Oil reserves around the world have grown in the past generation. Admittedly, only slightly, but this is in spite of increased demand. We find new sources of oil, we can access reserves that were previously uneconomic, we learn that current sources have more oil than were previously thought or that more of it can be extracted. Unconventional sources of oil are very much in the majority. The biggest roadblock for them in the future will likely be politics.
nonetheless, some people in the 1970's were predicting that we would be out by now. The Limits to Growth, published in 1972, stated that we would run out of Petroleum by 1992. In 1977, Jimmy Carter stated that: "we could use up all of the proven reserves of oil in the entire world by the end of the next decades." Neither of these scenarios occurred.
so? 800 billion barrels is nothing to sneeze at. It's still more than Saudi Arabia, which has the greatest oil reserves in the world at the moment. Methods have grown cheaper over the past couple decades through in sito methods, but it's still more expensive than simply importing it. However, as technology changes, it'll allow us to extract it at a lower cost. The biggest obstacle are environmental worries, even more than price.
2 trillion barrels of oil locked in rock cannot make an impact on our energy crisis simply because of extraction rate. The additional barrels per year are not enough to offset growth.
@Mortonc3 The extraction rate has greatly increased lately. Take a look at the companies and countries investing in this new energy source. Even Saudi Arabia has seen the writing on the wall.
@Mortonc3 New tech? No, the existing tech has been streamlined and SEVERAL companies are jumping on board. Shale oil will become viable very quickly. The trucking industry and mass transit will be among the first to switch to this fuel.
@Mortonc3 Hess Corp. invests 5 billion. Marathon already producing over 12,000 barrels a day. Exxon Mobile invests 1.8 billion in shale oil land leases. Continental Resources, OEG Resources, Noble Energy, Mariner Energy, SM Energy, Andarko Petroleum, Chesapeake Energy. Saudi Arabia invests 130 billion in shale oil. Mack truck signs on to produce trucks with natural gas engines. Pilot Travel signs on to place natural gas ports in truck stops. List goes on.
we have at least 2 trillion barrels of oil shale and I don't see why we shouldn't use it. It's not going to be a perfect solution, nothing is, but it seems better than spending hundreds of billions every year importing it. We've got enough to last 300 years, and that's just what we've found.
@DanPhantom89 It wont last 300 years. Even if we inflate the highest estimate of shale deposits of 1.8 trillion barrels to 2 trillion barrels it would only be enough for 273 years at 20 million barrels a day, which is just the U.S. consumption. You also forgot to factor in growth of both the human population and energy demand. I'd bet a more reasonable estimate is less than 100 years, even if we keep it for ourselves. And what happens when the rest of the world runs out? They wont want it?
@Mortonc3 World oil shale reserves is estimated to be 2.8-3.3 trillion barrels. It's actually quite a conservative estimate, considering that many parts of it are still unexplored. We tend to seriously underestimate the energy reserves that we have. In the 1970's, we were supposed to be out of oil by the early 21st century. That hasn't happened.
@DanPhantom89 Since my comment I've actually been researching oil shale. It your estimates are assuming all known oil shale is recoverable, which its not. Conservative estimates for recoverable U.S. oil shale is about 800 billion barrels. Those are all we can really bank on at the moment, which even if it could be extracted in full today and we froze all expansion of energy needs in the U.S. would only last 104 years. I doubt the world's nations want to give us theirs, even if more is found.
@DanPhantom89 I forgot to mention that it was said U.S. oil production would hit peak in the 70s, not that we'd run out. Most studies have agreed that we did indeed hit peak oil production in the U.S. in the mid 70s. A few recent studies suggest that we hit world peak oil production in 2005, but its still too early to tell with certainty.
@DanPhantom89 The idea that we can rely on undiscovered oil of any kind outside our own boarders is absurd, and any attempt to follow a doctrine which preaches that we have a right to assume control of the worlds energy resources will inevitably lead to extended warfare and the need for racism and brutality in our nationalism in order to support the exploitation of other peoples. In short it will lead to total moral and economic collapse.
Environmental Laws are what destroyed America not improved it. I still never felt that Acid Rain from the 70s yet. Its all a scam to keep prices inflated and certain people/groups rich. Yes the oil companies like those restrictions, its to help keep profits up not supply up. The environmentalist's stupidly work for oil companies. We probably will never see $1.00 gasoline ever again. $2.00 won't happen either. It will remain $2.50 to $3.50 and up for the foreseeable future.
@barrenpaladin we wont see those prices because we're using up a limited supply not because of oil conspiracies. As the easy to reach, higher quality oil is used up it becomes more expensive to extract, thus higher prices. Also, demand for energy is increasing with the increase of production and population. And acid rain has destroyed large amounts of forest in Russia and China, and also here in the U.S.. Try googleing this shit before you post.
I've seen this in Alberta's oilsands and I have to say fuck those so called environmentalists america. This deposit of oil is fucking huge and you should drill till the cows come home. The amount of real jobs this will create will be enormous.
sorry buddy but your a retard. OSEC doesn't plan on doing any drilling at all . that would be environmentally preferable. instead they are going to mine the fuck out of every last bit of landscape in Colorado. did you see the beautiful pictures of western geology they flashed in front of your face? you can basically kiss that shit good-bye. the property rights should have been rewarded to Shell or PetroProbe their in-situ technology would only require drilling for the oil
Hi there, If thats the case what will they think of next? Drilling a live volcano to extract its fire juice. It will prompt the earth natural instinct to put back all the carbon that we released so far back to earth by ocean stagnation then ice age again. Hastening the demise of our species. Solar, wind, ocean tide & currents, geothermal & ocean's hot suface/ocean's cold bottom waters, algae for liquid fuel system is better. Thats what I see.
