Shale oil's time may have arrived (Houston Chronicle - ugh)

[jpak]

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/business/energy/4856341.html

Colorado and Utah have as much oil as Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Venezuela, Nigeria, Kuwait, Libya, Angola, Algeria, Indonesia, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates combined.

That's not science fiction. Trapped in limestone up to 200 feet thick in the two Rocky Mountain states is enough so-called shale oil to rival OPEC and supply the U.S. for a century.

Exxon Mobil Corp. and Chevron Corp., the two biggest U.S. energy companies, and Royal Dutch Shell are spending $100 million a year testing new methods to separate the oil from the stone for as little as $30 a barrel. A growing number of industry executives and analysts say new technology and high prices make the idea feasible.

"The breakthrough is that now the oil companies have a way of getting this oil out of the ground without the massive energy and manpower costs that killed these projects in the 1970s," said Pete Stark, an analyst at IHS, an Englewood, Colo., research firm. "All the shale rocks in the world are going to be revisited now to see how much oil they contain."

<more>

[glowing]

1. Who cares how much oil you can get when it causes global warming.

[Deja Q]

2. That's awesome.

But still having hybrids or anything to reduce emissions would still be of benefit.

[texastoast]

3. So you have to squeeze it out of the rocks?

Blast the mountains apart? Get a big oil juicer?

It's not enough we are wiping out the Appalachians? This mentality makes me freaking sick, I tell ya!

http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/2005/RAND_MG414.pdf

[Strelnikov_]

4. Oil Shale: Energy Source, Or 2 For The Price Of 1 Global Warming Machine?

As the article cites, we would use 3.0 Mbtu coal energy input for 5.8 Mbtu crude energy output for Shell’s in-situ method of extraction, or an EROEI of 2.0+/-. Factoring in the energy expended for site development, drilling heating shafts, manufacturing and placing heating elements, building and maintaining a perimeter ice dam, and site remediation, we probably are getting no net energy out of oil shale.

We will simply be burning coal in order to extract oil to burn. The more oil required, the more coal burned. And on and on . . .



Oil Shale May Be Fool's Gold
12/18/2005

http://www.energybulletin.net/11779.html

Recently, the U.S. Department of Energy published a new report on oil shale. It claimed that the nation could wring "200,000 barrels a day from oil shale by 2011, 2 million barrels a day by 2020, and ultimately 10 million barrels a day" from fields in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming. These predictions - both the production targets and their timing - are preposterous, as some industry experts admit.

. . .

The primary explanation is that oil shale is a lousy fuel. Compared to the coal that launched the Industrial Revolution or the oil that sustains the world today, oil shale is the dregs. Coal seams a few feet thick are worth mining because coal contains lots of energy. If coal is good, oil is even better. And oil shale? Per pound, it contains one-tenth the energy of crude oil, one-sixth that of coal.

. . .

Although Shell's method avoids the need to mine shale, it requires a mind-boggling amount of electricity. To produce 100,000 barrels per day, the company would need to construct the largest power plant in Colorado history. Costing about $3 billion, it would consume 5 million tons of coal each year, producing 10 million tons of greenhouse gases. (The company's annual electric bill would be about $500 million.) To double production, you'd need two power plants. One million barrels a day would require 10 new power plants, five new coal mines. And 10 million barrels a day, as proposed by some, would necessitate 100 power plants.

. . .

What contribution can oil shale make to energy security? Producing 100,000 barrels per day of shale oil does not violate the laws of physics. But the nation currently consumes that much oil every seven minutes. Improving the efficiency of our automobiles by 2 miles per gallon would save 10 times as much fuel, saving consumers $100 billion at the pump. The National Academy of Sciences has stated that cars, trucks and SUVs that get 30, 40 or 50 miles per gallon are doable. An aggressive national commitment to fuel efficiency is not optional, it's inevitable. In time, a more efficient fleet could save 20 times as much petroleum as oil shale is likely to ever provide.

[Strelnikov_]

5. "Why don't these companies invest these giant sums of money . . ."

developing the cheapest, cleverest solar panel or geothermal process, instead of chasing this elusive oil?" Kay asked.

Yes, Ms. Kay, that is a good question.

Here's another: If there is all this oil around just waiting for the price to get high enough to drill as peak oil deniers claim, why are the the majors chasing this at best marginal energy source?