Heedless Rush to Oil Shale

from    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/14/AR2008071401846_pf.html

By Ken Salazar
Tuesday, July 15, 2008; A19

 

To hear Bush touting Western oil shale as the answer to $4 per gallon gasoline, as he did again yesterday in the Rose Garden, you would think it was 1908 . . . or 1920 . . . or 1945 . . . or 1974. Every couple of decades over the past century, the immense reserves of the oily rock under Colorado and Utah reemerge as the great hope for our energy future.

Bush and his fellow oil shale boosters claim that if only Western communities would stand aside, energy companies could begin extracting more than 500 billion barrels of recoverable oil from domestic shale deposits. If only the federal government immediately offered even more public lands for development, the technology to extract oil from rock would suddenly ripen, oil supplies would rise and gas prices would fall.

If only.

Since the 19th century, we in the West have been trying to extract oil from the vast oil shale riches that lie under our feet. It is no easy task, and past efforts have failed miserably. Commercial oil shale development would require not only immense financial investments but also an undetermined quantity of (scarce) water from the Colorado River basin and the construction of several multibillion-dollar power plants.

Sometimes it seems that we are getting close to overcoming these barriers. But each time we near a boom, we bust. The last bust, the infamous "Black Sunday" of 1982, left Western communities holding the bill long after the speculators, Beltway boosters and energy companies had taken off.

This time, though, the technologies that companies such as Shell Oil are developing are far more promising. Thanks in part to a research and development program that Congress created in 2005, energy companies are starting to devise a way to heat the rock that holds the oil and force the oil up and out of the ground. Still, that oil would not come easily. It would take around one ton of rock to produce enough fuel to last the average car two weeks.

Furthermore, energy companies are still years away -- 2015 at the earliest -- from knowing whether this technology can cost-effectively produce oil on a commercial scale.

To reach the 2015 goal, we must avoid the pitfalls that have trapped us in the past: the speculation and hype, the shortage of water and power, and the failure to plan for environmental and social impacts. Unless development proceeds in a thoughtful and responsible manner, we risk another massive bust.

Unfortunately, the administration's approach carries none of the Western wisdom acquired over the past century. In a frenzied attempt to move a failed agenda in its last days, the Bureau of Land Management is trying to organize a fire sale of commercial oil shale leases on public land.

This sale would be a tragic case of putting the cart before the horse. How is a federal agency to establish regulations, lease land and then manage oil shale development without knowing whether the technology is commercially viable, how much water the technology would need (no small question in the arid West), how much carbon would be emitted, the source of the electricity to power the projects, or what the effects would be on Western landscapes?

The governors of Wyoming and Colorado, communities and editorial boards across the West agree that the administration's headlong rush is a terrible idea. Even energy companies, including Chevron, have said we need to proceed more cautiously on oil shale. With more than 30,000 acres of public land at their disposal to conduct research, development and demonstration projects (in addition to 200,000 undeveloped acres of private oil shale lands they own in Colorado and Utah), they already have more land than they can develop in the foreseeable future.

So why is the president hurrying to sell leases for commercial oil shale development in the West's great landscapes? A fire sale will not lower gas prices. It will not accelerate the development of commercial oil shale technologies.

My family has farmed and ranched in Colorado for five generations. We have seen this speculative spirit before. It is the same spirit that sweeps through gold, silver and uranium markets in the run-up to devastating busts. It is the same spirit that drives some of the West's worst water and land grabs.

So to the boosters who think they have found the answer to our energy crisis, I say: We welcome you to our quest to develop oil shale on a commercial scale. But first let's put the horse back in front of the cart and all start pulling in the same direction. A reckless approach that heightens the risk of an oil shale bust would only set us back.

The writer is a Democratic senator from Colorado.

Another typical democrat bashing a possible sollution whil providing no alternative.  

There will come a point when this shale oil will be justifiable to extract. I bet we are comng close if crude stays above $100 in the future. (and "IF" the extraction energy resources stay competitive -- ie. natural gas) There was a day when the Alberta tar sands were too expensive too if you recall ... but now who's smiling?

As for "providing alternatives" CJHeap ... you forget, the anti-oil Dems prefer the commonfolk ride bikes, use electric mass transit and live like Al Gore preaches. (but probably not as he lives)

Rich:

  There will come a point when this shale oil will be justifiable to extract. 

I dont think this is true. If the true value of oil shale is valued, it may not ever become justifiable.

An example would be if there was a 100%/ton CO2 tax and proper pollution control on scrubbing N, Hg, other heavy metals, Sulfur... etc... then even solar would become more economic than to have to deal with the real costs of fossil fuels.

Another example as to where oil shale may never be justifiable that is completely missed by the press, because its not thermodynamically justifiable. Just because there is something black in the ground doesnt mean that you can harvest that material without using more energy to do it than what you are harvesting. This EROI number is much more important than people give it. And its completely clear that the politicians and media are completely clueless on the issue.