Of course we need to start harvesting oil shale. We also need to start making use of wind energy on a larger level, solar and whatever else is available. The lesser amount of oil we consume, the better.
Again, call me when they start selling it in "large quantities"... like millions of barrels per day.
I don't want to bet my energy future on the oil companies' word. I've pointed out several limitations with it, such as the time it takes to do, the immense capital, the lack of local water, and so on. Are we never going to see shale oil? Yes. Some places in the world are using it now... but the scale is far from what we need.
The long term plan that they call for would supply one quarter of one percent of the oil that the United States uses each day. That's the long term plan. One quarter of one percent. I'm sure the Saudis are worried sick.
Not sure what numbers you're using, but my math tells me that the mean of 800 billion barrels of recoverable oil in the Green River Basin is enough to supply the all of US oil consumption for over 100 years.
Furthermore, the technology exists now to liquefy the shale and pump it out, rather than mine it. It truly is a tantalizing energy possibility right under our own feet.
You are buying into the fantasy. 800 billion barrels is purely theoretical. What is more important is the RATE at which you can extract it. Given that it is a very capital and energy intensive process, extracting oil from oil shale is slow, and it would not be possible to get a flow rate equal to our demand. In reality, if it becomes economical to do, you could expect to see a relative trickle of oil coming for not 100 years, but thousands of years.
The RAND corporation released a study in 2005 that essentially mirrors other studies in its conclusions...the oil shale in the Green River basin is enough to produce a minimum of about 500 billion barrels - the mean is 800 billion barrels, and it could well over a trillion barrels.
The cool thing about capitalism is this - companies won't invest in technologies that aren't profitable. You can bet that the oil companies won't drill shale oil unless the rate is sufficiently profitable.
It's not "oil", it's kerogen. It's not a liquid. It's a hard rock. If you extract it in-situ, you have to cook it in-place, possibly for months or years, at almost a thousand degrees. The process requires lots of water... the water rights for the Colorado River are already pretty much taken.
Again, it's technically possible. Economically, it will only be viable at continued high prices, and due to the technical difficulty and lack of water, will only produce at a relatively low rate.
Meanwhile, if you want, you can convert your own car to electric, which will cost less than half as much to operate on a continuing basis, and require much less maintenance. Because of its efficiency, it uses a lot less net energy. The main limitation is, you can't drive as far. But for normal around-town trips, these are great. You keep another gas-guzzler around for those longer trips. In the great American tradition of garage-tinkering, I think we will see an electric solution soon.
You can buy an older manual-transmission car that is in good shape (other than the engine), rip out the engine, gas tank, etc., and replace with a motor and batteries and a controller. You can buy the kits to do it online, starting at $3000 for a basic kit, to $6000 for a mid-sized kit that can take you to highway speeds, and up. Many people that are not really good mechanics have converted their cars... you'd be surprised at how relatively easy it turns out to be.
Yeah, sure...easy. All I have to do is buy an older manual-transmission car, rip out the engine, gas tank, etc., replace it with a motor and batteries and a controller, shell out 3-6 grand doing it, and I'm left with an old crappy electric car that has a 40-50 mile range at best. When I mentioned alternative fuels, I meant VIABLE alternative fuels. i.e., something that will give me the range a gas-powered engine provides at similar cost. If your idea was viable, everyone would do it. It ain't.
OK, admittedly it's not for everyone. But it is definitely viable, and the numbers of people doing it is swelling. The technology is getting cheaper, and it is already cost-effective. Again, you keep a second gas car for longer trips-- but 80% of people's driving could be done with these converted EVs.
They're also not "crappy." You can go to highway speeds in most, and torque is way better than gas engines. Cost is $10-15K... you spend that on a used car anyways, and EVs last much longer.
My main point was that it's doable with today's technology... we don't need gigantic companies to do this, they have been dragging their feet. Eventually, they will produce what you call "viable" alternative electric cars, but in the meantime, thousands of people, literally, are converting existing cars.
There are several companies that will do it for you, or sell you an already converted car. You can pay more for longer range, too, but most people do fine with a range of 60 miles per charge.
Literally? Thousands? Thousands of people out of....300+ million...wow. That's really...not impressive at all. Not even a little bit. If converting old cars to electric cars was VIABLE, then many more people would do it. They don't. No one wants to spend thousands of hard-earned dollars for an old car with a 40 mile range, as I said earlier. Until a VIABLE electric car is produced (capable of freeway speeds and a 250-300 mile range), you're not going to see much movement towards EV's.
As I pointed out, it's not hard to get freeway speeds in an electric. Range is a bigger issue, but again, studies show that 80% of people's driving could be done with a range of 60 miles.
The numbers of EVs is small compared to millions, but it is growing quickly. What you fail to realize is that if oil continues to rise, you won't be able to afford to drive a gasoline car that far anyways. When gas is at $5 or $10, suddenly having a second electric car for shorter trips doesn't sound so bad.
In addition Mr. Scientastic, Mr. Usamericanz used the phrase "highway speeds." We all know the vast amounts of petroleum that could be saved by slowing down. At the present juncture, this is culturally and politically untenable. However, when gas hits 10 a gallon many people will be driving little four bangers in the slow lane at 55 mph and slipstreaming a tractor trailer. Actually, tell a lie, freight will probable be moved by electric trains at that future eventuality.
