Over 1 Trillion barrels of Oil beneath Colorado

[CockySOB]

So read post 1 and get up to date man!

Really? Dang, I wish I'd thought of that!

 

[Avatar4321]

IF, they indeed, can do that, and be competitive @ $40 a barrel, screw the tree huggers.

I'd rather not, they don't always bath...

 

[no1tovote4]

The process is in situ. Do you camp underground?

Have you seen the mines? They are NOT just underground. There are many accompanying building, machinery, etc. that go along with them. The idea that because they dig for shale that processing, which usually happens on site, isn't also invasively above ground, that transport isn't, that the place where they deposit the dirt they bring up isn't overground is simply misunderstanding this process entirely.

 

[no1tovote4]

which is why the "in situ" (in place) method is so exciting. It knocks the enviro and economic naysayers to the ground.

Once again, in situ does nothing of the sort. In situ just means that the processing is right there at the site. The thermal conversion takes place at the site, but not underground.

They bring the ore up, they put it on huge conveyors that bring them through the process, dumping the dreg out right there for all to see. The process is not only invasive to the environment, but also expensive. Pretending that because they do not take the oar elsewhere to process it makes it better is simply ridiculous.

 

[no1tovote4]

Once again, in situ does nothing of the sort. In situ just means that the processing is right there at the site. The thermal conversion takes place at the site, but not underground.

They bring the ore up, they put it on huge conveyors that bring them through the process, dumping the dreg out right there for all to see. The process is not only invasive to the environment, but also expensive. Pretending that because they do not take the oar elsewhere to process it makes it better is simply ridiculous.

Hmmm... In situ retorting... I see what he was talking about...

http://ostseis.anl.gov/guide/oilshale/index.cfm

An alternative but currently experimental process referred to as in situ retorting involves heating the oil shale while it is still underground, and then pumping the resulting liquid to the surface.

Dregs would be left underground making it far less invasive to the environment....

Experimental at this time, it may be a viable alternative.

 

[Annie]

Colorado has been knocking this idea around for decades. Enviros' kill it everytime.

Perhaps it should be marketed as 'one front to extricate ourselves from the Middle East?'

 

[forexfox]

Perhaps it should be marketed as 'one front to extricate ourselves from the Middle East?'

I think we're already extricated ourselves , or free ourselves from deep dependency on foreign oil .
I've done some researching on the latest Import/Export data, and it turns out that US in the past year has imported the lowest amount of foreign oil into this country since 2003 .
That tells me , it's not about Middle East possessing the world's largest reserves of oil but it's all about who controls the price per/barrel.
Speaking of which, watch the price of crude closely as it goes back down to 40's, I'm pretty sure we all would like to see that happening. hopefuly sometime soon.

 

[Fmr jarhead]

Here is one example of the extremes that have been investigated in extracting gas or other useable oil products from shale deposits in Western Colorado:

Name: Rio Blanco Nuclear Test Site
Category: Nuclear / Radioactive
Archive ID#: CO3130

Description: An underground nuclear test took place at this site in 1973, to investigate the possibility of using nuclear explosions to extract natural gas from low grade deposits. The test, the last in the Plowshare Program, called Rio Blanco, was performed by the Atomic Energy Commission and two corporate partners, CER Geonuclear and the Equity Oil Company, using three simultaneously detonated 30 kiloton bombs, each at the bottom of a shaft more than a mile deep. The blast was marginally successful in causing the gas to collect in the cavity and fissures produced by the bombs, however the gas was too radioactive to be sold commercially. A similar nuclear-device gas stimulation test, called Project Rulison, was performed nearby in 1969.
Location: 75 miles N of Grand Junction, 30 miles SW of Meeker
Address: CO
Visitor Info: From Rio Blanco go west about 21 miles to Black Sulphur Creek. Bear left, going southwest for roughly four and a third miles to Ground Zero.

