Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Study reveals huge U.S. oil-shale field
The Seattle Times ^ | Sep. 1, 2005 | Jennifer Talhelm

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 ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; News/Current Events; US: Colorado; US: Utah; US: Wyoming
KEYWORDS: energy; oil; opec; peakoil; shale
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 201-216 next last
To: Herosmith
The best thing the President can do now is use Executive Authority to permanently erase years of environmental obstacles and red tape so that more nukes can be built, drilling in ANWR and offshore CA/FL, strategically located refineries and LNG terminals, wind farms (especially offshore), and increases in the CAFE standards.

Screw Congress, now is the time for the White House should take action and show leadership!

41 posted on 09/02/2005 6:13:40 AM PDT by DTogo (U.S. out of the U.N. & U.N out of the U.S.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sitetest
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.

I'm all for that. It would quickly pay itself back not only in terms of increased local supplies, but less need of foreign meddling.

42 posted on 09/02/2005 6:14:19 AM PDT by Hermann the Cherusker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Hermann the Cherusker

Dear Hermann the Cherusker,

Well, if we were able to eliminate imported oil (and there's plenty of shale oil, and other stuff available, to do so), we would also reduce the trade deficit by a pretty number.

I think last year, the average price of oil was something like $40 per barrel. That's for 2004. At 12 million barrels per day of imported oil, that's about $175 billion.

It seems to me that a more stable energy supply, even purchased at a modestly higher price, could benefit the United States in more than one way.


sitetest


43 posted on 09/02/2005 6:20:16 AM PDT by sitetest (If Roe is not overturned, no unborn child will ever be protected in law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Arkie2
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.

Traditionally oil companies form a consortium to spread the risk involved in exploiting a new field. Many overseas oil companies are essentially arms of their national governments, however.

44 posted on 09/02/2005 6:23:41 AM PDT by Tallguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: sitetest
These guys think this discussion of the costs/benefits of shale oil development is a complete waste of time.

Image hosted by TinyPic.com

45 posted on 09/02/2005 6:25:24 AM PDT by Sax
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: DTogo

Chop the EPA off at the knees and allow new refineries to be built and watch gas and oil prices drop before the shovel
of construction hits the dirt.

?shovel of construction? you know breaking ground.


46 posted on 09/02/2005 6:25:51 AM PDT by PositiveCogins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: sitetest
Well, if we were able to eliminate imported oil (and there's plenty of shale oil, and other stuff available, to do so), we would also reduce the trade deficit by a pretty number.

The cost of extracting oil is the concern of the oil company at present. The national trade deficit is the responsibility of the government. Unless we were to rearrange the economy by either going "protectionist" or alternatively nationalizing the oil industry there is no way to kill both of those birds with one stone.

47 posted on 09/02/2005 6:27:14 AM PDT by Tallguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: timtoews5292004
lets hope we can get to it before the environmentalists hamstring us with over-regulation.

"before the environmentalists hamstring us..."

It is time to MAKE these nuts stand down! We have sat back and allowed them to hamstring us.

48 posted on 09/02/2005 6:27:47 AM PDT by Obadiah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Sax

Nice car. Did it come equipped with those three disposable doormats?


49 posted on 09/02/2005 6:28:32 AM PDT by Arkie2 (Mega super duper moose, whine, cheese, series, zot, viking kitties, barf alert!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: SampleMan
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.

Much of the Alaskan North Slope is this way.

When it is depleted, we will then use our reserves, which will be far more cost efficient at $100 a barrel.

If the claim of 10 year to begin production is true, continued waiting will keep our oil in the ground until a cheaper alternative to oil is produced. But still many here want to keep sending the oil royality payments to other governments instead of our own.

50 posted on 09/02/2005 6:30:16 AM PDT by thackney (life is fragile, handle with prayer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: HamiltonJay

What about the sour crude? They never touch that stuff because of the sulphur content.
I think its a refinery issue right now. Until we build more refineries we will continue to see tight supply.
I have not seen long gas lines. I hope that people realize that they don't need to top off their tanks every mile or so.


51 posted on 09/02/2005 6:31:16 AM PDT by Holicheese (Would you like a beer? No thanks, I will have a bud light.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: HamiltonJay
When the price to get a barrel of shale gets to $5 or $10 a barrel, that's when it'll get tapped.