From Fortune Magazine about the pioneering efforts of Shell's Chief Scientist Harold Vinegar:
"'Harold has broken the code,' says oil shale expert Anton Dammer, director of the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves. Vinegar has developed a cutting-edge technology that according to Shell, will produce large quantities of high-quality oil and be profitable with prices around $30 a barrel."
Seems Shell has figured out they can drill shale oil profitably.
Shell spin. Google for a report entitled "The Illusive Bonanza: Oil Shale in Colorado: Pulling the Sword from the Stone" which analyzes these claims. By the way, they also cite the Rand report you mentioned.
"Given the outlook for petroleum, there seems to be little doubt that the U.S. will have an oil-shale industry. The question is, when? The DOE report by Bunger, et al., said shale oil production could reach 2 million bbl/d by 2020, if government and industry agreed on the urgency of a program. Today, Bunger says, 'we were probably a little aggressive about that. The way things are now, I'd say we could have a 1-million-bbl/d industry by 2020.'"
And, given that by 2020 we will probably be facing a multi-million barrel per day shortage, this will not solve the problem.
Again, I'm not saying we should not do this. I'm merely pointing out that we need to stop hanging our hopes on fossil fuels and become FAR more aggressive about alternatives and getting off oil. I simply don't believe we will be able to drill our way out of this, so we better do the smart thing and start preparing for a world with much less oil.
In fact, as the video points out, oil shale doesn't have actual oil. It's kerogen, and needs to be cooked to get it out and into oil form. Operations exist in parts of the world to extract it profitably, but they require basically strip-mining and hauling it off to cookers. Shell's project to cook it in-situ is interesting, but probably won't be able to be ramped up to the level of production we need. In the big picture, oil shale will not "save" us. Why not move to renewables instead?
Because there are no renewable energy sources sufficient and viable enough to replace fossil fuels...if there were, private companies would be all over them. They don't exist. It's a liberal fantasy. Oil shale DOES exist, as does the technology to liquefy it and pump it out. The Shell technology you spoke of has advanced even further in recent years, and is looking very promising.
meanwhile, if you want to strap a sail to the roof of your car, be my guest.
You are half right. We can't expect to use renewables and continue to live the wasteful lifestyle we live now, which are fueled by a temporary subsidy in the form of fossil fuels. But renewable sources of energy are good enough to live a decently advanced life. Meanwhile, fossil fuels will continue to skyrocket in price until renewables are price-competitive. However, by then it may be too late to avoid major economic fallout in the transition. We should have started preparing 20 years ago.
We should have expanded DRILLING 20 years ago is what we should have done - it is
tree-hugging radical environmentalists that scare the balls off most politicians, unfortunately. There is NO reason, none, why oil exploration and researching alternative fuels cannot run in parallel - we should be looking for viable renewables sources of energy AND we should be drilling anywhere and everywhere we possibly can to reduce our dependency on foreign oil.
As to renewables being a "liberal fantasy"... this is one fairly conservative fellow who wants FREEDOM-- freedom from dependence on unfriendly regimes and nations, freedom from a depleting, finite resource, freedom from OIL in short. Renewables are no fantasy... they are expensive, but once you have a renewable source of energy installed, you are truly energy FREE and independent.
The fantasy is that we can continue to rely on oil and conduct business as usual.
hey, i want freedom from fossil fuels too, but VIABLE renewable energy, at least insofar as energy capable of powering cars, trucks, planes, etc., simply does not exist. My definition of viable includes affordability...I would love to own a Tesla electric car, but I don't have 100K to buy one. We're stuck with oil for the foreseeable future, and what is frustrating is the obstructionist tactics of the left about things like off-shore drilling, shale, etc. We NEED these sources of energy NOW.
I agree we need as many sources of energy as possible, but don't write off renewables as a "liberal fantasy" and don't expect oil to ever be as cheap as it was. The facts are that the cheap, easy oil is getting more scarce, and the more expensive stuff INCLUDING oil shale is what we have left. I say, bite the bullet and get off oil now. The sooner the better.
The way liberals hang their collective hats on "renewable energy" IS, in fact, a fantasy. There are NO viable renewable sources of energy efficient enough and affordable enough to power our economy. NONE. I'm not saying we shouldn't continue to look for them - but right now, there are none. Oil, on the other hand, works and works well. With existing oil field yields dwindling, we need to aggressively explore for new oil fields in places where oil is likely to be - offshore, ANWR, shale, etc.
The way some conservatives (not all) hang their hats on oil and "drilling our way out of this" is also a fantasy. We are caught between a rock and a hard place. Get used to it. You say no renewable sources are affordable enough. Not yet, but at the rate oil prices are going, they soon will be.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not against drilling where we must. I just have no illusions about the fact that it will not "save" us. We have to do the hard work and get off oil before it ruins us.
An example of over-hyping our resources. Fairly recently, people were hyping reports of up to 400 BILLION barrels of oil in the Bakken formation. The USGS came out and said that was a myth. Their estimate is 4.3 billion barrels of "technically recoverable" oil... economically recoverable will be about half that, at today's prices. That's nothing to sneeze at, but it's 100 times LESS than the hype, and far less than we use in a single year in this country alone.
