Fueling America

[Gunny]

Fueling America - Special Reports from CNN.com

Some interesting stuff.

 

[onedomino]

Fueling America - Special Reports from CNN.com

Some interesting stuff.

In the "solutions" section of the article, nothing was mentioned about oil shale and coal gasification. Why?

The Politics of Oil Shale

By Jon Birger, senior writer

Complete article: The politics of oil shale - Jun. 6, 2008


NEW YORK (Fortune) -- You'd think this would be oil shale's moment.

You'd think with gas prices topping $4 and consumers crying uncle, Congress would be moving fast to spur development of a domestic oil resource so vast - 800 billion barrels of recoverable oil shale in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming alone - it could eventually rival the oil fields of Saudi Arabia. [Some estimates put total US oil Shale at 1.7 trillion barrels. Saudi Arabia and Russia combined amount to 260 billion barrels -1d].

You'd think politicians would be tripping over themselves to arrange photo-ops with Harold Vinegar (whom I profiled in Fortune last November), the brilliant, Brooklyn-born chief scientist at Royal Dutch Shell whose research cracked the code on how to efficiently and cleanly convert oil shale - a rock-like fossil fuel known to geologists as kerogen - into light crude oil.

You'd think all of this, but you'd be wrong.

Last month, the U.S. Senate's Appropriations Committee voted 15-14 to kill a bill that would have ended a one-year moratorium on enacting rules for oil shale development on federal lands (which is where the best oil shale is located). Most maddening of all - at least to someone like myself not steeped in the wacky ways of Washington - the swing vote on the appropriations committee, U.S. Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., voted with the majority even though she actually opposes the moratorium.

"Sen. Salazar asked me to vote no. I did so at his request," Landrieu told The Rocky Mountain News. A Landrieu staffer contacted by Fortune doesn't dispute this, but notes that Landrieu did propose a compromise which Republicans rejected.

Arghh!

She was speaking of U.S. Sen. Ken Salazar, D-Colo., who has emerged as the Senate's leading oil shale opponent. Salazar inserted the aforementioned moratorium into an omnibus spending bill last December, and in May he proposed a new bill that would extend the moratorium another year.

Salazar's efforts have essentially pulled the rug out from under Shell (RDSA) and other oil companies which have invested many, many millions into oil shale research since the passage of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, which established the original framework for commercial leasing of oil shale lands. (Last year, oil shale represented Shell's single biggest R&D expenditure.)

Salazar says he's simply trying to slow things down in order to ensure environmental considerations don't get trampled in the rush to turn western Colorado into a new Prudhoe Bay. But, ironically, his bid to extend the moratorium comes at a time when his fellow Senate Democrats have been blasting Big Oil for not reinvesting enough of their profits into developing new sources of energy.

I recently spoke with Republican U.S. Sens. Orrin Hatch of Utah and Wayne Allard of Colorado, the two lawmakers working hardest to end the oil shale moratorium. Here are some excerpts from the interviews:

Fortune: Why do you consider developing oil shale such a high priority?

Sen. Hatch: We have as much oil in oil shale in Utah, Wyoming and Colorado as the rest of the world's oil combined. Liberals and environmentalists can talk all they want about wind, solar and geothermal - all of which I'm for - but last time I checked, planes, trains, trucks, ships and cars don't run on electricity. 98% of transportation fuel right now is oil. Ethanol is the only real alternative, and we're seeing that ethanol has major limitations.

 

[Dirt McGirt]

The Politics of Oil Shale

By Jon Birger, senior writer

Complete article: The politics of oil shale - Jun. 6, 2008


NEW YORK (Fortune) -- You'd think this would be oil shale's moment.

You'd think with gas prices topping $4 and consumers crying uncle, Congress would be moving fast to spur development of a domestic oil resource so vast - 800 billion barrels of recoverable oil shale in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming alone - it could eventually rival the oil fields of Saudi Arabia. [Some estimates put total US oil Shale at 1.7 trillion barrels. Saudi Arabia and Russia combined amount to 260 billion barrels -1d].

You'd think politicians would be tripping over themselves to arrange photo-ops with Harold Vinegar (whom I profiled in Fortune last November), the brilliant, Brooklyn-born chief scientist at Royal Dutch Shell whose research cracked the code on how to efficiently and cleanly convert oil shale - a rock-like fossil fuel known to geologists as kerogen - into light crude oil.

You'd think all of this, but you'd be wrong.

Last month, the U.S. Senate's Appropriations Committee voted 15-14 to kill a bill that would have ended a one-year moratorium on enacting rules for oil shale development on federal lands (which is where the best oil shale is located). Most maddening of all - at least to someone like myself not steeped in the wacky ways of Washington - the swing vote on the appropriations committee, U.S. Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., voted with the majority even though she actually opposes the moratorium.

"Sen. Salazar asked me to vote no. I did so at his request," Landrieu told The Rocky Mountain News. A Landrieu staffer contacted by Fortune doesn't dispute this, but notes that Landrieu did propose a compromise which Republicans rejected.

Arghh!

