Slashdot Mirror
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."
Many people here in Europe pay over $5.60 per gallon nowadays. We wish we had $3.00 per gallon prices.
The Official Steve Ballmer Webpage
My solution was to get rid of my car, and get a bike!
Instead of finding a more difficult technique to the problem, I simplified the problem of purchasing gasoline for a motor vehicle almost out of existence.
Won't work for everyone, but it worked for me. Some people may need to change the way they live much more than I have had to, but then again, it's been an ongoing process that's been worked on by myself for years, not overnight.
Dada Mail - Program, Art Project or Absurdity?
The US needs to learn to use energy more efficiently. Experts suggest that current prices are driven by growth and demand, rather than a supply shortage causing a spike as has happened in the past. This means that prices are not likely to drop quickly. Interestingly The Economist (not generally in favor of big government, taxes, or other impediments to business) says:
From:
http://www.economist.com/printedition/displaystor
(You have to pay for access...sorry).
http://www.welton.it/davidw/
The reason they're talking about getting oil from shale at all is because the gas price is $3/gallon. If it was less, they wouldn't bother, so you aren't going to see the price go down when they start on the sand and shale deposits.
Deleted
I am not sure we need more fossil fuels for our climate and our lungs.
Shell bosses feel chilly, find new way to warm Earth.
To make re-useable energy sources more and more attractive, we find a way to just heat this planet just a bit more.
Just place solar energy/wind energy systems on these shale places instead. It will yield more than oil in the long run (Break even point wind power: 6 years at current US energy prices).
My wife's sketchblog Blob[p]: Gastrono-me
which are mean to reduce use of cars. They also make it seem much less of a shock when the price of oil goes up.
but afaict most of the high fuel prices at the moment are due to catrina knocking out refining capacity not oil prices.
note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
It's really hard to feel sorry for a nation that pays so much less for fuel now than we were paying before this crisis. Especially as americans are not renound for their economic cars, somehow someone using a hummer to run to the shops reallly does deserve to pay for the privilege of polluting the environment and generally making events like the past week more likely.
Personally i'd like to see the price of fuel in the states double from it's current level and the extra can go to finding clean technologies and bringing them to market. But you know we'd all like the impossible.
In North America, people need personal vehicles due to the design of the infastructure, and the placement of essential services. This is particularly true for rural areas, and small cities to a lesser extent.
Gas prices have a greater direct effect on the average American or Canadian consumer than their counterparts in Europe.
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
The article says this would be profitable even if oil cost $30 a barral. It is near $70 now.
"It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it exists." -Ludwig Wittgenstein
> 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.
Go somewhere random
The USA is doubtlessly the source of this abysmal misuse of 4x4 vehicles, but it's certainly spreading to the UK where mothers drive huge 4x4s to drop off their single child to the school a 5 minute walk down the road.
Just make the minimum required fuel efficiency far lower than it is currently. It's possible to build a 4x4 around an efficient engine, why not make it compulsory and if you feel the need to pay 150% for the fact your car is 3' taller and makes you feel 'safer' on the road then more fool you.
Alternatively, just make SMART cars compulsory.
How many people can read hex if only you and dead people can read hex?
Last week's tragic events should have demonstrated to America the foolishness of such excessive consumption of fossil fuels. That said, I doubt Pres. Bush's recent failure to enforce reasonable standards of fuel economy on all vehicles will be overturned..
I have been a user for about 10 years. This ends Feb 2014. The site's been ruined. I'm off. Dice, FU
Fischer-Tropsch is the future of energy in the U.S. It produces oil from coal and generated $20/barrel oil in plants in South Africa that they used during their period of economic isolation. It is a simple process that converts coal to H2+CO and then into any kind of oil you want. It can also be used to produce fertilizer and plastics. It scales, it's simple and the U.S has the largest coal reserves in the world. This is really our ace in the hole in the upcoming global energy crisis. Expect their to be a coal to oil gold rush in the next 5 years. Apparently some people are catching on. Unfortunately for the environmentalists this is not what you wanted to happen when we started running out of oil but this is by far the most practical realistic solution that will work to give us time to find alternatives.