There's over-hyping and there's under-hyping. The original estimate of the oil yield at Prudhoe Bay was 10 billion barrels..turned out to be 25 billion barrels. The Brazilians recently discovered a new oil field in the Atlantic (we can't even explore for oil off our own eastern coastline)- early estimates are it could yield over 30 billion barrels.
Point is, some countries, like Brazil, are seeking out and finding oil at a time when many people thought there was no more to be found. Why not us?
Of the 25 billion barrels in Prudhoe Bay, how much is recoverable? Research project. It's only 13 billion.
Be careful what numbers you use. Do the research for yourself. Also keep in mind several facts: the world USES 30 billion barrels a year, so we need discoveries the size of Brazil's EVERY YEAR just to stay in place. And Brazil's finds are being touted as some of the largest in DECADES.
Face reality: we will find more oil, but the days of CHEAP oil are over.
Are you deliberately avoiding the actual point I was making? The original point, which was apparently lost, was that no one really knows what an oil field is going to yield until the testing and exploratory wells are complete. We may find more or less oil than originally estimated, but we won't find ANY if we don't continue to drill, and drill in the areas where oil likely exists, like ANWR, offshore, etc.
And my point is simply that we can't pin our hopes on drilling alone, that we have to throw AT LEAST as much effort into GETTING OFF OIL as we do on drilling. I've said I'm not against drilling... my main concern is that for far too many people it becomes a distraction from doing the inevitable hard work of weaning ourselves from oil.
I don't know how much oil will be recovered, but it certainly won't be enough to fill the gap we face. So it's all moot unless we focus HARD on alternatives too.
The main message I'm trying to get across is that we need to change focus. The scale of the problem is so great that any new drilling we do is just a stopgap: it may buy us a little bit of time, but not much. The numbers don't add up to what we need.
So, we need to have a paradigm shift. TODAY is the time for investing in the alternative technologies we need, not some far-off hazy future for our grandchildren. Stop clinging so hard onto the fuel of the past.
To bolster my case, here are some numbers. It doesn't matter whether there are 800 billion barrels... I don't dispute that. What matters is how fast can we get at it. The quote from industry insider Bunger (posted further down) basically says it is optimistic to get 1 million barrels a day by 2020. Meanwhile, we need to replace an estimated 3.3 million barrels a day of decline in existing fields EVERY YEAR. By 2020, that is almost 40 million barrels a day. Oil shale helps... a TINY bit.
As pointed out elsewhere, shale may be technically possible but will NOT bring back the days of cheap oil. Drilling in ANWR may help a little-- by pennies on the gallon and only about 10 years from now. Offshore there is probably more oil than ANWR but drilling is expensive and rigs are hard to come by right now.
Let's get real. The scale of the problem is such that if we expect to continue to use oil like we do now, all these are like trying to kill an elephant with a BB gun.
Tesla targeted the high-end market because that's where they could make a truly "viable" car as you call it. Their business plans are to move down the scale and start producing family sedans, as technology improves and becomes cheaper. In a few years they want to be a full-scale automobile company. It's not a fantasy.
If we put half the energy into alternatives as we do into shouting "DRILL DRILL DRILL" then we MIGHT actually FREE OURSELVES! It's technically possible, but not easy...
What an absolute snow job! They didn't even bother to mention that to extract the shale oil requires almost as much energy as is produced by the shale oil itself (most of which comes from already scarce natural gas!) this means the whole production borders on a net energy deficit!
I'll believe it when they start producing and selling the oil.
In the meantime, let's not bet our economic and national future on something that's not proven.
Another point that's been mentioned repeatedly is that even if it IS economical, the rate at which it can be extracted is far too slow to supply more than a fraction of our demand.
Comment removed
45a66 3 months ago
Shale oil is the fuel of the future, and always will be.
Alkabiades 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Someones gonna make a hell of a lot of money out of this
keza2401 9 months ago
Oil reserves around the world have grown in the past generation. Admittedly, only slightly, but this is in spite of increased demand. We find new sources of oil, we can access reserves that were previously uneconomic, we learn that current sources have more oil than were previously thought or that more of it can be extracted. Unconventional sources of oil are very much in the majority. The biggest roadblock for them in the future will likely be politics.
DanPhantom89 1 year ago
nonetheless, some people in the 1970's were predicting that we would be out by now. The Limits to Growth, published in 1972, stated that we would run out of Petroleum by 1992. In 1977, Jimmy Carter stated that: "we could use up all of the proven reserves of oil in the entire world by the end of the next decades." Neither of these scenarios occurred.
DanPhantom89 1 year ago
so? 800 billion barrels is nothing to sneeze at. It's still more than Saudi Arabia, which has the greatest oil reserves in the world at the moment. Methods have grown cheaper over the past couple decades through in sito methods, but it's still more expensive than simply importing it. However, as technology changes, it'll allow us to extract it at a lower cost. The biggest obstacle are environmental worries, even more than price.
DanPhantom89 1 year ago
2 trillion barrels of oil locked in rock cannot make an impact on our energy crisis simply because of extraction rate. The additional barrels per year are not enough to offset growth.
Mortonc3 1 year ago
@Mortonc3 The extraction rate has greatly increased lately. Take a look at the companies and countries investing in this new energy source. Even Saudi Arabia has seen the writing on the wall.
Deke101 11 months ago
@Deke101 What new technology has come into play since ICP?
