Posted on 06/07/2008 12:10:09 PM PDT by Donald Rumsfeld Fan
NEW YORK (Fortune) -- You'd think this would be oil shale's moment.
You'd think with gas prices topping $4 and consumers crying uncle, Congress would be moving fast to spur development of a domestic oil resource so vast - 800 billion barrels of recoverable oil shale in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming alone - it could eventually rival the oil fields of Saudi Arabia.
You'd think politicians would be tripping over themselves to arrange photo-ops with Harold Vinegar (whom I profiled in Fortune last November), the brilliant, Brooklyn-born chief scientist at Royal Dutch Shell whose research cracked the code on how to efficiently and cleanly convert oil shale - a rock-like fossil fuel known to geologists as kerogen - into light crude oil.
You'd think all of this, but you'd be wrong.
(Excerpt) Read more at money.cnn.com ...
It’s an old story. The oil shale was known in 1920. Develop it but don’t expect much.
Yeah, and we ship everything using fuel......... so the Rats want to make everything too expensive to afford. I wonder why? hmmm
Right. Not all oil shale is good and it is very expensive and hard to get.
Not with oil at $130 a barrel and Shell's recent in situ method of recovery.
On the other hand, the Department of Energy estimates that oil shale will require three barrels of water for every barrel of oil.
Crazy as it sounds, oil shale is MORE ecologically sensitive than corn-based ethanol.
Produce it. It won’t make a dent in the supply problem but it won’t hurt that aspect.
So how is it that 800 billion barrels won’t make a dent in the supply of oil?
As technology advances it gets cheaper to extract the oil.
The more money we spend in our own country the more we have.
How is that a bad thing?
Oh please. The MSM knows that this issue devatates the Democrats, so it's confined to gentle little articles in the back pages of Fortune, rather than the front page of the New York Times or the cover of Time, or a feature story on 60 Minutes.
800 billion barrels of recoverable oil shale in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming alone - it could eventually rival the oil fields of Saudi Arabia.
That's a pretty big dent.
If I’ve got my numbers right, we’re importing 5B barrels annually. 800B barrels would make quite a dent for some time.
I lived not far away when they were doing the subsidized oil shale stuff back in the 70s near Rifle. The environmentalists had kittens about the ecological damage and the waste of water. Then oil prices went back down and the whole thing was just dropped.
Has nothing to do with how much is in the ground.
How won’t it make a dent? I’m curious to see your reasoning? Is there something we don’t understand about this issue?
Can you read??????????????????
The article said RECOVERABLE OIL.
Do you need a translation?
Or are you one of those lefties who see only what fits their agenda?
I’m guessing the latter
That is correct. Production is in rate not how much is in the rock. The country could use 12 million bpd additional. If you have that you have something.
The bright side to this is that it is going to put the environmentalists out of business before they know it.
I would say you missed the part about rate of production. Just a guess, of course.
Ping
If the Repubs pound this kind of info now until the election they have a good chance.
I am going to keep banging this drum but where are the RNC ads exposing this to the American people. These ads should be up and running right now.
So you’re saying we can’t extract it fast enough for it to make a dent? Can’t we develop technology to help that process along?
DemocRATs are slow rolling this until they get the White House. The whole problem with an energy policy is who get to claim credit for it. DemocRATs (Johnson) got credit for Civil Rights (when it was Republicans who got it passed), and DemocRATs (Clinton) got credit for welfare reform (when it was Republicans who got it passed). Nothing changes.
Canada has been doing this for some time.
Colorado School of Mines
Colorado Energy Research Institute
28th Oil Shale Symposium
October 13-17, 2008
http://www.mines.edu/outreach/cont_ed/oilshale/
It appears the meaningful rate of production would be so expensive to achieve that the oil would not be economic.
You think the rate of production will be static?
Whatever we can get now from there and other areas will gut the high blackmail prices we are paying now.
Production will increase as more money is made by those drilling.
‘When the American people learn of this, the Democrat Nimrods in the senate will be toast. “
I wish that would be the case. But you have to have an effective PR machine on our side in order to make the case to the American Sheeple. Our side right now is a sick elephant.
What is the current rate of production?
Is it static and not to change?
They won’t be drilling. It is a mining project. We used to take on such engineering projects as homework in engineering school. Engineering cost and return. What do you need? What will you produce? How long will it take?
And converting shale to fuel doesn’t leave third worlders’ starving.
BTTT
I lived not far away when they were doing the subsidized oil shale stuff back in the 70s near Rifle. The environmentalists had kittens about the ecological damage and the waste of water. Then oil prices went back down and the whole thing was just dropped.
You're numbers are probably right. My numbers give 189 years of oil independence assuming consumption stays flat.
Shell has developed what is called a "in situ" recovery method. Meaning "at site recovery" with no environmental impact.
So then according to you we should just sit on all that oil until some time in the future when something else happens and the economy is farther in the tank and gas is around ten dollars a gallon?
Sounds like a plan for self destruction.
Is that what you propose?
The oil companies do not agree with you and they are willing to make that investment.
It's quite ironic that some people are trying to limit the opportunities for the oil companies because it would be bad for them, while others want to impose windfall profit taxes on them because they're not investing fast enough, or whatever the socialist excuse of the day might be.
Either way, it's crap.
Wrong. Technology has changed since you were in school.
Oh, it’s a mining project.
So then we shouldn’t do it.
Right!
I've wondered about the politics of oil. If there were large amounts of oil in New York and the rest of New England would the liberals still hate big oil.
Is the hatred of big oil a symptom of the North still fighting against the South after all these years?
I expect you to go out there and start digging instead of wasting time on this BBS.
It would require significant investment. If companies had some assurance that their investments wouldn't be sabotaged by a "carbon tax" or other such nonsense, the payoff from the investment may be worthwhile.
In today's political climate, though, any method of extraction which was truly cost-effective would quickly get shut down. Democrats don't want prosperity and energy independence. Any project that would produce those things must be terminated with extreme prejudice.
Say what you want. It doesn’t matter. If you are an oil company then get to work.
Can you just answer a simple question?
Apparently not.
I don’t consider the ruin of our economy “BBS”.
We can do whatever we set our minds to.
Why should we just give up?
So now you want to change the subject.
The oil co’s do want to drill for the oil.
How is that a problem?
Maybe you missed the fact that the Senate recently voted not to lift the moratorium on oil shale extraction.
It was a party line vote. Your opinion is lockstep with the Democrats who unanimously voted to block the concept.
LOL
Such as elect a Conservative Congress and President this fall? Yes! Just set our minds to it.
So then as far as you are concerned we are doomed.
How far the propaganda has corrupted your mind is staggering.
You don’t know my opinion.
Shell has already developed a pilot "in situ" oil extraction process.
Having been in engineering my entire life I go by the maxim "if you can sign their pay checks, they will build it".
Shell doesn't invest in oil extraction technology for laughs and giggles.
The party is over. 25 years of pain are ahead and that assumes construction of coal to liquid begins now on a massive scale.
Yes we do know your opinion.
Unless you’ve been lying here.
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.