I agree with almost all of this. I've driven across the USA three times, so I'm more than aware of its size -- and indeed there are plenty of places you just couldn't get to without a car.
... and how very American of you to equate "Success" exclusively with GDP ;)
My only major obejection is that a lot of rural Americans making those routine 30 mile drives you refer to, choose to do them in absolutely enormous pickups, or other massively overpowered cars.
My own car, perfectly capable of carrying two people and their luggage in comfort for all-day drives, has a 1.2 litre engine. Yes, it strains a little with passengers in the rear, but the 1.4 model would not.
Whereas, our standard midsize rental in the US was a 3 litre V6, and nobody considers this to be a powerful car. Perhaps the answer to rising fuel prices is to start driving more economical cars.
(Other minor points: Amercicans can underestimate the size of Europe too, imagining the whole continent to be crammed full of dense cities. Although we don't have anything quite like Iowa or Nebraska, we do have some areas of emptiness.
)
Why high Oil and Gas prices have a good side too
or
The best way to force people to change is making them wanting to change
First of all - I live in Europa, Germany.
Today Fuel prices have reached 1.43 Euro / liter, this is about 7.9$ / gallon. Yes, driving is EXPENSIVE here.
In the last few years, cars with a high efficiency have become very high in demand - of course, when fuel is expensive, people want cars that use little fuel.
And the same thing is going to happen to the USA.
People will look at the prices, look into their purses and the next car they buy won't be a 15 miles per gallon SUV, but perhaps a 30 / 35 miles per gallon car. Or they might grab one of the ultra fuel-efficient cars (many of them are from Germany - guess why...) like the VW Lupo - 78 miles per gallon (Diesel) - well, truth to be told, it ain't a beauty, you've got no real storage space, and acceleration isn't, but if you want fuel economy, there you go.
And this is the positive side of the high prices - there will be a demand for fuel-efficient cars, thus the industry will build them, and people will buy and drive them. And overall, less Oil will be used, causing less pollution and conserving it for more important uses
+++ MELON MELON MELON +++ Out of Cheese Error +++ redo from start +++
Taken as a whole, Europe is pretty big too. What is very different is that not everyone thinks they have a god-given right to a spread-out, one story home with a big garden. People have learned to build up, rather than out, and out, and out some more so that it takes 1+ hours to cross some major areas by freeway (Phoenix, AZ, Los Angeles from personal experience).
Sure, it's a compromise, like most things are. It's nice to have a big back yard, at times. But that compromise begins to look less favorable when you have to drive 5 kilometers to even get food or go to otherwise basically available services. At some point, maybe it's good enough to have an appartment of your own, and a common green area that you can share with others...
Your point about who gets hit first is a good one, however, at some point, you've got to start changing, even though that means some pain. Perhaps the next time you are in the housing market, you will give some consideration to whether you could use the car a little bit less. Perhaps you will start appreciating politicians who do something about implementing changes making it easier to do more with less car use. Perhaps you will pay attention to vehicle fuel efficiency when you buy one...
As the article states, fuel efficiency in the US has been *declining*, which is absurd, considering that technology continues to improve energy usage in vehicles.
http://www.welton.it/davidw/
Well it is not really the high price that bothers Americans it is the speed of change in price. When prices shoot up $0.10 a day for gas we are unable to modify our lifestyles and budgets quick enough to keep up with gas prices. We need time to switch from SUV and 6 and 8 cylinder cars to 4 and hybrid vehicles, we need time to modify our economy to have smaller companies/offices located closer to our homes. When Gas prices were low and stable we created a culture of driving more having bigger vehicles. Because by living away from commercial districts it improves our lives with reduced crime and noise, and housing cost is lower in more rural areas of America. the USA geographically is a lot bigger then most countries. Where the average size of an European country is about the size of our States. (Most people have a mental block on crossing borders, for countries, and less so for crossing states).
