Posted on 09/03/2005 6:46:32 AM PDT by narby
When oil prices last touched record highs - actually, after adjusting for inflation we're not there yet, but given the effects of Hurricane Katrina, we probably will be soon - politicians' response was more hype than hope. Oil shale in Colorado! Tar sands in Alberta! OPEC be damned!
Remember the Carter-era Synfuels Corp. debacle? It was a response to the '70s energy shortages, closed down in 1985 after accomplishing essentially nothing at great expense, which is pretty much a description of what usually happens when the government tries to take over something that the private sector can do better. Private actors are, after all, spending their own money.
Since 1981, Shell researchers at the company's division of "unconventional resources" have been spending their own money trying to figure out how to get usable energy out of oil shale. Judging by the presentation the Rocky Mountain News heard this week, they think they've got it.
Shell's method, which it calls "in situ conversion," is simplicity itself in concept but exquisitely ingenious in execution. Terry O'Connor, a vice president for external and regulatory affairs at Shell Exploration and Production, explained how it's done (and they have done it, in several test projects):
Drill shafts into the oil-bearing rock. Drop heaters down the shaft. Cook the rock until the hydrocarbons boil off, the lightest and most desirable first. Collect them.
Please note, you don't have to go looking for oil fields when you're brewing your own.
On one small test plot about 20 feet by 35 feet, on land Shell owns, they started heating the rock in early 2004. "Product" - about one-third natural gas, two-thirds light crude - began to appear in September 2004. They turned the heaters off about a month ago, after harvesting about 1,500 barrels of oil.
While we were trying to do the math, O'Connor told us the answers. Upwards of a million barrels an acre, a billion barrels a square mile. And the oil shale formation in the Green River Basin, most of which is in Colorado, covers more than a thousand square miles - the largest fossil fuel deposits in the world.
Wow.
They don't need subsidies; the process should be commercially feasible with world oil prices at $30 a barrel. The energy balance is favorable; under a conservative life-cycle analysis, it should yield 3.5 units of energy for every 1 unit used in production. The process recovers about 10 times as much oil as mining the rock and crushing and cooking it at the surface, and it's a more desirable grade. Reclamation is easier because the only thing that comes to the surface is the oil you want.
And we've hardly gotten to the really ingenious part yet. While the rock is cooking, at about 650 or 750 degrees Fahrenheit, how do you keep the hydrocarbons from contaminating ground water? Why, you build an ice wall around the whole thing. As O'Connor said, it's counterintuitive.
But ice is impermeable to water. So around the perimeter of the productive site, you drill lots more shafts, only 8 to 12 feet apart, put in piping, and pump refrigerants through it. The water in the ground around the shafts freezes, and eventually forms a 20- to 30-foot ice barrier around the site.
Next you take the water out of the ground inside the ice wall, turn up the heat, and then sit back and harvest the oil until it stops coming in useful quantities. When production drops, it falls off rather quickly.
That's an advantage over ordinary wells, which very gradually get less productive as they age.
Then you pump the water back in. (Well, not necessarily the same water, which has moved on to other uses.) It's hot down there so the water flashes into steam, picking up loose chemicals in the process. Collect the steam, strip the gunk out of it, repeat until the water comes out clean. Then you can turn off the heaters and the chillers and move on to the next plot (even saving one or two of the sides of the ice wall, if you want to be thrifty about it).
Most of the best territory for this astonishing process is on land under the control of the Bureau of Land Management. Shell has applied for a research and development lease on 160 acres of BLM land, which could be approved by February. That project would be on a large enough scale so design of a commercial facility could begin.
The 2005 energy bill altered some provisions of the 1920 Minerals Leasing Act that were a deterrent to large-scale development, and also laid out a 30-month timetable for establishing federal regulations governing commercial leasing.
Shell has been deliberately low-key about their R&D, wanting to avoid the hype, and the disappointment, that surrounded the last oil-shale boom. But O'Connor said the results have been sufficiently encouraging they are gradually getting more open. Starting next week, they will be holding public hearings in northwest Colorado.
