Oil Shale? Does this information seem a little too optimistic?

[patrice]

http://www.sltrib.com/utah/ci_2768984

" But officials from Shell Exploration and Production are experimenting with a new technology that could make the process more efficient and cost-effective and address the environmental problems.
The Shell process involves drilling a hole 2,000 feet deep and using a heating element to heat the rock more than 1,000 feet down to between 600 and 700 degrees for two years.
The heat breaks the carbon molecules free of the rock, allowing oil and gas to flow through the layers and be pumped to the surface using traditional methods. A thick ring of ice keeps contaminants from polluting groundwater.
The process creates less surface disturbance and waste issues. It taps richer shale deposits deeper underground, and the hydrocarbons that are extracted are higher quality. The heating and freezing of the rock is energy-intensive, but Shell says they still produce three times as much energy as they use in the process.
It will take another five years of research and testing before Shell decides whether the technology can be applied commercially. Right now, the company estimates it could produce oil for $25 to $30 per barrel."

I have lots of questions about such a process. What are the processes that address my and other's questions?

[GiovanniC]

1. As They Say...

There's always been a future in oil shale...


And there always will be.




In other words, this isn't the first time that we were supposedly going to tap the immense potential of oil shale only to get a whole lot of nothing.

[theboss]

2. I read about this a few years ago

At some point, the oil companies are going to be forced to look at shale oil. I'm not sure if this process is the way to do it or not. But there is apparently a lot of oil to be had so I'm sure they will try to get it eventually.

[MadHound]

7. Frankly, I hope that we don't go in for oil shale

Nasty, dirty, very polluting, with very little return.

Rather, let us start building up alternative, renewable fuel sources, things like wind, solar, biodiesel, etc. Quite frankly there is one hell of a lot more potential in these than in things like oil shale. According to a DOE report, there is enough harvestable wind resources in North Dakota, South Dakota, and Texas to provide for the entire US electrical needs through the year 2030. Hook this up with a biodiesel hybrid, carrying a spare battery or two, and gee, you've got a solution.

Going after these hard to extract oil resources is a chimera, that will cause more pollution and problems than it's worth. Rather, let's wean ourselves off of oil completely.

[gordianot]

3. NPR did a piece on this this morning.

They are predicting $30 a barrel oil, but are uncertain of long term environmental effects. Any environmental problems will not stop **.

[acmejack]

14. Is that the cost just to extract it?

Everyone who thinks you will ever see a $30 BBL from this technology raise their hands.

[phantom power]

4. Even if it works, it's bad news. Just more CO2 pollution.

[patrice]

11. Right, and doesn't rock of any kind act as a heat-sink?

So they're (optimisticly) using 600 degrees that goes into a kind of heat battery. They say there is this "ice wall" that they generate to keep the, now liquidy, oil from leaking out into the rest of the environment, but maybe the shale needs to be cooked more, so the process requires more heat to work, meanwhile all of the rock in Earth's mantel is acting like a huge heat well, so you need more and more ice in your wall, just to keep things "liquid", not to mention cooling anything down after cooking it to get the oil out.

Pardon my free writing here please; I don't know very much specifically about these things, but the general logic of it is pretty disturbing. Maybe - CRAZY!

Is there a critical mass that the heat-sink achieves, so it can't be cooled down, at which time we'd have to say, "Earth's bones are on fire." . . . . ?

[hatrack]

5. The energy expended for this process has to be enormous

You're running two extremely energy-intensive systems simultaneously - a very large heat source and a very large refrigeration unit to produce the ice.

You're also running extensive pumping and drilling operations, which, though not as energy intensive as the extraction process proper, are going to cost you.

Is the net energy return on the shale oil extracted in this manner going to exceed the massive amounts of energy it would take to get it out? I doubt it.

Finally, you have to have a great deal of water to pump into the ground to be frozen into ice. In western Colorado and eastern Utah, where is that water going to come from?

There is only one source which would make a large-scale project along these lines feasible, and that is the Green River. Considering that the Green supplies about 55% of the Colorado River system's water, I don't think people in Vegas, Phoenix and LA are going to part with millions of acre-feet in exchange for oil at (we hope) $25-30 in production costs alone.

[stopbush]

16. They solve that by using a perpetual motion machine coupled to

a cold fusion reactor...

[stopbush]

6. I saw a guy on TV who opined that the amount of shale oil

sitting in CA was a greater volume than all the oil that had been ever been extracted. He wrote a book on it, and it sure sounds good...but is it true?

Of course, there elephant in the room is that shale oil isn't really an alternative energy, at least on the pollution consequences front.

[lenidog]

8. I haven;t heard of there being that much oil

I have heard from several sources that the Oil shale beds in Wyoming, Utah and Colorado have at least the equivalent amount of oil as the Saudi oilfields. While the easily recoverable oil in the oil sand fields in Alberta Canada is greater than the entire ME.

[Deja Q]

10. So how come Alaska's 6 mo supply gets hyped and not this?

I think those stories are a load of bunk.

[lenidog]

12. I have no idea but I have read the same stats

from the companies themselves who are working in the fields, the Canadian government and the DOE. The only thing I can think of is that until recently its was pretty pricey to extract and then refine the oil. A couple of years ago they came up with a new process that dropped the price to what a regular barrel of oil would cost. Also you would have to build the the plants to get it. Since there is only two or three companies working on it.

[Vanje]

9. As I understand it....

They build a humongous giant underground wall of ice by circulating jillions of tons of coolant though a network of underground pipes. Then they heat rocks to 600-700 F for 2 or 3 years before a few loose molecules of carbon become available for collection.

...and they say solar and wind power is inefficient!

[donkeyotay]

15. It's perfectly logical

No one has figured out a way to use solar and wind power to extract large sums of taxpayer's money into a narrow corporate interest.

[rfkrfk]

13. there is also 'extra heavy crude' in several places worldwide

that is not counted in 'conventional' crude reserves.
Production of conventional {pumpable} crude, seems to be peaking.
Known reserves of extra-heavy, are vast.
Nobody looks for this stuff.
Extra heavy crude, is difficult to extract,
difficult to pump in the pipeline,
and somewhat difficult to refine.

China, India, only wants top-product conventional crude.
There, is the recent price issue.