Mortonc3 11 months ago
@Mortonc3 New tech? No, the existing tech has been streamlined and SEVERAL companies are jumping on board. Shale oil will become viable very quickly. The trucking industry and mass transit will be among the first to switch to this fuel.
Deke101 11 months ago
@Deke101 can you streamline my search and tell me who some of these several companies are?
Mortonc3 11 months ago
@Mortonc3 Hess Corp. invests 5 billion. Marathon already producing over 12,000 barrels a day. Exxon Mobile invests 1.8 billion in shale oil land leases. Continental Resources, OEG Resources, Noble Energy, Mariner Energy, SM Energy, Andarko Petroleum, Chesapeake Energy. Saudi Arabia invests 130 billion in shale oil. Mack truck signs on to produce trucks with natural gas engines. Pilot Travel signs on to place natural gas ports in truck stops. List goes on.
Deke101 11 months ago
we have at least 2 trillion barrels of oil shale and I don't see why we shouldn't use it. It's not going to be a perfect solution, nothing is, but it seems better than spending hundreds of billions every year importing it. We've got enough to last 300 years, and that's just what we've found.
DanPhantom89 1 year ago
@DanPhantom89 It wont last 300 years. Even if we inflate the highest estimate of shale deposits of 1.8 trillion barrels to 2 trillion barrels it would only be enough for 273 years at 20 million barrels a day, which is just the U.S. consumption. You also forgot to factor in growth of both the human population and energy demand. I'd bet a more reasonable estimate is less than 100 years, even if we keep it for ourselves. And what happens when the rest of the world runs out? They wont want it?
Mortonc3 1 year ago
@Mortonc3 World oil shale reserves is estimated to be 2.8-3.3 trillion barrels. It's actually quite a conservative estimate, considering that many parts of it are still unexplored. We tend to seriously underestimate the energy reserves that we have. In the 1970's, we were supposed to be out of oil by the early 21st century. That hasn't happened.
DanPhantom89 1 year ago
@DanPhantom89 Since my comment I've actually been researching oil shale. It your estimates are assuming all known oil shale is recoverable, which its not. Conservative estimates for recoverable U.S. oil shale is about 800 billion barrels. Those are all we can really bank on at the moment, which even if it could be extracted in full today and we froze all expansion of energy needs in the U.S. would only last 104 years. I doubt the world's nations want to give us theirs, even if more is found.
Mortonc3 1 year ago
@DanPhantom89 I forgot to mention that it was said U.S. oil production would hit peak in the 70s, not that we'd run out. Most studies have agreed that we did indeed hit peak oil production in the U.S. in the mid 70s. A few recent studies suggest that we hit world peak oil production in 2005, but its still too early to tell with certainty.
Mortonc3 1 year ago
@DanPhantom89 The idea that we can rely on undiscovered oil of any kind outside our own boarders is absurd, and any attempt to follow a doctrine which preaches that we have a right to assume control of the worlds energy resources will inevitably lead to extended warfare and the need for racism and brutality in our nationalism in order to support the exploitation of other peoples. In short it will lead to total moral and economic collapse.
Mortonc3 1 year ago
Environmental Laws are what destroyed America not improved it. I still never felt that Acid Rain from the 70s yet. Its all a scam to keep prices inflated and certain people/groups rich. Yes the oil companies like those restrictions, its to help keep profits up not supply up. The environmentalist's stupidly work for oil companies. We probably will never see $1.00 gasoline ever again. $2.00 won't happen either. It will remain $2.50 to $3.50 and up for the foreseeable future.
barrenpaladin 2 years ago
@barrenpaladin Would that be another right-wing conspiracy theory?
I think we are going to have an event of some kind and there will be another oil price shock. At that point you can kiss the global economy goodbye!
Knossos22 1 year ago
@barrenpaladin we wont see those prices because we're using up a limited supply not because of oil conspiracies. As the easy to reach, higher quality oil is used up it becomes more expensive to extract, thus higher prices. Also, demand for energy is increasing with the increase of production and population. And acid rain has destroyed large amounts of forest in Russia and China, and also here in the U.S.. Try googleing this shit before you post.
Mortonc3 1 year ago
I've seen this in Alberta's oilsands and I have to say fuck those so called environmentalists america. This deposit of oil is fucking huge and you should drill till the cows come home. The amount of real jobs this will create will be enormous.
spernoadversa 2 years ago
sorry buddy but your a retard. OSEC doesn't plan on doing any drilling at all . that would be environmentally preferable. instead they are going to mine the fuck out of every last bit of landscape in Colorado. did you see the beautiful pictures of western geology they flashed in front of your face? you can basically kiss that shit good-bye. the property rights should have been rewarded to Shell or PetroProbe their in-situ technology would only require drilling for the oil
madtownmccazle 1 year ago
@spernoadversa They do not drill Oilsands they mine it. You are conflating.
Knossos22 1 year ago
Goldnev Resources has one of the biggest oil shale deposits in the world, over 2 billion barrels of oil. It is very shallow and easy to get to.
MrYJ99 2 years ago
twist my nipples so hard i want to bleed out of my asshole as your wife eats out my asshole
ballav420 3 years ago
Hi there, If thats the case what will they think of next? Drilling a live volcano to extract its fire juice. It will prompt the earth natural instinct to put back all the carbon that we released so far back to earth by ocean stagnation then ice age again. Hastening the demise of our species. Solar, wind, ocean tide & currents, geothermal & ocean's hot suface/ocean's cold bottom waters, algae for liquid fuel system is better. Thats what I see.
