Posted on 01/14/2009 6:21:20 PM PST by Gondring
A titanic battle between the West's two traditional power brokers -- Big Oil and Big Water -- has begun. [...]
Extracting oil from rocky seams of underground shale is not only expensive, but it also requires massive amounts of water, a precious resource critical to continued development in the nation's fastest-growing region.
[...]
Oil shale companies acknowledge that the technology to superheat shale to extract oil is unproven. They also concede that they aren't certain how much water will be needed in the process, although some experts calculate it would take 10 barrels of water to get one barrel of oil from shale.
[...]
"There are estimates that oil shale could use all of the remaining water in the upper Colorado River Basin," said [a commissioner on the Denver Water Board]. "That essentially pits oil shale against people's needs."
[...]
Shell has the most mature technology, which it has been experimenting with at its Mahogany Test Site near Rifle, CO.
[...]
All the processes require prodigious amounts of water [...] Meanwhile, already-parched Western states bracing for more growth are completing water supply inventories. A Colorado study projected that by 2050, with the state's oil shale operations at capacity, the industry will require 14 times more power than is now generated by the state's largest power plant. The study's sobering bottom line: Oil shale's energy demands could require more water than Colorado is entitled to under an interstate compact.
[...]
The renewed push for oil shale development comes at a time when conventional energy companies are being blamed for squandering and fouling water across the West. Ranchers in the region say crops and livestock suffer as oil and gas production drains underground aquifers and sportsmen complain that rivers are being polluted by the energy industry.
(Excerpt) Read more at startribune.com ...
Yes, that would be the natural result of using our reserves first and then being reliant upon imports.
I think we can rest easy at this point in time: current oil prices probably wouldn’t support this sort of thing.
Israel has reserves of oil shale and I am surprised that Shell is not working something out with them.
Well, if Shell can get it done for under 37 dollars/bbl., more power to them. As long as they don’t ruin CO in the process.
I’m sure, however, that Robert Deadford will be cruising in any second with the first environMENTAL lawsuits.
I would think at 10 barrels of water for one barrel of oil it is a non-starter. I don’t think it can fly..Coal is easier to come by.
Doesn't Israel have a worse problem with water supplies? Shaky agreements with Syria and Jordan over water rights and extraction?
Some of the down side to "oil-shale" (marl, actually) extraction are - energy use, polluting side products, massive water pollution and the issue of what to do with the mountain of rock once the "oil" has been removd.
I would think drilling in ANWR makes a lot more sense, it is safer, less impacting and makes for a lot of jobs for Alaskans (sorry) Americans.
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.