Rich:

  ... but now who's smiling? 

polarbears? Ocean rising? Only rich people are smiling right now. And its likely that they wont be smiling for too much longer if things keep going the way they are.

We cannot dig, pump and drill our way out of this mess.

froggy:

Rich:

  There will come a point when this shale oil will be justifiable to extract. 

I dont think this is true. If the true value of oil shale is valued, it may not ever become justifiable.

An example would be if there was a 100%/ton CO2 tax and proper pollution control on scrubbing N, Hg, other heavy metals, Sulfur... etc... then even solar would become more economic than to have to deal with the real costs of fossil fuels.

Another example as to where oil shale may never be justifiable that is completely missed by the press, because its not thermodynamically justifiable. Just because there is something black in the ground doesnt mean that you can harvest that material without using more energy to do it than what you are harvesting. This EROI number is much more important than people give it. And its completely clear that the politicians and media are completely clueless on the issue.

Rich:

  ... but now who's smiling? 

polarbears? Ocean rising? Only rich people are smiling right now. And its likely that they wont be smiling for too much longer if things keep going the way they are.

We cannot dig, pump and drill our way out of this mess.

 

Adding a Tax does not reflect the True Cost.

BTW, the polar bears are doing better now than in decades and the oceans are not rising.  You need to get your info from sources other than Al Gore.

cjheap:

BTW, the polar bears are doing better now than in decades and the oceans are not rising. 

So you claim trillions of tons of ice melted and just vanished.  So much for conservation of energy and matter.  And everyone who is measuring the ocean rising is lying.  and all those countries having worse flooding and worse tidal problems are hallucinating.

Polar bears that used to walk most of the way to breeding grounds are now drowning while trying to migrate.  So many have died that it has been suggested that some or all of the remaining ones be moved to Antarctica as a desperate ploy to keep them from going extinct.  But you call this "doing better now than in decades."

Hmmm.

Voltaire:

cjheap:

BTW, the polar bears are doing better now than in decades and the oceans are not rising. 

So you claim trillions of tons of ice melted and just vanished.  So much for conservation of energy and matter.  And everyone who is measuring the ocean rising is lying.  and all those countries having worse flooding and worse tidal problems are hallucinating.

Polar bears that used to walk most of the way to breeding grounds are now drowning while trying to migrate.  So many have died that it has been suggested that some or all of the remaining ones be moved to Antarctica as a desperate ploy to keep them from going extinct.  But you call this "doing better now than in decades."

Hmmm.

 

Post up some proof. Your opinions and regurgitation of PETA ads are not credible.

Voltaire:

So you claim trillions of tons of ice melted and just vanished. 

While I don't pretend to 'know' the answers to the global warming and climate change issues -- or can even accurately sift though the hype, I'm curious as how much the "ice and snow" that is currently sitting on land contributes enough to raise ocean levels significantly. I assume much of the melting ice is already "polar ocean ice" and displacing water in frozen form.  That can't be calculated to contribute to rising ocean levels ... right? The additional displacement would come from frozen glacier ice that has been built up over the years during the earth's cooling trend -- how significant is that to ocean levels?

Also, how does one calculate just how much of the warming cycle the earth is going through is happening because we are living here, and how much is just the trend (or happening by chance through natural events -- geothermal and solar events) is going to occur whether CO2 is product by man or not?  Besides the substantial hype, I'd like to see a convincing consensus that changing our ways will make more that a 'ripple in the ocean' difference in the direction our climate is taking. I'm all for living greener and negatively impacting our world less, but there needs to be a balance between our economy and our environment IMHO.

Rich:

  That can't be calculated 

  It cannot be calculated how much damage Mercury pollution does each year, doesnt mean we shouldnt try to reduce it to 0% emissions. Fossil CO2 is pollutant, that is all you need to know. EPA says so. WHO says so. Virtually every country says so. Its a pollutant and thus should be regulated. Its not only global warming, its not only particulants in the air, its not only smog, its not only turning our oceans pH low, its not only increasing algal blooms... jeeze its so many reasons to call CO2 a pollutant that you dont need to

Rich:

  While I don't pretend to 'know' the answers 

, you have enough flags infront of you to act.

Whilst it easy for some to say

Rich:

  I'm all for living greener and negatively impacting our world less, but there needs to be a balance between our economy and our environment IMHO. 

, its a much harder pill to swallow when your country is being swamped by ocean or your people are dying of Ozone loss or your inner city children are dying of asthma.

When I hear you say

Rich:

I'm all for living greener and negatively impacting our world less, but there needs to be a balance between our economy and our environment IMHO.

, I hear the rich saying 'let em eat cake'.

