Colorado Oil Shale Holds 2 Trillion Barrels of Oil

[onedomino]

Why are we not doing everything possible to develop oil shale and coal gasification as energy sources? We will freeze in the dark before the major oil companies devalue their current petroleum reserves with rapid development of oil shale and coal gasification. Only the government can muster the resources necessary for oil shale and coal gasification development. The technology can then be sold to private companies. In the early1980's, the Great Plains Coal Gasification Project, where the Feds spent $3 billion, produced oil at about $45 per barrel. The project consisted of a coal mine, next to a gasification plant, next to a power plant. It was abandoned because it was claimed that the energy produced was too expensive. Oil is now $50 per barrel and liable to rise higher. If extensive research on coal gasification had continued, what would the price of coal gasification be now? Certainly less than $45 per barrel. America needs to be released from the extortion of OPEC and the lunatic states dominating the cartel: Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Venezuela.

Analysis: Oil Shale Pace Too Fast?
By Phil Magers, UPI

http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20050422-052800-2471r.htm

Dallas, TX, Apr. 22 (UPI) -- The energy bill passed by the U.S. House would put federal oil-shale lands in the West up for lease by the middle of 2007, a timetable critics say is too fast for development of a resource with a troubled past.

The bill, which went on to the Senate for consideration, orders the secretary of the Department of Interior to develop a commercial leasing program by the end of 2006 and schedule the first lease sale within 180 days. (This is 20 years too late, but better than nothing.)

Oil shale, a rock formation that can produce oil and gas at high temperatures, is found in the United States in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming, in the United States. The federal government owns 80 percent of the lands containing the oil shale reserves, most of it in northwest Colorado.

Although experts say oil shale holds great potential with an estimated 2 trillion barrels of oil locked in the Green River formation, development of the resource in Colorado has had a rocky road over the past 30 years.

Many Coloradoans remember "Black Sunday," May 2, 1982, when Exxon Corp. closed its $5 billion Colony II project near Parachute, Colo., citing higher-than-expected construction costs and a declining demand for oil at the time. (This is why short-term profit oriented commercial development will not work. We need to invest in a multi-decade strategy of technology development. Let the government develop the necessary technologies and infrastructure, via subcontracts to private companies. Then the technology and infrastructure can be sold to private companies. Some will resist government investment. Ask yourself: would nuclear power stations exist today without the early ground breaking investments by the government? Would commercial satellites provide GPS and communications without the early investment of the government? The answer is no. Should we trust the Wall Street induced short-term profit philosophies of Exxon-Mobil or Shell with the energy future of America?)

With the rising price of oil and new technology under study by Shell Exploration and Production Co. in Colorado there is new interest, although many skeptics are urging caution because of the boom and bust in the 1970s and '80s.

The old "retort" system of processing shale mined the rock from the surface, broke it up, and then ran it through ovens to unlock the oil. A major environmental challenge was disposing of the waste after the oil was recovered.

In the Piceance Basin, Shell's Mahogany Research Project is testing an "in situ" system that inserts electric heaters into holes 1,000 feet deep. The rock is heated to 650-750 degrees and recovered oil and gas is pumped up through another hole.

The new technology avoids open-pit mining, minimizes water usage, generates more oil and gas from a smaller surface area, produces higher-quality fuels, and is more economical, the company says.

The in-ground system has the potential to recover more than 10 times more oil and gas per acre than did the "retort" method, according to Shell officials.

Shell has conducted field tests on its private land near Rangely, Rifle and Meeker, but the company will not make a decision on commercial viability until completes a more integrated research phase.

"We hope to make a decision whether it is commercially viable at the end of the decade," said Jill Davis, a Shell spokeswoman in Denver.

Shell is working with communities and government officials to ensure the project addresses community needs, while ensuring strong environmental protection, she said.

Although oil shale has great potential for Colorado, there are members of the congressional delegation who have urged a more cautious approach

"If oil shale was the answer to our national energy problem, it wouldn't be Section 2018, p904 of the Energy bill," said Rep. John Salazar, D-Colo., whose district includes most of the oil shale reserves.

"The bill mandates that everything has to be done in a year and half -- that's not nearly enough time to bring together the community and the oil companies," he said.

Because of "Black Sunday," Salazar said policymakers need to make sure that oil and gas development is done responsibly.

"Oil shale could have a lot of potential, but it doesn't address the root of the problem, which is our nation's dependence on exhaustible, fossil fuels."

Colorado Rep. Marilyn Musgrave, one of the Republicans backing stepped-up oil shale development, said there was no reason to wait to reduce dependence on foreign oil, the Denver Post reported.

"If you don't give the federal government a deadline, we feel it never will happen," she told the newspaper.

Rep. Mark Udall, D-Colo., has argued for a slower approach because of the history of oil shale in Colorado. He failed in an attempt to require an environmental impact study before leases are issued on the federal lands.

Some environmental groups are also wary of the oil shale provision, which is new to the energy bill this year, according to a Wilderness Society.

Dave Alberswerth, the society's Bureau of Land Management program director, said there seems to be a "rush to judgment" on the program.

"The government really needs to take a careful look and evaluate all the aspects of this before charging off into a commercial venture," he said.

Alberswerth noted that Shell doesn't plan to make a decision on the commercial viability on its project until the end of the decade.

"If that is the case and government wants to adopt this as a policy then there is plenty of time to take a real hard look at all of this -- the new technology and the impacts," he said.

Alberswerth said the government hasn't conducted a comprehensive review of oil shale technology and its impact in 25 years.

 

[freeandfun1]

They say that here in Nevada we have huge oil reserves but that to reach it we would have to drill very, very deep and that up until recently, the low cost of oil made drilling for it infeasible.

Now that oil prices have gone up so much, it makes it more palatable from a cost stand point to drill for deep oil here in the US.

 

[USViking]

The Athabaska tar sands of Canada
also contain a huge amount of oil reserves.

http://www.answers.com/topic/athabasca-oil-sands

(quote from the link):
"While not a proven oil reserve, it is estimated that the Athabasca Tar Sands field contains as much as one third of the world's total oil deposits, with a similiar amount in the Venezuelan Orinoco tar sands field. Current production at the Athabasca site yields 120,000 barrels of oil per day with an increase to 280,000 by 2010 at a cost of $4,000,000,000 expected. Athabasca oil production is currently just a fraction of the 82,000,000 barrels of oil produced daily around the world.

According to the Alberta Energy and Utilities Board, the Athabasca tar sands is the largest oil deposit in the world, with an estimated 1.6 trillion barrels (254 km³) of oil, of which at most 315 billion barrels are considered recoverable by the oil companies given current technology."



Unforunately, it too is only expensively recoverable,
and may be more environmentally destructive to recover
than the shale oil.

 

[Merlin]

A couple of years ago Paul Harvey said on his newscast that Saudi Arabia had discovered an oil field that would supply the worlds demand for oil for the next 700 years. I don't know what happened to that.

 

[no1tovote4]

A couple of years ago Paul Harvey said on his newscast that Saudi Arabia had discovered an oil field that would supply the worlds demand for oil for the next 700 years. I don't know what happened to that.

Well if they recognize the existence of this oil field they wouldn't be able to hold oil for ransom in order to make us pay as much as possible for it.

The Multinational Corporations are willing to do whatever it takes to make the most of what they have. Not that this is terrible or wrong, but we should realize that they have no loyalty specifically to the US and work towards our freedom from dependence on their goodwill.

 

[007]

A couple of years ago Paul Harvey said on his newscast that Saudi Arabia had discovered an oil field that would supply the worlds demand for oil for the next 700 years. I don't know what happened to that.

All the more reason for us to wean ourselves from it.... completely.

 

[dilloduck]

All the more reason for us to wean ourselves from it.... completely.

America is "dependent" on imports for all sorts of things yet sometimes I wonder how bad of a thing that really is. Using up another countries natural resources before we tap into our own may be a very wise decision in the long run. Gasoline prices a relatively low in the US compared to other countries around the world and how much do we REALLY have to kow tow to other countries to get it?

 

[Fmr jarhead]

The Athabaska tar sands of Canada
also contain a huge amount of oil reserves.

http://www.answers.com/topic/athabasca-oil-sands

(quote from the link):
"While not a proven oil reserve, it is estimated that the Athabasca Tar Sands field contains as much as one third of the world's total oil deposits, with a similiar amount in the Venezuelan Orinoco tar sands field. Current production at the Athabasca site yields 120,000 barrels of oil per day with an increase to 280,000 by 2010 at a cost of $4,000,000,000 expected. Athabasca oil production is currently just a fraction of the 82,000,000 barrels of oil produced daily around the world.

According to the Alberta Energy and Utilities Board, the Athabasca tar sands is the largest oil deposit in the world, with an estimated 1.6 trillion barrels (254 km³) of oil, of which at most 315 billion barrels are considered recoverable by the oil companies given current technology."

Unforunately, it too is only expensively recoverable,
and may be more environmentally destructive to recover
than the shale oil.

Let's invade Canada! It would be the fastest, easiest way to become less dependent on the Middle East! j/k

Oh...my father worked on some of the oil shale development stuff near Parachute (used to be called Grand Valley, CO). They even detonated nuclear bombs there, as well...should have turned some of the shale in to oil, shouldn't it?

 

[alien21010]

The last time I checked, no nuclear devices had been detonated in Colorado.

 

[JohnGalt]

Let's invade Canada! It would be the fastest, easiest way to become less dependent on the Middle East! j/k

Oh...my father worked on some of the oil shale development stuff near Parachute (used to be called Grand Valley, CO). They even detonated nuclear bombs there, as well...should have turned some of the shale in to oil, shouldn't it?

Holy shit, I used to vacation near Parachute...

 

[Fmr jarhead]

Small world....the DeBeque Canyon is a great place to fish and watch bald eagles.

 

[Fmr jarhead]

More info on the test sites:

The Rio Blanco and Rulison tests were designed to increase natural gas production from low-permeability sandstone. The Project Rulison detonation took place in September 1969 at a depth of 2,568 meters (8,426 feet) in a sandstone formation near Rifle, Colorado. The shot was the second of the gas production stimulation experiments in the Plowshare Program. The Project Rio Blanco test, which was located approximately 36 miles northwest of Rifle, consisted of the nearly simultaneous detonation of three 33-kiloton devices in a 2,130 meter (7,000 feet) well in May 1973. The Rio Blanco test was the third gas production stimulation experiment in the Plowshare Program. Contamination is present as a result of the activities conducted on the sites in conjunction with the gas stimulation testing and gas flaring operations.

 

[TheEnemyWithin]

2 TRILLION? Holy crap!

Of course I think we should do that...I don't think any Americans were sending their enemies billions of dollars during WWII...look what's going on now.

Michael Savage has an interesting idea...one barrel of oil from Mexico for every illegal that sneaks in. Somehow I can't picture Vicente Fox as anything but a shyster so that's probably a bad idea, who knows.

 

[LesGas]

Isn't the shale really tough to get to and extract oil from? Wouldn't this stuff have been used already if it were cheap to get at?

 

[dilloduck]

Isn't the shale really tough to get to and extract oil from? Wouldn't this stuff have been used already if it were cheap to get at?

Think "environmentalists"