BS: Oil Shales

Subject: RE: BS: Oil Shales
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 04 Jul 08 - 10:15 PM

Re Dick Greenhaus post- Some may not know what CAFE is; I am very poorly informed myself. CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) regulations were brought in following the 1973 oil embargo by the Arab states.
As of 2004, regulations required that the overall average for cars produced by a manufacturer exceed 27.5 mpg, and light trucks (inc. SUVs) exceed 20.7 mpg.
In 2006, BMW, Daimler-Chrysler, Volkswagen and some other foreign-owned manufacturers elected to pay CAFE penalties rather than comply with regulations.
The EU and Japan have higher standards than the U. S., but these countries are smaller in size, and Americans-Canadians demand vehicles that are comfortable in long distance driving and are capable of handling larger loads.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration correlates increasing fatalities with CAFE implementation, since lighter, smaller construction is required in addition to motor efficiency. There is some controversy about this.

The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 requires that automakers boost fleetwide gas mileage to 35 mpg by 2020 (there are provisos about practicality, etc.). Many manufacturers have models that approach or equal this standard, but the public has preferred heavier, better equipped models.

Figures in the above are from a quick skim of the Wikipedia entry, which seems to be reasonably accurate.
CAHE

Affluent drivers, regardless of country, have continued to demand comfort, space, speed and performance. Often the cars that they buy are cars on which CAFE penalties have been imposed.

The back cover of "Alberta Oil," the magazine cited in the previous post, advertises the Bentley Continental GTC, the super-luxurious British car, which can be seen in the Calgary showroom. It averages something like 11 mpg city and 18 mpg highway. Gasoline in Calgary is about $5.30 a gallon, but in an affluent city, motorists may complain but cut back very little.

The high fuel cost is exceedingly hard on truckers, some of whom cannot raise their fees to completely cover the cost. In spite of western Canada being a major source of tar sands and natural gas, provincial and Canadian Federal taxes are outrageous, although truckers and farmers get some relief. Billions are piling up in Alberta provincial reserves, but spending on infrastructure and medical facilities is low.

Subject: RE: BS: Oil Shales
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 04 Jul 08 - 08:58 PM

As I recall, the only period since the 50s in which US imports of oil dropped was the direct result of Jimmy Carter's imposition of CAFE regulation for car makers.

Subject: RE: BS: Oil Shales
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 03 Jul 08 - 09:31 PM

According to a report in the oil and gas quarterly, "Alberta Oil," two applications by Imperial Oil (Exxon-Mobil) for Oil Sands developments have been turned back because of the amount of greenhouse gases that will be generated, and the quantities of water required.

Alberta has legislated greenhouse gas reductions (GHG) of 12% for companies that have been in operation for eight or more years. It is a start, but many regard it as a token reduction. New facilities are granted "a proportional reduction in emissions intensity targets, starting at two percent per year beginning in the fourth year of operation."
"At the time of passing, Bill 3 affected approximately 100 facilities that collectively produce about 70% of total GHG emissions in Alberta."
Credits are allowed.

A proposal for reducing greenhouse gases from tar sands operations would see the gases pumped into the Devonian reef rock underlying much of the tar sands. I have not seen feasibility studies.

Interest in nuclear facilities as an energy source for tar sands production is increasing, and a proposal is expected soon.

The magazine is a slick production, subscription $10/copy. They use a new word, "advertorials," to characterize informational articles submitted by companies offering services (e. g., one from Halliburton about new products and services offered to the industry).

Total, the French oil giant, has placed ad adv. advising of their continued search for new oil reserves. - "But because oil is precious, it will be vital to focus its usage in those areas where it is hardest to replace: in transportation and petrochemicals."

Subject: RE: BS: Oil Shales
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 02 Jul 08 - 08:45 PM

OK, you tell me where these oil reserves are that they are sitting on.
Having been associated for my working lifetime in oil exploration with a major, my job was to help find new reserves.

'Good' prospects but not exploited are in the deep offshore, high Arctic, or similar, and will be expensive to develop and market. And, they are just prospects, NOT proven reserves!

The biggest oil reserves are in the hands of Saudi Aramco, not a publicly traded company, and the Saudis are carefully husbanding these reserves, which are their future as well as present source of funds for investment and development. Iraq, Iran, have moderately large reserves.

The oil companies do not set the prices, which are set by supply and demand plus the futures market. They are gaining large profits for their shareholders at this time, as are our governments through taxes, but all of the majors are scrambling for future reserves and researching alternative means of making money for their stockholders.

Major Oil company management, as I have posted elsewhere, own only 1.5% of their companies- the rest are owned by banks, investment concerns, life insurance companies, savings & loan companies, the large pension funds, retirement funds, mutual funds, etc., and individual investors like myself. Profits are invested in exploration, maintenance, salaries for hundreds or thousands of employees in the various companies, paid as dividends to the many shareholders, and paid to the governments in taxes.

