Oil from Rock:Coaxing oil from huge U.S. shale deposits

[n2doc]

Coaxing U.S. oil from Earth's biggest fields
Robert Collier, Chronicle Staff Writer
Monday, September 4, 2006

An oil-shale rock burns on its own once it has been lit by a blowtorch. Associated Press photo by Douglas C. Pizac

(09-04) 04:00 PDT Meeker, Colo. -- Underneath the high, scrub-covered rangeland of northwest Colorado is the world's biggest oil field. Getting the oil out of the ground, however, is one of the world's biggest headaches.

The area's deposits of oil shale are believed to be larger than all the oil reserves of the Middle East. But past attempts to get at this oil locked in tarry rock have cost billions of dollars and raised the prospect of strip-mining large areas of the Rocky Mountain West.

Now, as the federal government makes another push to develop oil shale, Shell and other companies say they have developed techniques that may extract this treasure with much less environmental impact.

Shell's project is stunningly complex. Instead of strip-mining the rock and then processing it, Shell plans to superheat huge underground areas for several years, gradually percolating oil out of the stone and pumping it to the surface.

Years of testing still lie ahead. Shell's heating process risks polluting local water supplies, and the enormous amounts of electricity needed would require construction of the West's largest power plants.

But even opponents say the new technology might just succeed.

"It's a very high-stakes gamble," said Randy Udall, an environmentalist who is director of the Community Office for Resource Efficiency in nearby Aspen. "It's probably folly, but if not, it's brilliant inspiration."

Oil shale deposits in Colorado and neighboring areas of Utah and Wyoming are estimated to contain 800 billion recoverable barrels, three times larger than Saudi Arabia's proven reserves of conventional crude, and the equivalent of 40 years of U.S. oil consumption.


more:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/09/04/MNGIEKV0D41.DTL

[Marblehead]

1. 2 words

conservation and renewables

[silverweb]

3. No kidding.

How much energy does this process take just to extract the oil (never mind processing it afterwards).

What is the supposed net payoff?

Wouldn't all those research dollars be better spent on renewable sources?

Why is this considered "worth it"??

:crazy:

[crikkett]

2. 3 words

Good bye, Colorado.

[depakid]

4. I'm still pretty skeptical

"The spooky thing is how much power will be needed for the oil shale," said Cook, the county commissioner.

O'Connor said Shell estimates that the energy value of the oil produced would be about 3.5 times greater than the energy in the electricity used to produce it, though he declined to provide details. Udall said such a result would be achievable only with the most expensive, rarely used natural-gas generating technology. Conventional coal-fired power plants would reduce the net power return to about 2 to 1, he said."

Hmmm.

We shall see.

[rodeodance]

5. this is part of the drill mentality of the Cheney energy bill. simple

as that.

[fed-up]

6. do they have rocks in their heads?????? wtf this needs some K/R s

so people understand how fl*cked up their thinking is

what about conservation???

what about solar power????

[RC]

8. Can you say Nuclear power generating plants?

We will need an unlimited supply of depleted uranium and plutonium for our next generation of nuclear war toys.

[muesa]

12. Nuke would be environmentally preferable to shale.

[soothsayer]

7. Blood from a stone indeed. Dudes----can you say ALERNATIVE

sources?

[bhikkhu]

9. sounds: miserably, impractically, wastefully, ridiculous.

imagine what government (taxpayers) must be forking out to subsidise this - it is unlikely any profit-driven corp would get involved otherwise.

[hatrack]

10. So let's build the entire generating capacity of Colorado once again . . .

And what do you think is going to power that generating capacity? Hint: if you said anything other than "coal", take a seat at the back of the class, 'cuz you're WRONG.

And then let's use that massively expensive coal-burning skunkworks to heat up the rock, pump out the oil and then BURN IT.

Yeah, that makes a lot of fucking sense on a planet already on track to hit at least 550 PPM CO2 by the end of the century.

:eyes:

[muesa]

11. An absolute environmental disaster

First, what does one do with the "depleted" shale or "spoils"?

Second are the off-gases as carcinogenic as coke-oven gas, Fischer-Tropsch leakage, petroleum refinery off gases? Cyclic hydrocarbons (and I would assume a lot of the hydrocarbon is cyclic) can be carcinogenic.

I think, seriously, I would prefer a nuclear plant even in "My Back Yard"

[n2doc]

13. Just the mining process alone is horrendous

Pumping liquid ammonia into the ground to freeze it? Ammonia is a strong base as well as a toxic compund in high doses, and once it gets diluted it becomes a fertilizer that will contaminate the groundwaters around there. Better to just dig it up and leave a huge hole. Much better to try conservation or other energy sources...

[muesa]

15. I prefer comparatively safe, clean nuke to comparatively dirty shale

And "I are a injunear"

[YankeyMCC]

14. More insanity

Let's stop looking for new ways to rape the Earth in a insane quest for more energy.

Instead:
Diversify energy sources using as much renewables as possible. Emphasize Conservation, shift markets to emphasize local production and use, promote healthier lifestyles that includes more walking and other physical activity and healthy diets (which would be part of buying locally)