KVLai 3 years ago
Of course we need to start harvesting oil shale. We also need to start making use of wind energy on a larger level, solar and whatever else is available. The lesser amount of oil we consume, the better.
Noahgoy 3 years ago
Again, call me when they start selling it in "large quantities"... like millions of barrels per day.
I don't want to bet my energy future on the oil companies' word. I've pointed out several limitations with it, such as the time it takes to do, the immense capital, the lack of local water, and so on. Are we never going to see shale oil? Yes. Some places in the world are using it now... but the scale is far from what we need.
scientastic 3 years ago
The long term plan that they call for would supply one quarter of one percent of the oil that the United States uses each day. That's the long term plan. One quarter of one percent. I'm sure the Saudis are worried sick.
zapponsalvia 3 years ago
Not sure what numbers you're using, but my math tells me that the mean of 800 billion barrels of recoverable oil in the Green River Basin is enough to supply the all of US oil consumption for over 100 years.
Furthermore, the technology exists now to liquefy the shale and pump it out, rather than mine it. It truly is a tantalizing energy possibility right under our own feet.
usamericanz 3 years ago
You are buying into the fantasy. 800 billion barrels is purely theoretical. What is more important is the RATE at which you can extract it. Given that it is a very capital and energy intensive process, extracting oil from oil shale is slow, and it would not be possible to get a flow rate equal to our demand. In reality, if it becomes economical to do, you could expect to see a relative trickle of oil coming for not 100 years, but thousands of years.
scientastic 3 years ago
The RAND corporation released a study in 2005 that essentially mirrors other studies in its conclusions...the oil shale in the Green River basin is enough to produce a minimum of about 500 billion barrels - the mean is 800 billion barrels, and it could well over a trillion barrels.
The cool thing about capitalism is this - companies won't invest in technologies that aren't profitable. You can bet that the oil companies won't drill shale oil unless the rate is sufficiently profitable.
usamericanz 3 years ago
It's not "oil", it's kerogen. It's not a liquid. It's a hard rock. If you extract it in-situ, you have to cook it in-place, possibly for months or years, at almost a thousand degrees. The process requires lots of water... the water rights for the Colorado River are already pretty much taken.
Again, it's technically possible. Economically, it will only be viable at continued high prices, and due to the technical difficulty and lack of water, will only produce at a relatively low rate.
scientastic 3 years ago
Meanwhile, if you want, you can convert your own car to electric, which will cost less than half as much to operate on a continuing basis, and require much less maintenance. Because of its efficiency, it uses a lot less net energy. The main limitation is, you can't drive as far. But for normal around-town trips, these are great. You keep another gas-guzzler around for those longer trips. In the great American tradition of garage-tinkering, I think we will see an electric solution soon.
scientastic 3 years ago
You can buy an older manual-transmission car that is in good shape (other than the engine), rip out the engine, gas tank, etc., and replace with a motor and batteries and a controller. You can buy the kits to do it online, starting at $3000 for a basic kit, to $6000 for a mid-sized kit that can take you to highway speeds, and up. Many people that are not really good mechanics have converted their cars... you'd be surprised at how relatively easy it turns out to be.
scientastic 3 years ago
Yeah, sure...easy. All I have to do is buy an older manual-transmission car, rip out the engine, gas tank, etc., replace it with a motor and batteries and a controller, shell out 3-6 grand doing it, and I'm left with an old crappy electric car that has a 40-50 mile range at best. When I mentioned alternative fuels, I meant VIABLE alternative fuels. i.e., something that will give me the range a gas-powered engine provides at similar cost. If your idea was viable, everyone would do it. It ain't.
usamericanz 3 years ago
OK, admittedly it's not for everyone. But it is definitely viable, and the numbers of people doing it is swelling. The technology is getting cheaper, and it is already cost-effective. Again, you keep a second gas car for longer trips-- but 80% of people's driving could be done with these converted EVs.
They're also not "crappy." You can go to highway speeds in most, and torque is way better than gas engines. Cost is $10-15K... you spend that on a used car anyways, and EVs last much longer.
scientastic 3 years ago
My main point was that it's doable with today's technology... we don't need gigantic companies to do this, they have been dragging their feet. Eventually, they will produce what you call "viable" alternative electric cars, but in the meantime, thousands of people, literally, are converting existing cars.
There are several companies that will do it for you, or sell you an already converted car. You can pay more for longer range, too, but most people do fine with a range of 60 miles per charge.
scientastic 3 years ago
Literally? Thousands? Thousands of people out of....300+ million...wow. That's really...not impressive at all. Not even a little bit. If converting old cars to electric cars was VIABLE, then many more people would do it. They don't. No one wants to spend thousands of hard-earned dollars for an old car with a 40 mile range, as I said earlier. Until a VIABLE electric car is produced (capable of freeway speeds and a 250-300 mile range), you're not going to see much movement towards EV's.
usamericanz 3 years ago
As I pointed out, it's not hard to get freeway speeds in an electric. Range is a bigger issue, but again, studies show that 80% of people's driving could be done with a range of 60 miles.
The numbers of EVs is small compared to millions, but it is growing quickly. What you fail to realize is that if oil continues to rise, you won't be able to afford to drive a gasoline car that far anyways. When gas is at $5 or $10, suddenly having a second electric car for shorter trips doesn't sound so bad.
scientastic 3 years ago
In addition Mr. Scientastic, Mr. Usamericanz used the phrase "highway speeds." We all know the vast amounts of petroleum that could be saved by slowing down. At the present juncture, this is culturally and politically untenable. However, when gas hits 10 a gallon many people will be driving little four bangers in the slow lane at 55 mph and slipstreaming a tractor trailer. Actually, tell a lie, freight will probable be moved by electric trains at that future eventuality.
drmodestoesq 2 years ago
From Fortune Magazine about the pioneering efforts of Shell's Chief Scientist Harold Vinegar:
"'Harold has broken the code,' says oil shale expert Anton Dammer, director of the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves. Vinegar has developed a cutting-edge technology that according to Shell, will produce large quantities of high-quality oil and be profitable with prices around $30 a barrel."
Seems Shell has figured out they can drill shale oil profitably.
usamericanz 3 years ago
Shell spin. Google for a report entitled "The Illusive Bonanza: Oil Shale in Colorado: Pulling the Sword from the Stone" which analyzes these claims. By the way, they also cite the Rand report you mentioned.
scientastic 3 years ago
Copied from an extensive article about oil shale:
"Given the outlook for petroleum, there seems to be little doubt that the U.S. will have an oil-shale industry. The question is, when? The DOE report by Bunger, et al., said shale oil production could reach 2 million bbl/d by 2020, if government and industry agreed on the urgency of a program. Today, Bunger says, 'we were probably a little aggressive about that. The way things are now, I'd say we could have a 1-million-bbl/d industry by 2020.'"
scientastic 3 years ago
And, given that by 2020 we will probably be facing a multi-million barrel per day shortage, this will not solve the problem.
Again, I'm not saying we should not do this. I'm merely pointing out that we need to stop hanging our hopes on fossil fuels and become FAR more aggressive about alternatives and getting off oil. I simply don't believe we will be able to drill our way out of this, so we better do the smart thing and start preparing for a world with much less oil.
scientastic 3 years ago
EAT ONE
ballav420 3 years ago
And why is Congress saying NO to this?
leo2kid 3 years ago
Because they are all raging liberals who have bought into the retarded "save the planet go green" bullshit
rchelifreak 3 years ago
Because it uses MORE energy than you get out of burning it.
It makes FAR more sense to just use the electricity you would use to heat it to run electric vehicles.
No one gives a shit about the environment, they can rely on the perfectly acceptable reason THAT IT DOESN'T MAKE A DIME.
nucflashevent 3 years ago
In fact, as the video points out, oil shale doesn't have actual oil. It's kerogen, and needs to be cooked to get it out and into oil form. Operations exist in parts of the world to extract it profitably, but they require basically strip-mining and hauling it off to cookers. Shell's project to cook it in-situ is interesting, but probably won't be able to be ramped up to the level of production we need. In the big picture, oil shale will not "save" us. Why not move to renewables instead?
scientastic 3 years ago
"Why not move to renewables instead?"
Because there are no renewable energy sources sufficient and viable enough to replace fossil fuels...if there were, private companies would be all over them. They don't exist. It's a liberal fantasy. Oil shale DOES exist, as does the technology to liquefy it and pump it out. The Shell technology you spoke of has advanced even further in recent years, and is looking very promising.
meanwhile, if you want to strap a sail to the roof of your car, be my guest.
usamericanz 3 years ago
You are half right. We can't expect to use renewables and continue to live the wasteful lifestyle we live now, which are fueled by a temporary subsidy in the form of fossil fuels. But renewable sources of energy are good enough to live a decently advanced life. Meanwhile, fossil fuels will continue to skyrocket in price until renewables are price-competitive. However, by then it may be too late to avoid major economic fallout in the transition. We should have started preparing 20 years ago.
scientastic 3 years ago
We should have expanded DRILLING 20 years ago is what we should have done - it is
tree-hugging radical environmentalists that scare the balls off most politicians, unfortunately. There is NO reason, none, why oil exploration and researching alternative fuels cannot run in parallel - we should be looking for viable renewables sources of energy AND we should be drilling anywhere and everywhere we possibly can to reduce our dependency on foreign oil.
We need to do it all.
usamericanz 3 years ago
As to renewables being a "liberal fantasy"... this is one fairly conservative fellow who wants FREEDOM-- freedom from dependence on unfriendly regimes and nations, freedom from a depleting, finite resource, freedom from OIL in short. Renewables are no fantasy... they are expensive, but once you have a renewable source of energy installed, you are truly energy FREE and independent.
The fantasy is that we can continue to rely on oil and conduct business as usual.
scientastic 3 years ago
hey, i want freedom from fossil fuels too, but VIABLE renewable energy, at least insofar as energy capable of powering cars, trucks, planes, etc., simply does not exist. My definition of viable includes affordability...I would love to own a Tesla electric car, but I don't have 100K to buy one. We're stuck with oil for the foreseeable future, and what is frustrating is the obstructionist tactics of the left about things like off-shore drilling, shale, etc. We NEED these sources of energy NOW.
usamericanz 3 years ago
I agree we need as many sources of energy as possible, but don't write off renewables as a "liberal fantasy" and don't expect oil to ever be as cheap as it was. The facts are that the cheap, easy oil is getting more scarce, and the more expensive stuff INCLUDING oil shale is what we have left. I say, bite the bullet and get off oil now. The sooner the better.
