GAO: Recoverable Shale Oil in Wyoming, Utah, and Colorado more than Proven Reserves in the Entire World

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 12, 2012 7:39 PM GMT
    The good news? Peak oil? Bumpkis.

    [url]http://science.house.gov/sites/republicans.science.house.gov/files/documents/hearings/HHRG-112-%20SY20-WState-AMittal-20120510.pdf[/url]

    The Green River Formation—an assemblage of over 1,000 feet of sedimentary rocks that lie beneath parts of Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming—contains the world’s largest deposits of oil shale. USGS estimates that the Green River Formation contains about 3 trillion barrels of oil, and about half of this may be recoverable, depending on available technology and economic conditions. The Rand Corporation, a nonprofit research organization, estimates that 30 to 60 percent of the oil shale in the Green River Formation can be recovered. At the midpoint of this estimate, almost half of the 3 trillion barrels of oil would be recoverable. This is an amount about equal to the entire world’s proven oil reserves.


    More here: http://mjperry.blogspot.ca/2012/05/200-year-supply-of-oil-in-green-river.html
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 12, 2012 7:47 PM GMT
    riddler78 saidThe good news? Peak oil? Bumpkis.

    [url]http://science.house.gov/sites/republicans.science.house.gov/files/documents/hearings/HHRG-112-%20SY20-WState-AMittal-20120510.pdf[/url]

    The Green River Formation—an assemblage of over 1,000 feet of sedimentary rocks that lie beneath parts of Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming—contains the world’s largest deposits of oil shale. USGS estimates that the Green River Formation contains about 3 trillion barrels of oil, and about half of this may be recoverable, depending on available technology and economic conditions. The Rand Corporation, a nonprofit research organization, estimates that 30 to 60 percent of the oil shale in the Green River Formation can be recovered. At the midpoint of this estimate, almost half of the 3 trillion barrels of oil would be recoverable. This is an amount about equal to the entire world’s proven oil reserves.


    More here: http://mjperry.blogspot.ca/2012/05/200-year-supply-of-oil-in-green-river.html


    Grenn River Valley? That's up a bunch from previous estimates of 1.7 to 2.5 trillion barrels.

    long live the V8

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 12, 2012 8:07 PM GMT
    And do you want to know the reason why they're not doing this? It costs far more to mine and produce shale oil than it does to drill for crude oil. It is also far more environmentally destructive than petroleum.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_shale#Environmental_considerations

    Mining oil shale involves a number of environmental impacts, more pronounced in surface mining than in underground mining. They include acid drainage induced by the sudden rapid exposure and subsequent oxidation of formerly buried materials, the introduction of metals including mercury into surface-water and groundwater, increased erosion, sulfur-gas emissions, and air pollution caused by the production of particulates during processing, transport, and support activities. In 2002, about 97% of air pollution, 86% of total waste and 23% of water pollution in Estonia came from the power industry, which uses oil shale as the main resource for its power production.

    Oil-shale extraction can damage the biological and recreational value of land and the ecosystem in the mining area. Combustion and thermal processing generate waste material. In addition, the atmospheric emissions from oil shale processing and combustion include carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas. Environmentalists oppose production and usage of oil shale, as it creates even more greenhouse gases than conventional fossil fuels. Section 526 of the Energy Independence And Security Act prohibits United States government agencies from buying oil produced by processes that produce more greenhouse gas emissions than would traditional petroleum. Experimental in situ conversion processes and carbon capture and storage technologies may reduce some of these concerns in the future, but at the same time they may cause other problems, including groundwater pollution. Among the water contaminants commonly associated with oil shale processing are oxygen and nitrogen heterocyclic hydrocarbons. Commonly detected examples include quinoline derivatives, pyridine, and various alkyl homologues of pyridine (picoline, lutidine).

    Some commentators have expressed concerns over the oil shale industry's use of water. In 2002, the oil shale-fired power industry used 91% of the water consumed in Estonia. Depending on technology, above-ground retorting uses between one and five barrels of water per barrel of produced shale-oil. A 2008 programmatic environmental impact statement issued by the US Bureau of Land Management stated that surface mining and retort operations produce 2 to 10 US gallons (7.6 to 38 l; 1.7 to 8.3 imp gal) of waste water per 1 short ton (0.91 t) of processed oil shale. In situ processing, according to one estimate, uses about one-tenth as much water.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 12, 2012 8:08 PM GMT
    Dagomir saidAnd do you want to know the reason why they're not doing this? It costs far more to mine and produce shale oil than it does to drill for crude oil. It is also far more environmentally destructive than petroleum.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_shale#Environmental_considerations

    Mining oil shale involves a number of environmental impacts, more pronounced in surface mining than in underground mining. They include acid drainage induced by the sudden rapid exposure and subsequent oxidation of formerly buried materials, the introduction of metals including mercury into surface-water and groundwater, increased erosion, sulfur-gas emissions, and air pollution caused by the production of particulates during processing, transport, and support activities. In 2002, about 97% of air pollution, 86% of total waste and 23% of water pollution in Estonia came from the power industry, which uses oil shale as the main resource for its power production.