If you have interest-paying savings of any kind, you are probably an indirect investor in a major oil company (and in many other companies as well)!

Subject: RE: BS: Oil Shales
From: Stringsinger
Date: 02 Jul 08 - 07:21 PM

There are plenty of oil reserves that the Oil Companies are just sitting on to raise the price of oil.

Subject: RE: BS: Oil Shales
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 01 Jul 08 - 10:36 PM

Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah bemoaned the fact that Utah was getting oil from the Canadian Tar Sands, but nothing was being done with the oil shale in Utah and Colorado. Although one may think that there are similarities, the reality is quite different.
The oil shales (marlstone) are densely consolidated (pretty damn hard rock), and grinding plus much heat is required to extract and liquify the kerogen (organic matter). See Australian pilot projects.

The tar sands are not consolidated or cemented into rock, but are sand, which can be separated easily by digging and washing. Large quantities of water, with natural gas used to heat the water, are used to separate the hydrocarbons from the sand and put them into a pipeline to an upgrader.
Apart from the protobitumens, the paleontologist finds much of interest- microplankton, plant spores and pollen, all sorts of plant bits, all of Cretaceous age. The sands are near shore deposits.

Two-four tons of sand yield one barrel of oil. At the Syncrude mine, the sands are dug up by huge shovels and dumped into giant trucks, which carry 400 tons each to the crusher, where the sand is pulverized. Then to the cyclofeeders where the sands are mixed with boiling water. Next are gigantic centrifuges, where the bitumen is separated out. The bitumen is sent to giant cokers and roasted with hydrogen into what they call "Syncrude sweet blend."
The used water is collected in toxic tailings ponds. A monster hole, the largest of any mining operation in the world, results. Greenhouse gases are emitted at a rate greater than any other industrial complex.
Envisioned are some 5 million bbls/day, with pipelines into the States. A toxic moonscape will surely result if the projects are carried out.

Chevron will use a different method at their northern Alberta site. "Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage" is an in-situ process that uses steam and horizontal drilling to extract the bitumen. Steam is injected through the upper well, and the heated bitumen flows with condensed water to the lower well, from which it is lifted to the surface for upgrading. It is hoped that each well pair will produce 1000 plus bbl/day. Natural gas is used to fuel the steam generators.
Shell Oil and Western Sands probably will share in the project.

This method has been proposed for the oil shales, but with no porosity, hard shale, and organic matter requiring at least 500 C heat to mobilize it, I have doubts about practicality.

One hell of an environmental disturbance!

It is much better to buy oil from conventional sources, but in the meantime, alternative energy resources should be developed.

Some of the oil majors are heavily researching alternatives. BP is one of the largest producers of solar panels through a subsidiary company. The major oil companies are not wedded to oil- they are wedded to the profits that shareholders want, and to continuing profits long into the future. Several are working with fuel cells. Shell oil is researching algae as an alternative source.

Subject: RE: BS: Oil Shales
From: Greg F.
Date: 01 Jul 08 - 08:48 AM

The problem as I see it is that the big oil and other energy companies are only interested in short time profit.

That's not a problem, that's Capitalism. Damn good thing Ronnie Reagan & his subsequent NeoCon clones de-regulated industry & "got government off our backs". Its worked a real treat, hasn't it?


We MUST get out from under the yoke of OPEC.

On beyond fatuous- "The yoke of Opec". What the U.S. needs to get out from under is the yoke of oil addiction, the yoke of the SUV, and the yoke of wasteful dickheadism in general.

Subject: RE: BS: Oil Shales
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 01 Jul 08 - 12:13 AM

Foolstroupe, correct you are- should be millions. But with everyone talking billions on takeovers, and Congress voting to support U. S. forces in Iraq for another year, perhaps you will forgive me for inflating the costs on the oil shale.

A google adv. at the base of this thread says that the Bakken shale oil reserve is ten times larger than Alaska's North Slope. Unless something new and dramatic in processing is found, much of hype for the deposits is pie in the sky. Water is critical in much of the western states and prairie provinces. The blurb talks of horizontal drilling (directional drilling is an old technique) but they don't say how the organic matter will be converted to liquid hydrocarbons. They talk of cheap extraction, but I don't see that in my crystal ball.
Moreover their guesstimate of 40 billion bbls on the North Slope is pie in the sky as well. Prudhoe Bay production is on the down slope, much before the time guesstimated by the politicians.

Subject: RE: BS: Oil Shales
From: pdq
Date: 30 Jun 08 - 09:08 PM

"a billion here, a billion there, pretty soon you're talking about real money."

Subject: RE: BS: Oil Shales
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 30 Jun 08 - 08:58 PM

"The Queensland and Australian governments have spent some Aus$380 billion on tests."

I'm sure there is an error there - we don't HAVE that much money... million perhaps...

