verify the claim.

“The Unocal commercial demonstration plant project in the Colorado Piceance Creek Basin actually produced more water than it consumed, as former Paraho Corporation head Larry Lukens found from talking with Unocal’s engineers. Colorado oil shale contains, on average, 2-5% by weight of water. That water is liberated from the rock during the ‘retorting’ process. Unocal actually had to construct evaporation ponds to get rid of all the excess water generated.”

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2032240/posts

I would not call the water a non-issue, but an issue that can be addressed.

20 posted on 07/23/2008 8:23:05 AM PDT by thackney (life is fragile, handle with prayer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-53 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson