Practical Method for Getting Oil from Oil Shale?

ConfigurationManager writes "An article in the Rocky Mountain News describes how Shell has demonstrated a practical way to extract oil from the shale deposits in Colorado. Since it describes those deposits as "the largest fossil fuel deposits in the world," that could be a very good thing for those of us who are currently paying anywhere from $3 on up for a gallon of regular unleaded."

Comments

"gas in europe..." myth/misunderstanding

[gonk]

Lot of folks want to throw out the "gas in Europe costs more than gas in the USA, so don't cry about your 'high gas prices'" line. What you need to look at, though, is where this cost comes from. The answer is taxes. From http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0826/p01s03-woeu.htm l:

In Britain, the government takes 75 percent, and raises taxes by 5 percent above inflation every year (though it has forgone this year's rise in view of rocketing oil prices, and the French government has promised tax rebates this year to taxi drivers, truckers, fishermen, and others who depend heavily on gasoline.) On August 8, for example, the price of gas in the US, without taxes, would be $2.17, instead of $2.56; in Britain, it would be $1.97, instead of $6.06.

Given that, I'm not sure it's a fair comparison to make: Europe has decided to tax the hell out of gasoline, a decision the government can undo should there be a need, while the USA is paying higher prices to the oil companies, which can't be controlled as easily.

Not really sure what my point is, really,

robert

wrong

[benna]

The article says this would be profitable even if oil cost $30 a barral. It is near $70 now.

Re:Oh my God

[bheer]

> When is the US going to wake up to just how much oil COSTS

Except that the US is not 'subsidising' oil, and oil does not 'cost' $6.96/gallon even in the UK. The British public pay that much because their government imposes a tax on them.

Ask someone from British rural areas what he thinks of the oil tax. One of the primary uses of the oil tax is to build public transport systems, but most rural taxpayers see very little of that benefit, making it more sensible to live closer to town. Unsurprisingly European city centres are more densely packed than similarly sized American cities.

Maybe if you said the US should tax oil to reduce demand (like the Economist said), that'd be fairer. However, the 'city spread' I mentioned above, coupled with the fact that there's more to this country that the urban centres (exurbs, thinly populated states in the Midwest) for whom an oil tax would be very bad news make an oil tax highly unlikely -- especially for an economy that wants to grow at about 4-5% a year *and* a respectably growing population (as against Europe, which grows at 1-2% (if at all) and has a slightly declining population).

I am not saying being fuel efficient is a bad thing, but I wonder how much of the 'cut oil consumption' brigade are aware of the second-order effects of their tax-driven (some may call it 'artificial') energy-prices regime.

Re:climate and pollution

[tdemark]

Right now, thermal depolymerization appears to be the best bet on this front.

This would allow us to stop short circuiting the carbon cycle and use atmospheric CO2 (via biomass) as a source for oil.

The cost per barrel of this oil has historically been around $100, which made it a hard sell. The combination of a spike in oil prices and a $42 per barrel biofuel tax credit (to be enacted at the end of the year) will make it much more attractive.

The remaining issue then is production - getting enough plants online to start making a dent in our fossil oil use.

While I believe this is not the ultimate answer, it is a step in the right direction.

Re:It's a big mix of things

[Rei]

Surely we'll never see "cheap gas" again, but with so many valid sources of fuel, we're not going to have a long term "explosion".

  * Ethanol: Studies by everybody but Pimentel (who gets way too much press, as pretty much the sole dissenter) says that it gets 30-70% more energy than goes into it. Furthermore, you can use any sort of heat for the fermentation process, be it burning ag waste or power plant waste heat.

  * Coal liquifaction: Last I heard, it took long-term prices of 30-40$ a barrel to make it economical. Well, we've got that. :)

  * Biodiesel: Expect long-term economics similar to ethanol - only, it'll support the soybean industry instead of the corn and sugarcane industries ;).

  * Tar sands: Becoming very profitable. According to my father (a pres of Shell), they recently ordered the 5x-ing of production from their pilot plant in Canada. Vast tracts of tar sands available.

  * Shale: Now becoming profitable, as the article mentioned, and very, very widespread. Again, Shell is a big leader on this front.

  * Methane hydrates/clathrates: No major companies harvesting yet, but there's a lot of research on it. Monstrous natural gas deposits trapped in ice-like structures deep sea. Even better, harvesting them (cleanly) would eliminate a potential global warming runaway heating scenario (climbing temperatures cause the release of trapped methane, which is a greenhouse gas)

These are just hydrocarbon fuels being discussed here. There are countless ways to generate electricity as well.