Steve Posted April 29, 2007 Report Share Posted April 29, 2007 Not sure but isn't there some some enviromental issue about these reserves? Can someone clarify? My memory is dodgy but I recall some program like 60 minutes talking about some time ago. Is this strip mining? And wouldn't there still be the same concerns about global warming and such? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCgringo Posted April 29, 2007 Report Share Posted April 29, 2007 at what price is it worth it to get the shale oil out of the rocks ? I know there were many wells in Texas etc that were not worth pumping until oil got to a certain level, There must be a $$$ number where the shale oil makes economic sence. OC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cavanami Posted April 30, 2007 Author Report Share Posted April 30, 2007 Back in the 70's and early 80's, my sister was married to an "oil guy". They were drilling oil wells like crazy, but capping them, never pumping a drop out of the wells. Then the price of oil went up, they uncapped a few. Now with the price going to the 60's++, then get more of the wells pumping again! He once told me that the overall plan was to suck all the oil out of the ME and then start using the oil in NA. Still looks like that is the direction things are going. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Central Scrutinizer Posted April 30, 2007 Report Share Posted April 30, 2007 BT, That does not seem to be the case though with the oil shale deposits in Wyoming and Colorado. Looks like it is at least for now owned by the American government. Read below: "Oil Shale Reserves: A Congressional Legacy Most of the nation's oil shale reserves rest under the control of the U.S. government - a legacy of a 95-year old Congressional Act. In 1910, Congress passed the Pickett Act, which authorized President Taft to set aside oil- bearing land in California and Wyoming as potential sources of fuel for the U.S. Navy. Taft did so right away. The Navy was in the process of switching from coal burning ships to oil burning ships. And the U.S. military, conscious of the expanding role of America in the world, needed a dependable supply of fuel in case of a national emergency. From 1910 to 1925 the Navy developed the Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves Program. The program became official in 1927 and President Roosevelt even expanded the scope of the program in 1942 as the U.S. geared up for war with Japan and Germany. Several of the oil fields set aside for the nation's first strategic reserve, particularly Elk Hills in California, would go on to produce oil for the U.S. government. Elk Hills was eventually sold off to Occidental Petroleum for $3.65 billion in 1998 in the largest privatization in U.S. history. The shale reserves, however, still remain, locked 1,000 feet underground in the Colorado desert." Cent Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Central Scrutinizer Posted April 30, 2007 Report Share Posted April 30, 2007 CS, You're right. Environmentally shale oil production is pretty bad. Not only is the slag left from processing the shale for oil carcinogenic, but it takes three barrels of water to produce one barrel of oil (with current technology). These deposits are also in an area where there is hardly any water, and also in a time when water-clean drinkable water- is becoming scarcer and scarcer, this could be problematic as well. So if you own any property in Colorado and Wyoming near these reserves, now might be the time to sell. :smirk: Cent Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Central Scrutinizer Posted April 30, 2007 Report Share Posted April 30, 2007 Also I read a report that stated that Australia has shale oil deposits large enough to supply the country with their domestic needs for 50 years. Cent Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Posted May 1, 2007 Report Share Posted May 1, 2007 So we may invade the Aussies at some point for their oil shale?! Aussies party, had the most fun hanging with Aussies for the most part. Okay, count me in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Central Scrutinizer Posted May 1, 2007 Report Share Posted May 1, 2007 CS, Invade? Nah. Like it said, enough shale oil to domestically fill the needs of Australia for 50 years. Hell, there's what, 20 million or so Aussies? Like maybe 2 Bangkoks worth of people using energy? Not worth the effort of invading. We Yanks would use that in a year or two with our 300 million or so energy consumers. Now if we are invading to party, well, count me in. I love drinking and partying with crazy Ozzies! :thumbup: Some of them are actually lighting themselves on fire! Now that's cool to see (but it smells like hell)! Even the dumbcnuts are fun to drink with and party hearty with! Cent Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Hippie Posted May 1, 2007 Report Share Posted May 1, 2007 Shale and Ethanol are supposedly scams...takes more energy to produce then is yeilded by the conversion...according to Dr. Bill Wattenberg anyway... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flashermac Posted May 1, 2007 Report Share Posted May 1, 2007 Wikipedia << A critical measure of the viability of oil shale is the ratio of energy used to produce the oil, compared to the energy returned (Energy Returned on Energy Invested - EROEI). Oil shale typically has a very low EROEI. Generally, the oil shale has to be mined, transported, retorted, and then disposed of, so at least 40% of the energy value is consumed in production. Royal Dutch Shell reported a figure of EROEI about 3:1. That is, energy equivalent to one barrel of oil was used for every three gained ... >> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.