Originally posted by EladarThis wiki article has great links. Check them out and see if you think shale will be a great solution.
[b]Oil shale is not oil, it's a rock that contains significant quantities of kerogen, which can be processed into a synthetic type of crude oil, which can, in turn, be processed into low grade forms of fuel that could be used for things like heating or the generation of electricity in the same way that coal is used
It is the shale itself that can be us ...[text shortened]... doesn't appear to be going back any time soon, the shale fields are now a viable alternative.[/b]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Work_permit/sandbox/oil_shale
In 1980, the US Office of strategic assessment estimated water requirements estimates of 2.3 to 5.7 barrels of water per barrel of oil.[1] More current estimates based on updated oil shale industry water budgets suggest that requirements for new retorting methods will be 1 to 3 barrels of water per barrel of oil.[2] For an oil shale industry producing 2.5 MMBbl/d, this equates to between 105 and 315 million gallons of water per day. These numbers include water requirements for power generation for in-situ heating processes, retorting, refining, reclamation, dust control and on-site worker demands. Municipal and other water requirements related to population growth associated with industry development will require an additional 58 million gallons per day. Hence, a 2.5 MMBbl/d oil shale industry would require 180 thousand to 420 thousand acre feet of water per year, depending on location and processes used. [3]
The largest deposit of oil shale in the United States is in the Green River basin. Though scarce, water in the western United States is treated as a commodity which can be bought and sold in a competitive market.[3] Royal Dutch Shell has been reported to be buying groundwater rights in Colorado as it prepares to drill for oil in the shale deposits there. [4] In the Colorado Big-Thompson project, average prices per share (0.7 acre feet/share) increased from some $2,000 in 1990 to more than $12,000 in mid-2003 (constant 2001 dollars).[5] CBT Prices from 2001 to 2006 has had a range of $10,000 to $14,000 per share, or $14,000 to $20,000 per acre foot. [6] In August 2009 asking prices in utah ranged from $1,000-$10,000/AF [7]. At $10,000 per acre foot, capital costs for water rights to produce 2.5m bbls/day would range between $1.8 bn-$4.2 bn.
1. ^ Office of Technology Assessment (June 1980). An Assessment of Oil Shale Technologies. Office of Technology Assessment.
2. ^ >U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY (June 2006). Energy Demands on Water Resources. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY.
3. ^ a b "Fact Sheet: Oil Shale Water Resources". DOE Office of Petroleum Reserves – Strategic Unconventional Fuels. Retrieved on 2008-08-29.
4. ^ Berfield, Susan (June 12), "There Will Be Water", Business Week
5. ^ Adams, Adams (April), "The Sale And Leasing Of Water Rights In Western States: An Update To Mid-2003", North Georgia Water Planning and Policy Center: 10,
6. ^ Smith, Rodney (April), "WATER MARKET INDICATORS", WATER STRATEGIST: 10-12,
7. ^ "Utah Water Right Exchange".
1 edit
Originally posted by kmax87If the liberals are right, the only way to get it wrong is to continue to ignore other viable energy sources that can replace fossil fuels no matter the cost because the planet is on the verge of destruction via emissions.
As I said at the top of this, I have a lot of sympathy for the people making the decisions right now in terms of oil and its replacement, because hindsight will probably judge them as having gotten it wrong, and this is one issue all politics aside, that we just cant afford to keep getting wrong.[/b]
I would say that you are correct in that politicians hands are tied because of the interest of Big Business have in regards to fossil fuels. It is just a shame that people like Obama seem to be held in theri grasp. However, as the price of fossil fuels becomes more and more unreasonable, Big Business will suffer as a result. It will then get to a point where Big Business begins to go under because of rising costs of fossil fuels. We got a taste of this recently and I am sure will have more to come in the near future. For example, many trucking businesses closed and the air lines were all on the verge of collapse to name a few. Then as the economic environment begins to go south, those not directly effected by rising fuel prices will feel it via slower economic growth. In fact, the oil companies will feel it as well as the supply and demand model will begin to show a destruction for demand of fossil fuels.
3 edits
Originally posted by whodeyAs they say herein lieth the rub. Business by and large is only in the business of being in business. If politicians have their heads in the sand, then to a much larger extent businesses tend to be buried up to their necks.
I would say that you are correct in that politicians hands are tied because of the interest of Big Business have in regards to fossil fuels. It is just a shame that people like Obama seem to be held in theri grasp. However, as the price of fossil fuels becomes more and more unreasonable, Big Business will suffer as a result. It will then get to a point where Big Business begins to go under because of rising costs of fossil fuels.
The mindset seems to be, full bore till the bust, we'll worry about that when it happens. Because businesses are in competition with each other, they are not likely to coordinate their activities in one giant action so that as oil is turned off, fuel xHy gets turned on.
[edit]- you only have to look to the world of consumer electroniics and the debacles over the years over which format should be the industry standard-(Beta,VHS : wav, wma,mp3, atrac..... HD-DVD,Blu Ray) to work out that competing interests do not always recognize the best technical solution to the problem and the winner in any contest tends to be the company with the most industrial might, not necessarily the one with the best product.
Other than maybe during WW2 I don't know when there was a time where businesses were able to operate in as structured and coordinated a fashion as American businesses did then.
Ultimately that's what it might take. An attitude that we are at war, with our long term survival the prize.What the world needs is a US President and an administration willing to come in with a 4 year agenda to transform America's fuel system from oil, to the next best alternative. One that is pretty much future proof in terms of environmental and strategic concerns and yet still maintains the maximum rate of employment in the fuel and transport industries.
The way I see it is if America takes real leadership on this issue, then the arc of her hegemony is established for another 100 years at least. If it lags on this issue thinking that the tide will turn in its favor all of its own volition, then I fear that with each succeeding administration we will see a once great nation slide ignominiously away into the deep of history's graveyard. The sobering thought is she may very well drag in some of her closest friends with her.
Our energy future is as yet an undeclared war. We need someone to step up to the plate and declare it so, and then get on with the job of winning it.
[i]Originally posted by kmaxAbundance and choice - bad things in kmax's book, prefers some soviet style central planning with everyone driving a Trabant.
[edit]- you only have to look to the world of consumer electroniics and the debacles over the years over which format should be the industry standard-(Beta,VHS : wav, wma,mp3, atrac..... HD-DVD,Blu Ray) to work out that competing interests do not always recognize the best technical solution to the problem and the winner in any contest tends to be the company with the most industrial might, not necessarily the one with the best product.
[/b]
Originally posted by WajomaThey never rusted and always got you there, and once you had your box on wheels you could get over it because not having to be a slave to fashion meant you could be a follower of your passions.😛
Abundance and choice - bad things in kmax's book, prefers some soviet style central planning with everyone driving a Trabant.
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterPerhaps he is out of touch with the American people, but you are out of touch with reality. Any oil that comes out of ANWR or the gulf, will go on the open market. There is no guarantee that the oil will ever make it to the pump in the U.S. and if it actually did, it won't for at the least 10 years.
Face, you're out of step with the American people who demand cheap oil, that's why you don't understand any of this.
So, if the oil is on the open market, how will this help lower the price of gas?
Originally posted by EladarBut demand is increasing at a much higher rate than the supply including ANWR and the gulf. So drilling as a solution is a tool of politicians, not economists (or oilmen for that matter).
[b]So, if the oil is on the open market, how will this help lower the price of gas?
It is called the law of supply and demand. The more oil we can get into the market, the lower the price of oil will be. That's the theory anyhow.[/b]
I'm betting on the shale oil fields opening up. If they do, then we can greatly increase the oil on the market and pump money into the US economy at the same time.
In any case, even with increased demand, bringing every oil well possible on line is just going increase supply. The greater the supply, the lower the price will be. So increased drilling may not bring back $1.00 per gallon gas, but it can prevent us from having $5.00 per gallon gas.
Originally posted by EladarShale oil is probably the least effective means of getting oil. It is only cost effective if oil is well above $100 a barrel. In other words, it will do very little to lower the price at the pump.
I'm betting on the shale oil fields opening up. If they do, then we can greatly increase the oil on the market and pump money into the US economy at the same time.
In any case, even with increased demand, bringing every oil well possible on line is just going increase supply. The greater the supply, the lower the price will be. So increased drilling may not bring back $1.00 per gallon gas, but it can prevent us from having $5.00 per gallon gas.