It is not that we americans can't afford higher gas prices, it is more that we can't adjust our spending habits quick enough to adjust for the change in price.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
And they say Americans are stupid for not adopting the metric system. Look at how much we save by using Imperial measurements!
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
I'm considering cycling past the local schools here and slapping bumper stickers on all the SUVs parked outside. Two slogans spring immediately to mind:
"Protecting my Kids... Fucking the Environment!"
"MY kids are safe... YOURS aren't!"
Argh.
Out here in California, prices surged as people bet the price would sky rocket and bought gas no matter what the price. The local 7/11 had people topping off their tanks because their price, usually the highest around, was 10 cents lower than in town. Most of the people buying gas didn't need it but figured the price was going higher so they bought while it was "low" at $2.90.
If the price stays high for the next few years, people will get out of their SUVs and move into more efficient vehicles. The oil markets will respond, just as it did in the 80's, and prices will drop in real terms. Eventually, people will forget and they'll buy gas hogs again. People do that - they forget.
Those of you who are certain that we're running out of oil forget as well. In 1970, it was common knowledge that we'd be out of oil by 1985. Paul Erlich at Stanford made a fortune pitching his dystopian view of the future and we bought it. The futurists who got it right were the economist who argued that the real price of commodities fall over time as producers and consumers become more efficient.
It's worth noting that the shift to SUVs wasn't due to just the cheap price of gas. Congress played a major role as well. Business used to be able to depreciate the price of cars it purchased at an accelerated rate. Small business owners used that to their advantage by buying nicer cars which angered folks who didn't own businesses and hence, couldn't get the same tax write off. Congress responded by eliminating the write off for business-owned cars. The accelerated depreciation schedule remained for trucks which GM and Ford exploited by gussing up what used to be utility trucks for hauling workers around into SUVs. I saw a lot of new SUVs in my neighborhood after my accountant sent out a flyer advising his clients of the tax advantage which was considerable. A very smart friend of mine grumbled that the "I want my children to be safe and so I have to have the biggest car available" crowd just got a tax boost and the only way to retaliate was to drive a Peterbilt to work.
There is another benefit, too. Besides buying more fuel efficient cars, more people will be interested in building and using meaningful public transportation systems. Public transportation in the U.S. is abominable. A lot of that comes from the fact that much of the country was developed in a time when driving anywhere you wanted to go was a possibility, so things here tend to be very spread out, which makes efficient public transportation difficult to implement. Up until now, the major complaint most people have about driving has been traffic congestion. So rather than focus on meaningful public transportation, most people would rather see more/wider roads and highways, even though it's been pretty much proven that such increases do little to help congestion. Now that gas prices are reaching the point where they might be a real economic concern for some people, as opposed to a minor annoyance, maybe we'll see more people start to look for alternatives...
Personally, I do grumble a little bit now that it costs over $30 to fill up the gas tank even in my fairly fuel efficient car, but it doesn't bother me too much because neither my wife or I drive on a regular basis. It means that we'll have to budget a little bit more when we go on long driving trips, but that's about it. Over all, i think high gas prices that we are seeing right now are a) inevitable, and b) good for us.
And lastly, as an aside, I always find it amusing how much more Americans complain about gas prices compared to other people in the world, considering that our gas is still among the cheapest in the world. I guess that's what happens when you are brought up in a society where it is assumed that the only way to get from point a to point b is to drive.
If I don't put anything here, will anyone recognize me anymore?
I am glad to see a slashdot story regarding energy as it will be the single most important topic that effects the vast majority of users here, their families, their neighbors, people they know, their jobs, etc.
