Posted on 04/21/2005 2:56:45 AM PDT by RWR8189
Closest to Arches - the Uinta Basin is north of there, but quite a ways north. The richest ail shale is the eastern part of the basin that extends into Colorado. The Green River formation is in the area where Utah, Wyoming and Colorado come together and that's where the oil shale and oil sands are concentrated. The dotted line area in Utah below is roughly the Uinta Basin. I assume you know where the parks are.
Probably the reason Canada is ahead of his in receovering shale oil, is because they don't have to contend with our epa. 30 years ago I heard people in the oil business talking about the feasibility of getting shale oil. Orin hatch has just learned this?
What the heck is ail shale? Ok... oil shale.
bttt
As I recall, I made this very guess (not specific to Colorado/Utah though) just a couple of weeks ago!
Washington, DC also sits on a huge oil reserve... unfortunately, it's snake oil.
No, it took more like 25 years to develope the tar sands. It has only recently become profitable.
Just noting that the Alberta Oil Sands are in an unpopulated, undeveloped area. Extracting the oil means moving huge amounts of tar sands to the refineries ie. open-pit mining.
They sometimes say the Great Wall of China is the only structure you can see from space. Wrong, you can't see the Great Wall but you can see the biggest open pit mine in the Alberta Oil Sands.
Eventually the mines will be reclaimed but the total area that will eventually be open-pit mined covers thousands of square miles.
Don't know if the folks in Utah would tolerate this.
And that goes for Alaskan oil too. It is great that it is there. We may need it some day. Just not today.
I wouldn't tolerate it if it touches national park land. I'd sooner have an energy plan that relies on Shrillary's flatulance.
---ah--a voice of sanity. I , too worked on oil shale projects for one of the large San Francisco engineering companies in the late 70's and early '80's--by the time it all shut down, we too realized we were looking at production costs approaching $100/bbl-----
Dude, 420 day is over, it's time to come down.
Why, approval from the tree-huggers, of course.
Oil Shale and Tar Sands are not the same thing. At 50.00/barrel some tar sands are profitable, not all, no shale oil is.
Some tar sands in Canada are now marginally profitable.
All the major energy companies have had pilot plants to develop more economical recovery techniques running and experimenting for over 50 years.
If you don't mind paying around $100.00/barrel equivilent prices, then we have enough shale oil, tar sands natural gas, coal and tretiarily recoverable petroleum, to supply all our energy needs for the next 400 years.
So9
RE 2
But lets use the other Country's oil up first so we'll still have ours. I do agree that I hate being dependent on other Country's oil.
>> It's also highly radioactive. (This is the stuff they used to make the now banned "black boards" out of). <<
???!!!!
I thought they were just less convenient than the marker-boards ("White boards")
Are you saying they disappeared because they were banned for being RADIOACTIVE???
It must be crushed, placed in a container and heated to extract the oil-like product, then the waste produced which is of at least 50% greater volume than the original rock, must be disposed of in some way---at present, the process consumes more energy than can be extracted in the form of oil---
ping
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.