LINK: Oil Shale Reserves If we have 1.5 trillion barrels of shale oil (that's about 5 times the stated reserves in KSA), then why don't we develop it and use that as an energy source? Why continue to waste time in and on the ME? IMO they having nothing of strategic value other than oil and that's probably coming to an end in the next couple of decades. I think most of it is in uninhabited land in the deserts of Colorado and is owned by the US government - so why don't we start utilizing that oil instead of wasting billions in Iraq and Afghanistan... and now Libya?
OK, that I can agree with, however, we will still need oil and I had read there's newer methods to extract the oil (such as in a gas form) with less environmental impact. Anyhow, I was just speaking with someone who works in the field and he said his company just canned two nuclear reactors in the US (after spending $350 million) and are now focused on oil shale. Which made me wonder what people thought about shale oil. I support biofuel and visited a few companies last year - very impressing, some are utilizing high end technology ...and so of course I'd rather we went in that direction, along with cutting back on population densities to reach a sort of equilibrium. But, I don't think Biofuel will meet our oil needs and I think it's a waste of money taking it from the ME, so, it seems more reasonable to use our shale oil.
You guys should read FT, its online and up to date: Its no longer uneconomical to extract shale oil. But the military is an employer that cannot be replaced by shale oil technology
Then you have the 24 billion barrels of recoverable oil in the North Dakota. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bakken_formation#History_of_Bakken_oil_generation_estimates And natural gas reserves that can by used as a subsitute for gasoline...burns cleaner and with less stress on engines. http://www.pickensplan.com/theplan2/
The US consumed 6.99 billion barrels of oil in 2010 http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=33&t=6 So, assuming total use of the 1.5 trillion barrels(a bad assumption, as getting to the shale takes a lot of fuel for the heavy equipment) and current demand (ALSO a bad assumption-it increases 2% every year) That would give us 21.40 years of oil, unless I'm putting my decimal places wrong. If you go with 2.1 trillion recoverable, you get thirty years at current consumption. I don't feel like that's cause for a grand celebration. Plus, assume ten years to build a refinery to handle turning it into gasoline. Apparently this new process can process coal, oil shale, wood... http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/04/0418_060418_coal_energy.html But look...can we just please recognize fossil fuels have to be worked away from? please? An economy doesn't turn on a dime. We need to plan this stuff decades in advance, not just keep slapping duct tape on the problems, metaphorically speaking.
Very true. We need a bridge fuel and that bridge fuel is natural gas. We have plenty of natural gas to be self sufficient for many decades to come. Unfortunately those profiting from pollution are the ones sponsoring massive disinformation campaigns - reminiscent of what the cigarette industry did for a good portion of the last century and it worked. http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/ExxonMobil-GlobalWarming-tobacco.html And there are always fool to believe them.
How much LNG is there in the USA? While the US military may be the employer of last resort, they will bend to the will of the Citizenry IF we could get someone in office that actually walks the walk. I mean, the POTUS is Commander in Chief and could in theory cut the US military. The thing is, the Citizens WANT the military because they have zero idea how the economy works.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/17/business/energy-environment/17views.html "Just last month, the Energy Department more than doubled estimates of recoverable shale reserves to 827 trillion cubic feet, the energy equivalent of roughly 140 billion barrels of oil." - New York Times
Because its cheaper. Think about it, if we use it now then sooner or later it will run out. And when it runs out the ME will know that we HAVE to buy from them so they will jack up the price. Essentially its one of our bargaining chips, if they don't keep the prices steady/low then we will stop buying from them until we run out. And that will mean devestation to many of their economies.
Back in the day when I was drilling for oil in Kansas region, it proved uneconomical because the wells typically came in at 3 barrels/day, and with oil at $18/barrel it cost more to service the well than the value of the oil that was pumped out. There was a huge reservoir, but in tight rock, so the wells were slow to produce, even after doing a frac. But with oil at $100/barrel or higher, it becomes economical again. And shale oil is likewise uneconomical at $18/barrel, but becomes very economical at $100/barrel. But the economic policy is to use other countries' oil first, while saving the US reserves for later.
Yeah, and fracking destroys the ground water supply, among other things. They just quit doing this in Missouri due to about 100 "unexplained" earthquakes, most likely from fracking there. Michigan is #2 in NG reserves and right in line for fracking to get at them. The oil and gas companies have been pumping themselves on the tv nonstop for 6 months now, they for sure have plans to frack here soon. I have wells within a mile of my home. They start fracking here and I will go into very serious protest mode. I will have lots of company. No, fracking is far too costly in terms of lives and environmental quality. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Since Missouri sits on top of the nations largest fault, the New Madrid fault, there is nothing suprising about earthquakes in Missouri. They happen all the time. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Madrid_Seismic_Zone There have been allegations of ground water contamination associated with fracking, but this far evidence has been painfully absent. It has yet to be proven that there is any ground water contamination associated with fracking. And there is no evidence to show that fracking causes earthquakes. Most of the natural gas reserves are not on or near fault lines (e.g. Missouri). http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2866701/
The New_Madrid_Seismic_Zone is relatively new. Its 16 Dec1811 quake was the worst ever known to occur in north America . Magnitude ~8 or more than 50 times more powerful than the recent on in Japan! California is also waiting for the "big one" but it should not be nearly as strong - perhaps like the recent one in Japan. Certain sections of the fault line seem to be pinned so as other section move with minor quakes the stress (stored energy) is building up in the pinned section - making the "big one" even bigger when it comes. More than a decade ago, it was suggested thatwhat is now called "fracking" be done in small parts of the pinned section to induce smaller quakes (they hoped) that would relieve some of the accumulating stress. This, AFAIK was never done due to possible damage claims, etc. Perhaps fracking for NG etc. in the New_Madrid_Seismic_Zone may prevent the "Really Big One"? If it is a repeat of the 16Dec1911 one, the wiki article suggests: "...an 8.0 earthquake could do to the New Madrid Region. An earthquake of that size on the New Madrid Fault would destroy 60 percent of Memphis, killing tens of thousands and causing over $50 billion dollars in property damage in the city alone [22]. ..." and "... Federal Emergency Management Agency warned that a serious earthquake in the New Madrid Seismic Zone could result in "the highest economic losses due to a natural disaster in the United States," further predicting "widespread and catastrophic" damage across Alabama, Arkansas, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas, and particularly Tennessee, where a 7.7 magnitude quake or greater would cause damage to tens of thousands of structures affecting water distribution, transportation systems, and other vital infrastructure.[21] The earthquake is expected to also result in many thousands of fatalities, with more than 4,000 of the fatalities expected in Memphis alone. ..." SUMMARY: Dammed if we do and Dammed if we don't, but at least with fracting there will be profits to tax and more domestic energy to use.
BillyT: The recent quake in Japan was pegged at 9.0; far more powerful than the New Madrid quake of two centuries ago.
The lands in Colorado are referred to as the Great American Desert and were set aside to power the US Navy (back in the 1800s). Seeing as in no one really lives there, I think it should be the ideal land to take the oil from???
To distill this down, all we need to do is wait for market prices to adjust properly. Trust me, when it's time, we (Americans) will, in fact, extract, process and distill the shale oil that we have. Just prior to the "Mad-Max" era beginning... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