She was speaking of U.S. Sen. Ken Salazar, D-Colo., who has emerged as the Senate's leading oil shale opponent. Salazar inserted the aforementioned moratorium into an omnibus spending bill last December, and in May he proposed a new bill that would extend the moratorium another year.

Salazar's efforts have essentially pulled the rug out from under Shell (RDSA) and other oil companies which have invested many, many millions into oil shale research since the passage of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, which established the original framework for commercial leasing of oil shale lands. (Last year, oil shale represented Shell's single biggest R&D expenditure.)

Salazar says he's simply trying to slow things down in order to ensure environmental considerations don't get trampled in the rush to turn western Colorado into a new Prudhoe Bay. But, ironically, his bid to extend the moratorium comes at a time when his fellow Senate Democrats have been blasting Big Oil for not reinvesting enough of their profits into developing new sources of energy.

I recently spoke with Republican U.S. Sens. Orrin Hatch of Utah and Wayne Allard of Colorado, the two lawmakers working hardest to end the oil shale moratorium. Here are some excerpts from the interviews:

Fortune: Why do you consider developing oil shale such a high priority?

Sen. Hatch: We have as much oil in oil shale in Utah, Wyoming and Colorado as the rest of the world's oil combined. Liberals and environmentalists can talk all they want about wind, solar and geothermal - all of which I'm for - but last time I checked, planes, trains, trucks, ships and cars don't run on electricity. 98% of transportation fuel right now is oil. Ethanol is the only real alternative, and we're seeing that ethanol has major limitations.

By Federal Lands are we talking National Parks? Funny how we entrust the government with preserving our lands and then they turn around and call us liberals and environmentalists when we don't want to exploit it for capital gain. I hardly believe Hatch and Allard are socialists, so it'd be opened up to big oil only. The quickest solution to the gas crisis right now is the mass production of cars with better fuel efficiency. A 6 month wait for hybrids...the demand is there.

 

[onedomino]

By Federal Lands are we talking National Parks? Funny how we entrust the government with preserving our lands and then they turn around and call us liberals and environmentalists when we don't want to exploit it for capital gain. I hardly believe Hatch and Allard are socialists, so it'd be opened up to big oil only. The quickest solution to the gas crisis right now is the mass production of cars with better fuel efficiency. A 6 month wait for hybrids...the demand is there.

No we are not referring to "Nationa Parks." See map below. Fuel efficient cars will be good, but that still leaves us dependent on foreign oil. We must develop what we have. We must reduce the foreign policy distortions that result from the West's energy dependency on the Middle East and Russia. So far in this thread, we have mentioned oil shale and the more than one trillion barrels of energy it offers. Included in the discussion should be coal gasification. As great is the energy potential of oil shale, coal offers even more potential. The short form is that we have the hydrocarbon energy we need right here in the lower 48. We know how to reclaim and sequester carbon. We do not need to go to Alaska or drill offshore. Do we want to pay Saudi Arabia, Iran, Chavez, and Putin $145 per barrel or $50 to $60 per barrel to the northern plains and mountain states?

http://geology.com/news/images/oil-shale-map-sm.jpg

For a map of US National Parks, go here: US National Parks Pictures: map

 

[busara]

i dont understand the politics behind energy. dems only want to use renewable energy, repubs only want to use oil. why not work equally hard on becoming self sustaining in both? it seems obvious that we cant rely solely on one or the other

 

[AllieBaba]

The problem is that the dems are without exception opposed to any progress, period. They won't let us develop our own oil fields, they tax the crap out of it, they penalize people for producing oil...then they act all shocked and shaken when there's an energy crisis.

They insist that we conserve water...then hike the rates. They insist that we buy smaller, more economical cars...then impose toll taxes to make up the difference in $$ they would be receiving in fuel tax. They won't let us develop and make use of our own resources, then stamp their feet and insist that "somebody" provide the unemployed with jobs or income, and accuse others of hiking prices.

It's crazy.

Flipping idiots.

 

[busara]

The problem is that the dems are without exception opposed to any progress, period. They won't let us develop our own oil fields, they tax the crap out of it, they penalize people for producing oil...then they act all shocked and shaken when there's an energy crisis.

They insist that we conserve water...then hike the rates. They insist that we buy smaller, more economical cars...then impose toll taxes to make up the difference in $$ they would be receiving in fuel tax. They won't let us develop and make use of our own resources, then stamp their feet and insist that "somebody" provide the unemployed with jobs or income, and accuse others of hiking prices.

It's crazy.

Flipping idiots.

you cant say this is all the dems fault. you must realize fault lies on both sides

 

[Chris]

Fueling America - Special Reports from CNN.com

Some interesting stuff.

It is very simple.

Wind, solar, algae based ethanol, and let them drill where they want to.

Pond-Powered Biofuels: Turning Algae into America's Newest Alternative Energy Source - Popular Mechanics

 

[AllieBaba]

you cant say this is all the dems fault. you must realize fault lies on both sides

Yes, I can and do say it's the dems fault. There aren't any GOP environmental activists to my knowledge, nor have the Republicans historically nixed anything that means progress, in terms of the harvesting of natural resources.

 

[AllieBaba]

It is very simple.