Salazar may not care about the Constitution, but he does have a clear understanding of this issue.  I'm still going to declare a Democratic affiliation and support primary challengers for this DINO.

Rich:

There will come a point when this shale oil will be justifiable to extract. I bet we are comng close if crude stays above $100 in the future. (and "IF" the extraction energy resources stay competitive -- ie. natural gas) There was a day when the Alberta tar sands were too expensive too if you recall ... but now who's smiling?

Keep in mind - a prime reason oil shale and oil sands are so expensive is because of the tremendous amount of energy required to get the oil out. Some of that energy comes from burning some of the oil in the shale/sand itself, but much comes from burning natural gas. So, while it may have cost $60/barrel to produce oil from shale say 15 years ago - that doesn't mean it would cost that *now*, since the cost of that energy needed to get the oil out has gone up.

As for providing alternatives - here are two big ones that I and many others keep suggesting:

1. EVs and PHEVs (with overnight charging, current grid capacity can support a significant number of EVs and PHEVs, but would eventually need to be expanded - preferably with nuclear)

2. Stop being so wasteful. It's ridiculous how much people complain about the price of gas, yet I still see people leaving their cars/trucks/massive trucks idling for a long time in their driveways, or in a parking lot while they run into a store (and very often it's not even because they want to leave the AC on, since they have the windows down while it's idling).

cjheap:

BTW, the polar bears are doing better now than in decades and the oceans are not rising.  You need to get your info from sources other than Al Gore.

Your ignorance never ceases to amaze me. What, may I ask, is you source of this "information"? RushLimbaugh.com?

It's certainly not coming from any actual scientific assessment.

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2007/05/02/arctic-ice-and-polar-bears/

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article767459.ece

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/starving-polar-bears-shame-bush-to-act-466348.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/toxic-waste-creates-hermaphrodite-arctic-polar-bears-522350.html

shall I go on?

Rich:

Voltaire:

So you claim trillions of tons of ice melted and just vanished. 

While I don't pretend to 'know' the answers to the global warming and climate change issues -- or can even accurately sift though the hype, I'm curious as how much the "ice and snow" that is currently sitting on land contributes enough to raise ocean levels significantly. I assume much of the melting ice is already "polar ocean ice" and displacing water in frozen form.  That can't be calculated to contribute to rising ocean levels ... right? The additional displacement would come from frozen glacier ice that has been built up over the years during the earth's cooling trend -- how significant is that to ocean levels?

Also, how does one calculate just how much of the warming cycle the earth is going through is happening because we are living here, and how much is just the trend (or happening by chance through natural events -- geothermal and solar events) is going to occur whether CO2 is product by man or not?  Besides the substantial hype, I'd like to see a convincing consensus that changing our ways will make more that a 'ripple in the ocean' difference in the direction our climate is taking. I'm all for living greener and negatively impacting our world less, but there needs to be a balance between our economy and our environment IMHO.

 

The massive ice shelf in Greenland (and of course Antarctic) is almost entirely on land - so not floating (ie. so  when it melts, it raises the sea level).

As for the second paragraph - calculating exactly how much is a laborious process - but you should be able to find some such analysis on the web.

Mike Briggs:

Keep in mind - a prime reason oil shale and oil sands are so expensive is because of the tremendous amount of energy required to get the oil out. Some of that energy comes from burning some of the oil in the shale/sand itself, but much comes from burning natural gas. So, while it may have cost $60/barrel to produce oil from shale say 15 years ago - that doesn't mean it would cost that *now*, since the cost of that energy needed to get the oil out has gone up.

Yes there isn't much doubt about that, but petroleum "from the tar sand/shale" has risen significantly since the days when $30/barrel would make them profitable ... and yet the energy (ie. Natural gas) has not risen a that same pace. The point being is that we can continue to extract oil from these so long as their is an energy source to extract them with -- its not so far fetched for me to believe a nuclear powered 'refinery' could be used to extract oil from shale out in Colorado.

What about solar or geothermal power to extract oil shales?

In Canada solar may not be an option, but aren't these 'oil shales' in the western US bathed in sunshine?

The heat needed is not great, in terms of temperature, to remove tar sands.

Simple vacuum tube or better yet flat panel with translucent insulating air, foam or plastic cells might be sufficient to supple the heat.

^^^ To what end?  If we have the capability to harness renwables, why use it to produce non-renewable, CO2 producing fuel?  Let's just use the renewable.  

Rich:

Yes there isn't much doubt about that, but petroleum "from the tar sand/shale" has risen significantly since the days when $30/barrel would make them profitable ... and yet the energy (ie. Natural gas) has not risen a that same pace. The point being is that we can continue to extract oil from these so long as their is an energy source to extract them with -- its not so far fetched for me to believe a nuclear powered 'refinery' could be used to extract oil from shale out in Colorado.

Which would be an *excellent* way of "dirtying up" nuclear power.