Posted on 09/02/2005 5:44:37 AM PDT by Herosmith
WASHINGTON — The United States has an oil reserve at least three times that of Saudi Arabia locked in oil-shale deposits beneath federal land in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming, according to a study released yesterday.
(Excerpt) Read more at seattletimes.nwsource.com ...
"I fear it's too late already on that score."
Ahhh... Screw it!!
I'm going to see if the Amish will let me join up.
I think these are the western oil-shale reserves that we've known about for about 40 years now.
It's never been economical to extract the oil from these deposits - it doesn't simply flow out.
So why are we just hearing about it in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina?
Try this ...
http://www.ncpa.org/pub/bg/bg159/
Exactly! We use middle-east oil because it is cheap to produce. It is under pressure and doesn't even require pumping, just open the spigot. When it is depleted, we will then use our reserves, which will be far more cost efficient at $100 a barrel.
It'd be OK, however, if you'd care to share with us his ideas on extracting the oil from the the shale economically.
All you had to do is visit Rock Springs Wyoming in the late 70's...cowboys and roust-a-bouts driving Mercedes :)...way too expensive to remove, but hey with the price of gas 3-4 per gallon maybe it's time. Shale oil extraction is nothing new...except to the dimwit Seattle reporter, who had no idea it was being done in their own back yard
We cannot do anything there. We will disturb the shale rats, which is an endangered species.
Canada's deposits are substantially different from those in the US. Their oil is in tar sands. Big difference from ours.
BINGO!
We HAVE a winner!
(Nicely put, BTW)
I was watching a discovery channel program the other day about the Canadian tar sands extraction work and they made a very good point. The sunken costs for the start up are the major expense and once that hurdle has been cleared the extraction process is relatively cheap. Of course, you've got to get someone to eat those start-up costs and the only entity likely to do that would be a government.
...and what particular aspects of the supply/demand situation are you using to back up your assertion that this is an oil bubble? Other than saying so?
This is not news. Armand Hammer spoke about this shale existence and potential at my college commencement ceremony. In 1979.
Shale oil production has always been an economic decision. The problem is that the marginal production cost of oil in the Middle East is effectively zero. Once a private US company has invested billions in shale oil recovery, OPEC could undercut them by selling below their production costs, to say nothing of the amortization cost. The very threat of undercutting scares off investors. Once the production cost of shale is lower than the marginal production cost of oil, it will come on line. You heard it here first.
Note that producers have little economic incentive to create a robust supply system to bring us through a natural disaster, like Katrina. In this sense at least, some tapping of the national emergency stockpiles is justified, I suppose.
The article says there are between 500 billion and 1.1 trillion barrels of recoverable oil, here.
By my back of the envelope calculations, that would replace all our imported oil, at current usage rates, for about 100 - 200 years, give or take.
This is one of many sources of domestic energy that can be tapped.
A big part of the problem is, of course, the environazis standing in the way.
But as big, if not bigger, is the fact that private capital doesn't want to get involved in this stuff because even though it's really quite profitable at $70 per barrel, it's a big money loser when oil is selling on the world market at $30 per barrel.
Although it isn't generally thought of as a "conservative" position, and it is not without economic costs to our country, how many people here at FreeRepublic would support a significant tariff on imported oil (phased in to permit production of stuff like the shale oil to ramp up), of say, $15 or $20 per barrel? To keep the cost high enough to unleash, economically, energy production in the United States.
There are costs. All things being equal, it adds a small premium to the cost of manufacturing stuff in the US.
But all things are not equal. If we were energy independent, we would have greater freedom of movement in our foreign policy. We would not have the potential of drastic economic disruption from a war where they pump oil, or from a natural disaster.
I'm not saying I support this idea.
I just wonder what folks think, pro and con.
sitetest
How would anyone even dare to consider to destroy thousands of square miles of pristine, untouched by human habitation this area of the United States for a few gallons of oil. Think of the pollution that will be created not only by the tearing up of the virgin landscape, but also from burning the oil in various gas and diesel guzzling vehicles.
Remember Billions to the Arabs for oil, not one cent to America! (Scarasm off)
BTTT
Expect to be shunned for the first few years, but if you're willing to work hard and take being ignored, they might just have you.
To late.
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.