Must be some way to give a tax incentive to domestic production to get it there now.
52 posted on 09/02/2005 6:32:33 AM PDT by Kozak (Anti Shahada: " There is no God named Allah, and Muhammed is his False Prophet")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: HamiltonJay
If may cost $5.00 a barell to bring it up, but then you have to refine it, ship it, and of course put a nice lovely tax on top of it. So then what are we talking? $20.00 per barell?


53 posted on 09/02/2005 6:32:50 AM PDT by unixfox (AMERICA - 20 Million ILLEGALS Can't Be Wrong!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Tallguy

Dear Tallguy,

"Unless we were to rearrange the economy by either going 'protectionist'..."

You're right. To impose a tariff on imported oil would be a moderately protectionist act.

And usually, I'm against protectionism. I just don't think it's economically worthwhile in the long run.

But there are more matters here than strictly economic.

Unfortunately, we get a lot of our energy from fairly thuggish regimes around the world. We get oil from places like Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Kuwait, the other Gulf States. Although we have a ban on it, oil is fungible, and so there's Iran that enters into the picture. Russia has decided to use its vast oil reserves as a way to leverage their power against the United States.

And of course, we have places like Nigeria and Venezeula.

In the meantime, if China continues to grow (and if India picks up steam), pressure will be further exerted on world markets.

Energy is a fundamental input to our economy, and our energy picture, as it is, is a bit precarious. In fact, as we see from the current disaster, it's quite precarious (although that is at least in part because we have no excess refining capacity).

This may be an issue where we may wish to engage in a little protectionism, to add a little security to, to reduce a little risk from, our national security.

That it would take a big bite out of our trade deficit is just a nice secondary effect.


sitetest


54 posted on 09/02/2005 6:39:35 AM PDT by sitetest (If Roe is not overturned, no unborn child will ever be protected in law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Holicheese

Yes, refining is the limiting factor in the US for gasoline... but refining isn't what's causing 70 bbl pricing.. market manipulation is.

Prices at the pump are going to go up for a while as the refineries in LA are offline.

Again though, this is not something that affects CRUDE prices...

When CRUDE oil from the low hanging fruit (like the middle east) truly begins to run out, and prices hit the 60 or 70 bbl range from that, and have no chance at all of ever going down (a true supply crunch) shale oil will become profitable to tap.

Right now though, oil is artificially at 70bbl, its a bubble and its going to go back down to 30-40 bbl.. its just a matter of if, just a matter of when. Everyone in the oil business knows this. Every hedge fund in america is putting money into oil futures, driving it up, just like they did tech stocks... and when it pops, its going to pop hard, just like tech stocks.

When the true tipping point occurs on the easy to get at oil, that's when Shale and other reserves will become profitable and tapped... but right now, we are not at that point.


55 posted on 09/02/2005 6:42:13 AM PDT by HamiltonJay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Lonesome in Massachussets
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.

Correct! So we have this odd situation where long lead times and monster capex requirements keep the shale in the ground. But why doesn't the same reasoning apply to offshore rigs, which also have huge capex requirements?

56 posted on 09/02/2005 6:45:40 AM PDT by Spike Spiegel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: HamiltonJay

I agree with your comments.
I am still waiting for someone to post the article about the car that runs on water and the one that gets 500 MPG.
I know they are out there.


57 posted on 09/02/2005 6:45:45 AM PDT by Holicheese (Would you like a beer? No thanks, I will have a bud light.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Herosmith
Drill, drill, drill!!!

a big plus is that it isn't in a hurricane-prone area.

58 posted on 09/02/2005 6:47:29 AM PDT by meyer (Eastern Tennessee)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: unixfox

No, I'm talking CRUDE V CRUDE.. to get a bbl of CRUDE out of the ground in Saudi Arabia it costs em about $5 A BBL.. to get a bbl out of the ground from shale runs about $20 a bbl... thats raw cost.

When the "tipping point" is truly reached, and the easy to extract oil is honestly running out (its not right now, in spite of the naysayers) and prices on that shoot up, and have no chance at all of going down, that is when things like SHALE extraction will become worth doing... or when technology finds a cheaper way to extract it... but no matter what it will NEVER be as cheap as pumping liquid right out of the ground.

Shale oil also has other issues, above and beyond extrating the oil from the rock.. Its NOT a panacea, but it is good to know its there, and will be there when the low hanging fruit runs out. But we aren't at that point yet.


59 posted on 09/02/2005 6:47:35 AM PDT by HamiltonJay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Herosmith

I got a bridge in NY I can sell you.


60 posted on 09/02/2005 6:48:02 AM PDT by Clock King ("How will it end?" - Emperor; "In Fire." - Kosh)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 201-216 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson