I've seen the $30 per barrel for In Situ processed Shale oil in several places.
Here is a quote from the Rocky Mountain News:
While we were trying to do the math, O'Connor told us the answers. Upwards of a million barrels an acre, a billion barrels a square mile. And the oil shale formation in the Green River Basin, most of which is in Colorado, covers more than a thousand square miles - the largest fossil fuel deposits in the world.
Wow.
They don't need subsidies; the process should be commercially feasible with world oil prices at $30 a barrel. The energy balance is favorable; under a conservative life-cycle analysis, it should yield 3.5 units of energy for every 1 unit used in production. The process recovers about 10 times as much oil as mining the rock and crushing and cooking it at the surface, and it's a more desirable grade. Reclamation is easier because the only thing that comes to the surface is the oil you want.
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/news_columnists/article/0,1299,drmn_86_4051709,00.html
Originally posted by EladarFrom wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_shale
I've seen the $30 per barrel for In Situ processed Shale oil in several places.
Here is a quote from the Rocky Mountain News:
[i]While we were trying to do the math, O'Connor told us the answers. Upwards of a million barrels an acre, a billion barrels a square mile. And the oil shale formation in the Green River Basin, most of which is in Colorado, cove ...[text shortened]... http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/news_columnists/article/0,1299,drmn_86_4051709,00.html
The hypothetical unit would see a cost reduction of 35–70% after its first 500 million barrels (79×106 m3) were produced. Assuming an increase in output of 25 thousand barrels per day (4.0×103 m3/d) during each year after the start of commercial production, the costs would then be expected to decline to $35–48 per barrel ($220–300/m3) within 12 years
In other words, the rest of the story.
You need to go back to the top of that paragraph again. What you quoted started off with this:
According to a survey conducted by the RAND Corporation, the cost of producing a barrel of oil at a surface retorting complex in the United States (comprising a mine, retorting plant, upgrading plant, supporting utilities, and spent shale reclamation)
This was the part about the Shell process:
Royal Dutch Shell has announced that its in situ extraction technology in Colorado could become competitive at prices over $30 per barrel ($190/m3),
Originally posted by EladarI thought it was supply and demand mainly with respect to the current worldwide refining capacity. Also because of the war and also the Saudi's careful governing of their production, no one is pumping anywhere near capacity. Its one way in which the price of oil is stabilized and controlled by the OIL cartel.
[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]
In some respects using less will not necessarily sent the price permanently southwards either. Reduced oil consumption can always be met by reduced production and it would not amaze me as world demand slackened how we may suddenly be inundated with little conflicts all over the worlds oil fields, just to underline to the consumer the scarcity of the resource and the need for the producers to even charge more.
Originally posted by EladarAnd you need to go to the end - A critical measure of the viability of oil shale as an energy source lies in the ratio of the energy produced by the shale to the energy used in its mining and processing, a ratio known as "Energy Returned on Energy Invested" (EROEI). A 1984 study estimated the EROEI of the various known oil shale deposits as varying between 0.7–13.3[65] although known oil shale extraction development projects assert an EROI between 3 to 10. Royal Dutch Shell has reported an EROEI of three to four on its in situ development, Mahogany Research Project.[57][66][67] The water needed in the oil shale retorting process offers an additional economic consideration: this may pose a problem in areas with water scarcity.
You need to go back to the top of that paragraph again. What you quoted started off with this:
According to a survey conducted by the RAND Corporation, the cost of producing a barrel of oil at a [b]surface retorting complex in the United States (comprising a mine, retorting plant, upgrading plant, supporting utilities, and spent shale reclamation ...[text shortened]... on technology in Colorado could become competitive at prices over $30 per barrel ($190/m3), [/b]
Colorado and the rest of the Southwest depend on the Colorado River for their water. Using it to get oil out of shale is not an option. I live right here in Colorado shale oil country and can tell you that the only ones that think this is viable are the oil companies.
I thought it was supply and demand mainly with respect to the current worldwide refining capacity.
If it was just the refining that determined the price, then the price of crude would be low and the price of refined product would have sky rocketed.
In any case, if and when we can start opening up the shale fields, Saudi Arabia will not be able to control the amount of oil on the market. They can pump as much or as little as they like. We'll be able to pump all the oil we need as well as supply other countries.
Cliff,
At least I've cleared up your misconception about the price of pumping the shale from the ground. They people who were smart enough to come up with in situ processing can also solve any water problem. It will probably have to do with recycling much of the water being used in the process.
Originally posted by EladarThat article is 3 years old. An article in the New York Post in July of this year indicates that Shell still doesn't know if its plan is economically feasible or will even work:
I've seen the $30 per barrel for In Situ processed Shale oil in several places.
Here is a quote from the Rocky Mountain News:
[/i]While we were trying to do the math, O'Connor told us the answers. Upwards of a million barrels an acre, a billion barrels a square mile. And the oil shale formation in the Green River Basin, most of which is in Colorado, cove http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/news_columnists/article/0,1299,drmn_86_4051709,00.html
How soon will we know whether Shell's technology is economical? The company is building the frost wall now, but has hit some stumbling blocks. It plans to do more experiments, before making a final decision, perhaps by 2015. But if it turns out that Shell needs more energy to produce a barrel of oil than a barrel contains, bets are off. That's the equivalent of burning the furniture to keep the house warm.
http://www.nypost.com/seven/06082008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/oil__shells_shale_gamble_114453.htm?&page=3
The article also states:
In truth, oil shale presents a paradox. If these rocks are, as some claim, the richest fossil fuel resource on Earth, why has it been so difficult to unlock them?
The reason is simple: oil shale is a lousy fuel. Compared to the coal that launched the Industrial Revolution or the oil that sustains the world today, oil shale is the dregs. Per pound, oil shale contains one-tenth the energy of crude oil, one-sixth that of coal.
Oil shale is said to be "rich" when a ton yields 30 gallons of oil. An equal weight of granola contains three times more energy. America's "vast," "immense" deposits of shale have the energy density of a baked potato.
And concludes:
What contribution can oil shale make to energy security? Producing 100,000 barrels per day of shale oil does not violate the laws of physics. But the nation currently consumes that much oil every seven minutes. Improving the efficiency of our automobiles by two miles per gallon would save 10 times as much fuel, saving consumers $60 billion at the pump.
The National Academy of Sciences has stated that cars, trucks and SUVs that get 30, 40 or 50 miles per gallon are doable. An aggressive national commitment to fuel efficiency is not optional, it's inevitable. You and your family should get on board, the sooner the better. In time, a more efficient fleet could save 20 times as much petroleum as oil shale is likely to ever provide.
All I know is that there's enough shale that it can be converted to more oil than is in all of Saudi Arabia. As a matter of fact, it is three times as much oil as Saudi Arabia.
It would be great if we continue to increase fuel efficiency. We should work on both ends. Increase efficiency and increase supply. It is a real win-win.
One other thing. I've read recently where they are considering building nuclear reactors to create the energy to convert the shale to oil.
Originally posted by EladarFrom the same article:
All I know is that there's enough shale that it can be converted to more oil than is in all of Saudi Arabia. As a matter of fact, it is three times as much oil as Saudi Arabia.
It would be great if we continue to increase fuel efficiency. We should work on both ends. Increase efficiency and increase supply. It is a real win-win.
One other thing. I' ...[text shortened]... ey are considering building nuclear reactors to create the energy to convert the shale to oil.
The method would require a mind-boggling amount of electricity. To produce 100,000 barrels per day, the company would need to construct the largest power plant in Colorado history. Costing about $3 billion, it would consume 5 million tons of coal each year, producing 10 million tons of greenhouse gases. (The company's annual electric bill would be about $500 million.) To double production, you'd need two power plants. One million barrels a day would require 10 new power plants, five new coal mines. And 10 million barrels a day, as proposed by some, would necessitate 100 power plants.
So you'd need $300 billion dollars worth of power plants, 500 million tons of coal and you'd toss out about a billion tons of greenhouse gases a year to get 10% less oil than Saudi Arabia produces today (assuming the method is even feasible which we won't know for years).
Doesn't sound like a "solution" to me.
Originally posted by EladarVolume ain't everything. Energy density does play into this in a very big way.
All I know is that there's enough shale that it can be converted to more oil than is in all of Saudi Arabia. As a matter of fact, it is three times as much oil as Saudi Arabia.
It would be great if we continue to increase fuel efficiency. We should work on both ends. Increase efficiency and increase supply. It is a real win-win.
One other thing. I' ...[text shortened]... ey are considering building nuclear reactors to create the energy to convert the shale to oil.
Originally posted by no1marauder
In truth, oil shale presents a paradox. If these rocks are, as some claim, the richest fossil fuel resource on Earth, why has it been so difficult to unlock them?
The reason is simple: oil shale is a lousy fuel. Compared to the coal that launched the Industrial Revolution or the oil that sustains the world today, oil shale is the dregs. [b]Per pound, oil shale contains one-tenth the energy of crude oil, one-sixth that of coal.
Oil shale is said to be "rich" when a ton yields 30 gallons of oil. An equal weight of granola contains three times more energy. America's "vast," "immense" deposits of shale have the energy density of a baked potato.
And concludes:
What contribution can oil shale make to energy security? Producing 100,000 barrels per day of shale oil does not violate the laws of physics. But the nation currently consumes that much oil every seven minutes. Improving the efficiency of our automobiles by two miles per gallon would save 10 times as much fuel, saving consumers $60 billion at the pump.
In time, a more efficient fleet could save 20 times as much petroleum as oil shale is likely to ever provide.[/b]
Coudn't have said that better myself, but as this heavily edited post taken well out of context suggests, it wouldn't seem to be enough to change your point of view.
Originally posted by Scriabin
because Americans don't really pay attention to facts, figures and issues.
Hope is a good thing, but a deluded hope, makes you an unfortunate target and probable victim of every plausible sounding though entirely impractical plan. Unfortunately the best of these usually get wrapped up in Old Glory, so I can sympathize why its so hard to let go of this mirage.
The method would require a mind-boggling amount of electricity. To produce 100,000 barrels per day, the company would need to construct the largest power plant in Colorado history. Costing about $3 billion, it would consume 5 million tons of coal each year
As I said, I've seen links that talk about going nuclear for the energy. Completely clean and doesn't consume any coal.
Originally posted by EladarAsk the people around Chernobyl how "completely clean" nuclear power is. Plus the little detail about the massive amounts of nuclear waste.
[b]The method would require a mind-boggling amount of electricity. To produce 100,000 barrels per day, the company would need to construct the largest power plant in Colorado history. Costing about $3 billion, it would consume 5 million tons of coal each year
As I said, I've seen links that talk about going nuclear for the energy. Completely clean and doesn't consume any coal.[/b]
The chances of getting the folks in Colorado to OK a bunch of nuclear power plants so Shell can drill shale oil is zero.