scientastic 3 years ago
The way liberals hang their collective hats on "renewable energy" IS, in fact, a fantasy. There are NO viable renewable sources of energy efficient enough and affordable enough to power our economy. NONE. I'm not saying we shouldn't continue to look for them - but right now, there are none. Oil, on the other hand, works and works well. With existing oil field yields dwindling, we need to aggressively explore for new oil fields in places where oil is likely to be - offshore, ANWR, shale, etc.
usamericanz 3 years ago
The way some conservatives (not all) hang their hats on oil and "drilling our way out of this" is also a fantasy. We are caught between a rock and a hard place. Get used to it. You say no renewable sources are affordable enough. Not yet, but at the rate oil prices are going, they soon will be.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not against drilling where we must. I just have no illusions about the fact that it will not "save" us. We have to do the hard work and get off oil before it ruins us.
scientastic 3 years ago
An example of over-hyping our resources. Fairly recently, people were hyping reports of up to 400 BILLION barrels of oil in the Bakken formation. The USGS came out and said that was a myth. Their estimate is 4.3 billion barrels of "technically recoverable" oil... economically recoverable will be about half that, at today's prices. That's nothing to sneeze at, but it's 100 times LESS than the hype, and far less than we use in a single year in this country alone.
scientastic 3 years ago
There's over-hyping and there's under-hyping. The original estimate of the oil yield at Prudhoe Bay was 10 billion barrels..turned out to be 25 billion barrels. The Brazilians recently discovered a new oil field in the Atlantic (we can't even explore for oil off our own eastern coastline)- early estimates are it could yield over 30 billion barrels.
Point is, some countries, like Brazil, are seeking out and finding oil at a time when many people thought there was no more to be found. Why not us?
usamericanz 3 years ago
Of the 25 billion barrels in Prudhoe Bay, how much is recoverable? Research project. It's only 13 billion.
Be careful what numbers you use. Do the research for yourself. Also keep in mind several facts: the world USES 30 billion barrels a year, so we need discoveries the size of Brazil's EVERY YEAR just to stay in place. And Brazil's finds are being touted as some of the largest in DECADES.
Face reality: we will find more oil, but the days of CHEAP oil are over.
scientastic 3 years ago
Are you deliberately avoiding the actual point I was making? The original point, which was apparently lost, was that no one really knows what an oil field is going to yield until the testing and exploratory wells are complete. We may find more or less oil than originally estimated, but we won't find ANY if we don't continue to drill, and drill in the areas where oil likely exists, like ANWR, offshore, etc.
usamericanz 3 years ago
And my point is simply that we can't pin our hopes on drilling alone, that we have to throw AT LEAST as much effort into GETTING OFF OIL as we do on drilling. I've said I'm not against drilling... my main concern is that for far too many people it becomes a distraction from doing the inevitable hard work of weaning ourselves from oil.
I don't know how much oil will be recovered, but it certainly won't be enough to fill the gap we face. So it's all moot unless we focus HARD on alternatives too.
scientastic 3 years ago
The main message I'm trying to get across is that we need to change focus. The scale of the problem is so great that any new drilling we do is just a stopgap: it may buy us a little bit of time, but not much. The numbers don't add up to what we need.
So, we need to have a paradigm shift. TODAY is the time for investing in the alternative technologies we need, not some far-off hazy future for our grandchildren. Stop clinging so hard onto the fuel of the past.
scientastic 3 years ago
To bolster my case, here are some numbers. It doesn't matter whether there are 800 billion barrels... I don't dispute that. What matters is how fast can we get at it. The quote from industry insider Bunger (posted further down) basically says it is optimistic to get 1 million barrels a day by 2020. Meanwhile, we need to replace an estimated 3.3 million barrels a day of decline in existing fields EVERY YEAR. By 2020, that is almost 40 million barrels a day. Oil shale helps... a TINY bit.
scientastic 3 years ago
As pointed out elsewhere, shale may be technically possible but will NOT bring back the days of cheap oil. Drilling in ANWR may help a little-- by pennies on the gallon and only about 10 years from now. Offshore there is probably more oil than ANWR but drilling is expensive and rigs are hard to come by right now.
Let's get real. The scale of the problem is such that if we expect to continue to use oil like we do now, all these are like trying to kill an elephant with a BB gun.
scientastic 3 years ago
Tesla targeted the high-end market because that's where they could make a truly "viable" car as you call it. Their business plans are to move down the scale and start producing family sedans, as technology improves and becomes cheaper. In a few years they want to be a full-scale automobile company. It's not a fantasy.
If we put half the energy into alternatives as we do into shouting "DRILL DRILL DRILL" then we MIGHT actually FREE OURSELVES! It's technically possible, but not easy...
scientastic 3 years ago
you said that it requires ALMOST as much energy not as much, so how would that make it a net energy deficit?
gop4life109 3 years ago
He said it "borders on" a net energy deficit, not that it actually was.
scientastic 3 years ago
What an absolute snow job! They didn't even bother to mention that to extract the shale oil requires almost as much energy as is produced by the shale oil itself (most of which comes from already scarce natural gas!) this means the whole production borders on a net energy deficit!
ads998 3 years ago
How can I buy stock options?
Daisytoo 3 years ago
Shells in-situ seems like a better option. It can get more oil out of the shale.
badboy94590 4 years ago
I'll believe it when they start producing and selling the oil.
In the meantime, let's not bet our economic and national future on something that's not proven.
Another point that's been mentioned repeatedly is that even if it IS economical, the rate at which it can be extracted is far too slow to supply more than a fraction of our demand.
scientastic 3 years ago