Indeed, $3 per gallon or even $4 per gallon as it will likely be soon is not a big problem. We complain about $3 per gallon. At the same time we enjoy some of the lowest prices in the world. Our energy bill, which is a free for all 1700 pages, does little to curb mileage. They have designed diesels that can exceed 100mpg. We give tax breaks for large vehicles over 8.5k lbs based on weight alone. The breaks are specifically targeted at these large vehicles so that their extremely privelaged drivers can be compensated for their higher gas consumption. This class of vehicles was in a list in this bill that mandates small improvements in mileage for these vehicles in the future but it was removed by the administration. If you think we are making progress then just look around. Look at what people are driving, where they are driving to, what they are driving for, how they are driving, etc. You might see a few Priuses or some Mercedes Benz diesels running on SVO. Maybe one hydrogen powered honda in your life if you are lucky. Do it in Europe, Russia or Japan and compare that with the US.
To think that this new oil shale techniqe will drop your price of gas is probably delusional. First off, by Shells own words, they won't know if it is profitable or feasible until 2010. If the going price for oil is $69 per barrel and there is a demand for it then that is what Shell is going to sell it for. If demand goes down then all oil will go down. The only thing that would likely cause this is major economic collaps or "demand destruction". Shell isn't out for your best interest, they don't make money off charity. To the contrary, eventhough big business is firmly entrenched in the goverment, pushing bills that rule the citizens with it's vast powerful lobbying power, it is illegal by corporate law to make any business decision that will create a loss. This rules out charity for consumers.
The administration has just admitted that global supply hasn't been able to keep up with demand for three months before Katrina hit. We currently are living mostly on old mega-field oil discoveries. We use 4-5 times as much oil as we discover. Discoveries are going down at a rapid pace, they are smaller and smaller and Saudi Arabia has finally admitted that it cannot currently increase supply anytime soon. The anti-peak oilers will argue that this is all hype when the new wells come online and drop the prices this year and perhaps a little next year. But look at the facts with the mega discoveries and the capacity that we are using - this will be a shortlived peak. There is a lead time for these wells to come online; we know about these and we know about the years where there will be no wells comming online. Once they are used up there are few others to take their place. The world uses well over 75 million barrels a day. How long would a "mega-field" of 500,000 barrels last?
As people are so accustomed seeing important, high payed people on tv talking positively about economic growth they tend to lose sight of the real problem with regards to energy: growth. Business depends on it. Anything less than 3% growth in Japan is considered a recession. Domestic or global sustainability is not a topic for discussion, as there is there is more money in consumption and growth. And money is what rules business strategy and business is what rules governments, at least to a large effect.
We don't have just growth, we have exponential growth. A number that has exponential growth of 7% will double itself every 10 years. Carter said once that every new decade consumes more oil than all the previous years combined - going back to the first drop that was ever consumed. If you need another example think of the one from Professor Bartlett that explains the exponential function. There is a mostly empty jar. You drop in a few organi
The alcoholic murderer is just another example of the Gulfstream Liberal hypocrites, sneering down at flyover country from 35,000 feet, clucking their tongues at all those selfish SUV drivers below.
Teddy, his nephew RFK Jr., Michael Moore, Al Gore, Laurie David, Ariana Huffington, Barbara Streisand, and the list goes on and on and on. They live lives dripping with decadence and luxury. They live in 10,000 sq. ft. Malibu mansions with six or eight air conditioning subsystems. They go hither and yon in their Gulfstreams and Learjets. They drive around town in their limousines and Maybachs and S600 Mercs. I have two kids, but Al Gore has four, and the Kennedys breed useless mouths like rats. Their footprint on Mother Earth's limited resources is ten or twenty times my own. Yet these pampered hypocrites have the gall to criticize me for driving a Jeep? Fuck them. Fuck them hard.
-ccm
Too much Law; not enough Order.
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.
sed "s/SJW.*$/... never mind. I was about to say something stupid, and also, I'm a troglodyte./Ig"