Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Environment & Energy
Related: About this forumThe U.S. Has A Lot Of Shale Oil - So What?
commentators are making waves about a Government Accountability Office statement (PDF) which says that 1.5 trillion barrels of shale oil in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming may be recoverable.
Their reactions are all along the same lines: this shale-oil reserve could by itself supply domestic oil consumption for more than 200 years, and will Obama, in a possible second term, block the development of the resources that can assure Americas economic supremacy for generations?
...Two pages later, it mentions that there are two ways to get the oil out of the shale.
The first involves massive strip-mining to get the rock out, then heating it to 650 degrees plus to release the oil. That method has three major commercial problems: it can never get at the bulk of the reserves, which are buried under thousands of feet of non-oily rock, the cost of the power (and water to make that power) to heat the rock makes the oil it produces very expensive, and there are no roads suitable to get the equipment needed for large-scale mining. These all add up to a trickle of oil at very high prices, not the economic-powerhouse gluttony the right wing think these shale reserves represent. It also has non-commercial problems: the strip mining of vast areas of what is currently nature preserve, massive regional air and water pollution and of course the runaway effect dumping so much carbon (from burning all that oil) into the earths atmosphere would have on global warming.
The second method involves drilling holes, then lowering very powerful heaters to free the oil from its shale matrix in situ and pumping the oil out. In theory, this opens up even deep-buried reserves but as the reports states, the biggest commercial problem there is that there is no proven commercially-viable way of doing this. Everything done so far has been pilot, experimental, small scale. Best estimates say commercial technology for this method of extraction are 10-20 years away. Even then, it will mean expensive oil for the same reason strip-mining does: the cost of power needed to heat and the cost of ever-scarcer water both for power-generation and in this case for fracking. The same non-commercial problems still apply, and you can add likely massive contamination of ground water reserves that are essential for urban areas and agriculture across several states.
http://ivn.us/2012/05/16/the-u-s-has-a-lot-of-shale-oil-so/
Their reactions are all along the same lines: this shale-oil reserve could by itself supply domestic oil consumption for more than 200 years, and will Obama, in a possible second term, block the development of the resources that can assure Americas economic supremacy for generations?
...Two pages later, it mentions that there are two ways to get the oil out of the shale.
The first involves massive strip-mining to get the rock out, then heating it to 650 degrees plus to release the oil. That method has three major commercial problems: it can never get at the bulk of the reserves, which are buried under thousands of feet of non-oily rock, the cost of the power (and water to make that power) to heat the rock makes the oil it produces very expensive, and there are no roads suitable to get the equipment needed for large-scale mining. These all add up to a trickle of oil at very high prices, not the economic-powerhouse gluttony the right wing think these shale reserves represent. It also has non-commercial problems: the strip mining of vast areas of what is currently nature preserve, massive regional air and water pollution and of course the runaway effect dumping so much carbon (from burning all that oil) into the earths atmosphere would have on global warming.
The second method involves drilling holes, then lowering very powerful heaters to free the oil from its shale matrix in situ and pumping the oil out. In theory, this opens up even deep-buried reserves but as the reports states, the biggest commercial problem there is that there is no proven commercially-viable way of doing this. Everything done so far has been pilot, experimental, small scale. Best estimates say commercial technology for this method of extraction are 10-20 years away. Even then, it will mean expensive oil for the same reason strip-mining does: the cost of power needed to heat and the cost of ever-scarcer water both for power-generation and in this case for fracking. The same non-commercial problems still apply, and you can add likely massive contamination of ground water reserves that are essential for urban areas and agriculture across several states.
http://ivn.us/2012/05/16/the-u-s-has-a-lot-of-shale-oil-so/
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
4 replies, 1272 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (6)
ReplyReply to this post
4 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
The U.S. Has A Lot Of Shale Oil - So What? (Original Post)
phantom power
May 2012
OP
Or we could work on alternative forms of renewable energy for the next 10-20 years.
progressoid
May 2012
#2
edcantor
(325 posts)1. Recoverable at what long term cost?
Do those states like further limitations upon their supply of fresh water?
progressoid
(50,013 posts)2. Or we could work on alternative forms of renewable energy for the next 10-20 years.
IMHO
NickB79
(19,297 posts)3. Just drill a borehole, drop in a nuke, and viola! Liberated shale oil
Might be a little radioactive, though
joshcryer
(62,287 posts)4. Once oil hits $150 a barrel, and stays there, which it will soon enough...
...shale oil will be viable on the market place.
The oil companies know this.
This is why the oil companies are against fee and dividend.
They're just biding their time with their hundreds of thousands of square miles of Green River land.