Wind, solar, algae based ethanol, and let them drill where they want to.

Pond-Powered Biofuels: Turning Algae into America's Newest Alternative Energy Source - Popular Mechanics

I'm telling you. Messing with algae is a dangerous, baaaaadddd thing. It's weird stuff, and if it gets messed up, we're screwed.

 

[Annie]

i dont understand the politics behind energy. dems only want to use renewable energy, repubs only want to use oil. why not work equally hard on becoming self sustaining in both? it seems obvious that we cant rely solely on one or the other

I disagree with your effort to make this 'simple.' The Dems by ideology and core group, (Greens) must be against drilling, oil shale, etc. They are left with arguing for new technologies and blaming our 'lifestyles.'

The Republicans on the other hand, find that their constituencies are demanding exploitation concurrent with incentives for inventing new technologies. Note that it was McCain that floated the idea of the government offering financial reward for the first to develop a new technology.

 

[Paulie]

I disagree with your effort to make this 'simple.' The Dems by ideology and core group, (Greens) must be against drilling, oil shale, etc. They are left with arguing for new technologies and blaming our 'lifestyles.'

The Republicans on the other hand, find that their constituencies are demanding exploitation concurrent with incentives for inventing new technologies. Note that it was McCain that floated the idea of the government offering financial reward for the first to develop a new technology.

How can you NOT blame our lifestyles to at least some extent? We are the most wasteful society on Earth. God forbid we don't have AC to drive around with on full blast while gas prices are costing many people a rent payment.

And you have to be able to realize McCain is pandering with that proposition, because oil companies have eaten up the competition for decades now, in regards to new technologies. It's also extremely difficult to land a patent for so-called "new technology". All kinds of road blocks, and although I'm pro business and pro free market and all that, I am able to realize the faults of the oil companies. Their lobby will always make sure to snuff out the competition.

 

[Tech_Esq]

We have to get out of the "us vs. them" mentality in this country vis-a-vis the energy discussion. We have one side saying anything that isn't geo-thermal, solar or wind (and there are some on their side that aren't too sure about wind) is BAD.

The other side isn't perfect either.

But we need to have a little nationalistic fervor here and realize we need to get to a place where we are energy independent first. Then, migrate that energy independence to renewables.

Concerning new technologies, I wouldn't be so certain that the oil companies are totally in control of all of them. For example google a company called eestor out of Texas and their ultra capacitors. Or, look at A123 who will be providing the batteries for GM's Volt.

 

[BaronVonBigmeat]

If the oil companies were all-powerful, we wouldn't have CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) laws.

If anyone is really holding the power, it's developers. If you want to get into national politics, you usually start out in state or local politics. And if you want to do that, sucking up to developers is probably a good idea.

 

[jreeves]

How can you NOT blame our lifestyles to at least some extent? We are the most wasteful society on Earth. God forbid we don't have AC to drive around with on full blast while gas prices are costing many people a rent payment.
And you have to be able to realize McCain is pandering with that proposition, because oil companies have eaten up the competition for decades now, in regards to new technologies. It's also extremely difficult to land a patent for so-called "new technology". All kinds of road blocks, and although I'm pro business and pro free market and all that, I am able to realize the faults of the oil companies. Their lobby will always make sure to snuff out the competition.

You do realize, you use more gas driving with your window down than you do with your AC on.

 

[Paulie]

You do realize, you use more gas driving with your window down than you do with your AC on.

No, but I'd be very interested to see some kind of hard data that proves that. My cars have always done better with AC off, so perhaps your claim only applies to certain vehicles.

 

[busara]

No, but I'd be very interested to see some kind of hard data that proves that. My cars have always done better with AC off, so perhaps your claim only applies to certain vehicles.

mythbusters studied that and found the AC hurts more. not the most scientific study, though

 

[Paulie]

mythbusters studied that and found the AC hurts more. not the most scientific study, though

I don't doubt that certain vehicles fair better with AC on then with windows down, but I can't imagine it pertains to very many newer model passenger cars. Every vehicle has different aerodynamics, so what would affect one a certain way may not necessarily apply to another.

 

[editec]

In the "solutions" section of the article, nothing was mentioned about oil shale and coal gasification. Why?

I am informed that problem with shale oil is that the break even point on it is about at the price we have now with oil.

But the problem is that few investors are willing to risk recovering that oil given that the cost of oil recovery from most wells is something like $30 a barrell, and the OPEC nations can, if they choose, dump so much oil on the market that the shale oil investments will be lost as the price of oil declines.

Nobody sane is willing to invest hundreds of billions of dollars into shale oil recovery when their investments can so easily be made unprofitable.

 

[Paulie]

I am informed that problem with shale oil is that the break even point on it is about at the price we have now with oil.

But the problem is that few investors are willing to risk recovering that oil given that the cost of oil is something like $30 a barrell, and the OPEC nations can, if they choose dump so much oil on the market that the shale oil investments will be lost as the price of oil declines.

Nobody sane is willing to invest hundreds of billions of dollars into shale oil recovery when their investments can so easily be made unprofitable.

Those OPEC nations know exactly what would happen if they ever tried to do that.