 

[Annie]

I think we're already extricated ourselves , or free ourselves from deep dependency on foreign oil .
I've done some researching on the latest Import/Export data, and it turns out that US in the past year has imported the lowest amount of foreign oil into this country since 2003 .
That tells me , it's not about Middle East possessing the world's largest reserves of oil but it's all about who controls the price per/barrel.
Speaking of which, watch the price of crude closely as it goes back down to 40's, I'm pretty sure we all would like to see that happening. hopefuly sometime soon.

Welcome! What an excellent second post. I'm going to find the first! Kudos coming your way!

 

[trobinett]

This is ONE poster that is NOT surprised.

Welcome forexfox, obviously one that is NOT deceived by the Lefts BS.

Welcome aboard.....

 

[glockmail]

Have you seen the mines? They are NOT just underground. There are many accompanying building, machinery, etc. that go along with them. The idea that because they dig for shale that processing, which usually happens on site, isn't also invasively above ground, that transport isn't, that the place where they deposit the dirt they bring up isn't overground is simply misunderstanding this process entirely.

Once again, in situ does nothing of the sort. In situ just means that the processing is right there at the site. The thermal conversion takes place at the site, but not underground.

They bring the ore up, they put it on huge conveyors that bring them through the process, dumping the dreg out right there for all to see. The process is not only invasive to the environment, but also expensive. Pretending that because they do not take the oar elsewhere to process it makes it better is simply ridiculous.

No I haven't seen the mines. My understanding was that the process took place underground.

 

[PsuedoGhost]

In situ occurs within the ground. It doesnt make any sense to mine it, bring it to the surface, and then perform the process there, where the pressures are much less. It makes tremendously more sense economically and scientificially to do it when it is in the ground...

Besides... You have to keep in mind that RESERVES today only indicates the amount of oil that is recoverable using today's extraction techniques, and whether it is economical. Youd be shocked to learn that most oil fields only produce 30% of the oil in the ground... There is a ton of oil still out there.

 

[glockmail]

I guess one of us should read the article...

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Here is one example of the extremes that have been investigated in extracting gas or other useable oil products from shale deposits in Western Colorado:

The blast was marginally successful in causing the gas to collect in the cavity and fissures produced by the bombs, however the gas was too radioactive to be sold commercially.

LOL you'd think they would have figured that out before blasting away...

 

[Eightball]

Just keep in mind that oil shale isn't a source you drill for. It's quarried just like going after iron ore or Bauxite...etc.

The oil is locked up in the shale's matrix and has to be forced out of the shale. That's where we have to have a cost-effective technology/industry developed that can be workable.

Several mentioned the word, "drill". I don't quite think that this is what we will have to do. The Crude doesn't pour out of the shale like tapping into a water well or spring. It has to be removed out of the shale-rock.

I'm sure there are some good web sites that give some information on the process to extract the oil.

 

[glockmail]

Have you seen the mines? They are NOT just underground. There are many accompanying building, machinery, etc. that go along with them. The idea that because they dig for shale that processing, which usually happens on site, isn't also invasively above ground, that transport isn't, that the place where they deposit the dirt they bring up isn't overground is simply misunderstanding this process entirely.

Instead, Shell utilized a process called "in situ" mining, which heats the shale while it's still in the ground, to
the point where the oil leaches from the rock. Shell's Terry O'Connor described the breakthrough in testimony
before Congress earlier this summer (And Congress may have an acute interest in the topic, since the U.S. government
controls 72% of all U.S. oil shale acreage):

"Some 23 years ago, Shell commenced laboratory and field research on a promising in ground conversion and recovery
process. This technology is called the In-situ Conversion Process, or ICP. In 1996, Shell successfully carried out
its first small field test on its privately owned Mahogany property in Rio Blanco County, Colorado some 200 miles west
of Denver. Since then, Shell has carried out four additional related field tests at nearby sites. The most
recent test was carried out over the past several months and produced in excess of 1,400 barrels of light oil plus
associated gas from a very small test plot using the ICP technology…

Apparently, "in situ" means just that.