    Oil-shale extraction can damage the biological and recreational value of land and the ecosystem in the mining area. Combustion and thermal processing generate waste material. In addition, the atmospheric emissions from oil shale processing and combustion include carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas. Environmentalists oppose production and usage of oil shale, as it creates even more greenhouse gases than conventional fossil fuels. Section 526 of the Energy Independence And Security Act prohibits United States government agencies from buying oil produced by processes that produce more greenhouse gas emissions than would traditional petroleum. Experimental in situ conversion processes and carbon capture and storage technologies may reduce some of these concerns in the future, but at the same time they may cause other problems, including groundwater pollution. Among the water contaminants commonly associated with oil shale processing are oxygen and nitrogen heterocyclic hydrocarbons. Commonly detected examples include quinoline derivatives, pyridine, and various alkyl homologues of pyridine (picoline, lutidine).

    Some commentators have expressed concerns over the oil shale industry's use of water. In 2002, the oil shale-fired power industry used 91% of the water consumed in Estonia. Depending on technology, above-ground retorting uses between one and five barrels of water per barrel of produced shale-oil. A 2008 programmatic environmental impact statement issued by the US Bureau of Land Management stated that surface mining and retort operations produce 2 to 10 US gallons (7.6 to 38 l; 1.7 to 8.3 imp gal) of waste water per 1 short ton (0.91 t) of processed oil shale. In situ processing, according to one estimate, uses about one-tenth as much water.


    It's useful to point out that while technology may not be there yet, there have been significant developments in recent years that allow for safer, cleaner and cheaper extraction - which is precisely why natural gas prices are so much lower than oil prices currently.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 07, 2012 3:10 AM GMT
    It would seem that Russia also has a ridiculous amount of shale gas and you can bet that they won't hesitate to develop these resources.

    Interesting development:
    http://nextbigfuture.com/2012/06/bazhenov-neocomian-oil-formation-covers.html

    Forbes - another oil shale play that dwarfs the Bakken. It’s called The Bazhenov. It’s in Western Siberia, in Russia. And while the Bakken is big, the Bazhenov — according to a report last week by Sanford Bernstein’s lead international oil analyst Oswald Clint — “covers 2.3 million square kilometers or 570 million acres, which is the size of Texas and the Gulf of Mexico combined.” This is 80 times bigger than the Bakken.

    Note : This formation has 126 trillion barrels of oil equivalent biomass If the Bazhenov is Similar to Bakken, then a year 2000 estimate of 140 to 210 billion barrels of recoverable oil could be 15 to 100 times too low. The increase would be because of the improved horizontal drilling technology enabling a higher recover rate.
  • mke_bt

    Posts: 707

    Jun 07, 2012 3:19 AM GMT

    President Jimmy Carter was pushing shale oil back in the late 70's. They all laughed. Imagine where we would be now.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 07, 2012 3:24 AM GMT
    mke_bt said
    President Jimmy Carter was pushing shale oil back in the late 70's. They all laughed. Imagine where we would be now.


    The advances were really recent - I think it required a number of other technologies to come together to really make it viable.

    I don't buy the idea thought that we have Carter to thank for this though - for the same reason that I believe that solar power will one day be ubiquitous and extraordinarily cheap. There's a cost curve that has to be overcome - and that just takes time and momentum. Governments can try to over come this but usually it's not sustainable as investments in firms like Solyndra and Konarka show. These things can happen easily on their own with time and more sustainably.

    Meanwhile, Carter will be remembered and credited for his disastrous energy policies in price ceilings that created shortages...
  • mke_bt

    Posts: 707

    Jun 07, 2012 3:45 AM GMT
    riddler78 said
    mke_bt said
    President Jimmy Carter was pushing shale oil back in the late 70's. They all laughed. Imagine where we would be now.


    The advances were really recent - I think it required a number of other technologies to come together to really make it viable.

    I don't buy the idea thought that we have Carter to thank for this though - for the same reason that I believe that solar power will one day be ubiquitous and extraordinarily cheap. There's a cost curve that has to be overcome - and that just takes time and momentum. Governments can try to over come this but usually it's not sustainable as investments in firms like Solyndra and Konarka show. These things can happen easily on their own with time and more sustainably.

    Meanwhile, Carter will be remembered and credited for his disastrous energy policies in price ceilings that created shortages...


    I never tried to sell you the idea that Carter was to thank for this. Just stated that he was pushing it. You're really good at twisting words.