If we want energy independence....

#1
g8terh8ter_eric

g8terh8ter_eric

No Disassemble!
Joined
Jan 13, 2005
Messages
26,985
Likes
686
#1
We need to tap the Rocky Mountain oil shale deposits more. The say there is over 800 billion barrels of oil that could be extracted from there and that would last us 110 years at current usage levels.
 
#2
#2
I thought that Shell was close to starting a major recovery operation using a thermal bake-out technique...any one know if they have started that or are closer to starting that?
 
#3
#3
Also, the oil shale there may be a great solution to a lot of our energy concerns. However, something to keep in mind is how recoverable is this. Is that 800 billion barrels of recoverable oil? If so, at what price? Proven reserves are calculated as that which can be extracted at the current price of oil I think, so the proven reserves in a deposit can fluctuate based on the price of oil. Are these 800 billion barrels considered proven reserves, or just the amount of resource present?

I know that Shell has said they have a method that they think can allow them to extract oil from shale for about $40 a barrel. First, that is probably a bit optimistic. But, secondly, I wonder how much oil they can extract at that price? My guess is it goes up ... but at what rate per barrel extracted?
 
#4
#4
Price will be somewhat irrelevant if the Green Lobby is strong enough. It appears that the current administration is not keen on further developing fossil fuels as an energy source.

It reminds me a bit of the Healthcare situation. Total transformation is the goal rather than incremental improvements and practical solutions.
 
#5
#5
I beleive what shell has going on is called In situ retorting.

It also looks like there would be better ways than what is described here.


About Oil Shale



Describes the process toward the bottom of the page.
 
#7
#7
volinbham said:
Price will be somewhat irrelevant if the Green Lobby is strong enough. It appears that the current administration is not keen on further developing fossil fuels as an energy source.

It reminds me a bit of the Healthcare situation. Total transformation is the goal rather than incremental improvements and practical solutions.
Click to expand...

That's why they will be a flash in the pan...but unfortunately, the drapes might catch fire.
 
#8
#8
I say go for it if they can do it cheap enough, but I don't think we should abandon research on the sustainable technologies. Oil, as plentiful as it is, won't last forever.

As VBH said, incremental changes are the way to go. If this find proves useful maybe it can ease the transition. At this point, anything that drives down the amount of oil we are importing is a good thing.
 
#9
#9
They wont touch that Oil Shale with oil at $65 or $150 for that matter.

This idea is much better

T. Boone Pickens and Ted Turner: Natural Gas and Renewables Are the Key to a Cleaner, More Secure Energy Supply - WSJ.com

We can begin transitioning the nation's fleet of 6.5 million 18-wheelers that run regular routes. It would take just 20 refueling stations along a single highway to get trucks from one coast to the other. Centrally fueled urban business and government fleets also can quickly move to natural gas. The Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach are in the process of buying new natural gas vehicles for their fleets, and many municipalities are harnessing the economic and environmental benefits of natural gas-powered buses
Click to expand...
 
#10
#10
From a transportation standpoint, natural gas can get in there and compete. As a feedstock for petrochemical production, it is hard for Fishcer-Tropsch petrochemical synthesis to beat simple distillation and cracking operations. That's a problem with oil...it isn't just about energy. Obviously energy is the heart of the matter, but it goes a lot deeper...
 
Last edited:
#11
#11
And while we are at it, we should drill the north slope of Alaska and in the Arctic Ocean, offshore of the east coast and west coast of the lower 48 and in the gulf of Mexico.

There is no real reason not to, other than politics.
 
#12
#12
Why not do both? Why does it have to be one or the other? Natural Gas is an awesome idea but so is the shale... so is drilling here... so is further developing Solar, Nuke, hydrogen, and wind to be more and more efficient and cheap. Then in a hundred years they will view using fossil fuels to power our stuff much like we view using horse and carriage to travel.
 
#13
#13
volinbham said:
Price will be somewhat irrelevant if the Green Lobby is strong enough. It appears that the current administration is not keen on further developing fossil fuels as an energy source.

It reminds me a bit of the Healthcare situation. Total transformation is the goal rather than incremental improvements and practical solutions.
Click to expand...

Mensheviks are an irritation, bolsheviks are insufferable!!!!

Cross polination of the English and Russian languages has been extroidinary in the twentieth century.

With America being the cutting edge of technology and innovation, many English words were just transferrred to Russian with Russin endings added so they could keep up rather than invent new words as is often the case in English.

For instance,

English, "I parked the car."
Russian, "Ya parkoval." (car being understood, as is the case with Russian, much is assumed to be understood and much of the spoken word is ommitted as being needless blather, which lends itself well to political [and eco{not so}logical] douple plus good double speak.)

For those with the least interest in etymology.

(not assuming that everyone doesn't already know but guessing that some only have a dictionary understanding of the words 'menshevik', 'bolshevik' and 'fascist', which can be very misleading.)

Those first two words as used in English originate from three Russian words.

1. Menshe = little
2. Bolshoi = big
3. Chelovek = man

Mensheviks advocated incremental implementation of socialism. (some examples; Russian Democrat Socialist party and the American Republican party and most parties from countries belonging to the EU.)

Bolsheviks advocated radical, bold, the end justifies the means, socialism immediatly at any price. (some examples; Russian Communist party and the American Democrat party and a lot of third world coutries such as Cuba, Zimbabwe and South Africa which went from first world to third world status in a noticeably small amount of time.)

(Musollini and Hitler advocated a rapid transition to an all powerful centrally controlled form of government and government control of industry and energy.)

Adolph Hitler could be defined as a bolshevik although texts and ditionaries will make the distinction that he was fascist and nationalistic.

Although that is true, he did use extreme nationalism to rise to pwer he did also promise a world wide system that would reign for a thousand years.

'Fascism' is still socialism no matter how you cut it.






Bolshoi global warming:
lovelock_mig480.JPG

Somewhere in Russia, formerly a republic of the USSR.








Menshei global warming:
Titusville2.jpg

Somewhere in the USSA, formerly the Untited States of America.









American citizen considering his options.
bull.jpg
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top