I'll say it again. Wow.
Major environmental benefit too. Strip-mining oil shale would be ugly
Good point. I was thinking more in terms of the cost benefits.
On the other hand, I don't think that the strip-mining methods of old would be allowed today. (At least, not without some plan in place to restore the area afterward.)
I think that area has some decent wind energy. Maybe.
Anyway if it does, and this process uses heat pumps, then the ticket would be to directly power the heat pumps with wind energy. Avoiding the energy losses of converting to electricity then back to mechanical energy for the pump.
It's about time!!! The GREENIES be damned!!
Meanwhile the Saudis are busily exporting radical Islam so that they will continue to be a player once the oil is gone
"We've been at it in Africa for about 1,940 years, and it hasn't worked out yet. Plus, we're losing ground now to Islam."
I agree to the extent that the Catholic Church seems to have squandered 1900 years of opportunity in Africa. The Mormons, Lutherans, Evangelicals etc. have only been at it in a big way for 50 or so years, and Christianity is growing exponentially throughout the continent. Look at the transformation of Uganda, which isn't perfect, but is dramatically better than the Amin days.
By what measure do you say we're losing ground to Islam?
Not in population:
"There are more new Christians added to the world population than any other religion on earth every day. This data makes the entire discussion about "rates of growth" irrelevant. The fact is today, that Christianity is the fastest growing religion on this most critical basis. This may change, but today, in 2004 AD, Christians take the prize for being the fastest growing religion.
On none of the 6 continents are Muslims the fastest growing religion.
That Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world is pure myth at best and at worst a deliberate deception of solid statistical facts." ---Brother Andrew (www.bible.ca)
Not in territory either. There is no relevant expansion of Islamic territory in the world today. Islamic countries are not political, industrial or military powerhouses, plus which in general they will implode over time. This implosion will accelerate as the wealth from Oil goes away, as it inevitably will.
Any Islamic Republics which do manage to advance socially and economically will inevitably lose their high birth rates, and soon will be dwarfed by the Christian World.
Nigeria (and the rest of West Africa). The Phillippines. Western Europe.
"The U.S. needs to produce enough oil from shale to drive the price down but, Saudi Arabian deposits need to be consumed to eventually remove them as a player."
I think the amount of damage that will be done with all the revenue they gain far outweighs any benefits of trying to bleed them dry, which nobody knows how long will take. Far better to hit every possible method of producing oil here, and making sure there's enough of a tariff on imported oil to keep it's price higher than domestic. I'd rather see us become completely independent fom them, and leave Europe to have to deal with keeping Middle Eastern oil secure.
I see by your new tag-line you're as disgusted by the obvious desperate pandering in the new Chrysler commercials.
If you were big oil, hated and vilified at every turn, you would probably learn to be a bit more media savvy.
From what I'm reading, this is rather low key, no banner headlines. Plus, this is an automatic loser for the enviro's if they try and attack Shell right now. I'd time it now, too, just to blunt the inevitable attacks by the left wing radicals.
bookmark
I saw it as a "media float" to see what kind of reaction it would engender!
Well, timing is everything.
Right now, I think the left wing wackos are to busy blaming President Bush for Katrina to notice what Shell Oil has come up with.
I'm thinking we both have the same idea, get the news out to see what kind of reaction it gets.
I don't think the wackos can stop the new refinery in AZ, and I don't think they'll be able to stop drilling for oil in this country any more. I expect a few new refinery's over the next decade, too.
It is disgusting that they use Poop Dog to sell cars, debasing our culture with filth. Not going to sell me a car, thats for sure. reminds of the "Come on Herb, try a Whopper" ads from Burger King twenty years ago. Bombed big time, offended nerds, who make lots of money and eat fast food. Just after the movie convinced women we were better than the jocks!
Ping for massive oil potential.
My God, what about the poor shale darters???!!!!
Very interesting. It appears that the shale oil problem has been solved after all the years of false starts. If this approach scales, we have the ability to set an effective ceiling on oil prices at about $35, and a staggering amount of available reserves.
now say that 50x.
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.