Subject: RE: BS: Oil Shales
From: Bill D
Date: 30 Jun 08 - 07:48 PM

way back up there I messed up my HTML

Here is that history of mining in the West

Subject: RE: BS: Oil Shales
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 30 Jun 08 - 06:23 PM

Water seems to be a major bottleneck in the exploitation of Oil Shale. The biggest deposits seem to be in the areas most affected by drought. As valuable as the energy might be, I don't see the possibility of billions of gallons of water being diverted from cities like Denver, Canberra or Los Angeles for its extraction.

Subject: RE: BS: Oil Shales
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 30 Jun 08 - 02:26 PM

Oil shale guesstimates for Australia are some 30 billion barrels (Stuart Fm. etc.). The oil shales would be mined, and then thermally treated (pyrolysis)to generate liquid hydrocarbons.
The Queensland and Australian governments have spent some Aus$380 billion on tests.
The projects are on hold. Not only cost is a factor, Greenpeace and others have raised strong objections. Much thermal energy (500 C) is required to convert the organic matter (kerogen) into hydrocarbons. Water also is a requirement.

Subject: RE: BS: Oil Shales
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 30 Jun 08 - 12:30 PM

It should be added that it may take some time for the contracts to be finalized and implemented. Iraq is still three governments in one (Shia, Sunni and Kurd) and getting agreement may be a slow process.

Subject: RE: BS: Oil Shales
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 30 Jun 08 - 11:54 AM

Iraq is selecting operators for their oil and gas fields. Selected so far are Total (French), BP (UK), Royal Dutch Shell (Netherlands), and Exxon-Mobil (USA). It is likely that Chevron (USA) will be selected as well.
Although Rice and the U. S. State Department say that they had no part in selection of the operators ("The United States Government has stayed out of the matter of awarding the Iraqi oil contracts," "It's a private sector matter."), U. S. government officials provided specific advice on contract construction, with some help from major companies.
Iraqi membership in OPEC will continue, in my opinion.

Russia is upset because their Lukoil had made a contract with Saddam Hussein, which has been voided. It is possible that Russia will receive a consolation contract.

This doesn't involve oil shales, but with the (estimated) third largest reserves, the contracts will help the European Union and the United States to meet their increasing needs, thus is important to oil pricing and stability for the West.

The story is fairly well covered by the BBC News (see Stigweard link), and today's NY Times (2008/06/30).
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/30/world/middleeast/30contract.html?pagewanted=28_r=1&th&emc=th

Subject: RE: BS: Oil Shales
From: Stu
Date: 30 Jun 08 - 05:56 AM

Sorry, the link should read Nigeria. Time for another cup of (decaf) coffee.

Subject: RE: BS: Oil Shales
From: Stu
Date: 30 Jun 08 - 04:28 AM

Good news from the front: GWB's belligerence might be about to start showing returns in Iraq as the big oil companies finally move in.

After all, the oil companies have acted so responsibly and with due care inhttp://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0702/feature3/index.html, bringing wealth and benefits for all (rich white oilmen), except the people who actually live there (poor black Africans).

Subject: RE: BS: Oil Shales
From: Sandy Mc Lean
Date: 30 Jun 08 - 12:03 AM

Q said " I do not expect to see cheap oil again."
I suppose that "cheap" is subjective but we will perhaps not see a large price drop. The problem is rapid inflationary increases from this time foreward. This not only hurts the consumer but threatens the economic stability of the world. No government except possibly Venezuela (and Newfoundland's Danny Williams) has the balls or desire to take on the oil industry.

Subject: RE: BS: Oil Shales
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 29 Jun 08 - 10:51 PM

DougR, you give OPEC too much credit. The oil-producing nations all go along with their actions to stabilize the market. OPEC stepped out of this position in 1973 when they instituted embargos because of the U. S. support of Israel, but since then, stability is their object.

The three countries which supply the most petroleum to the United States are Canada, Saudi Arabia and Mexico, in that order.
Neither Canada nor Mexico are members, but oil producers all go along.
OPEC members do account for about one third of oil production.
The strongly rising demand, from China, India, and the growing industrialization of Korea, Malaysia, Australia and other nations, as well as U. S. demands for increased production are putting pressure on OPEC controls. It is hard to predict just what will happen.

The Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia itself, are industralizing. The oil will not last forever, and increased sales mortgage their future

United States was an OPEC member via the Coalition Provisional Authority when it formally occupied Iraq, 2003-2004. Iraq has retained its membershio in OPEC.
OPEC is willing to take on new member states, and several have resigned for various reasons.

Of course, if the U. S. has viable prospects, they should be explored unless disruptive of the environment. There are prospects offshore or in the oil shales, but the former are unknown as to volumes, and the latter require $150/bbl approx. for them to be viable. The offshore areas under U. S. jurisdiction need approval from Congress, and development of regulations for their control.

No matter what is found, I do not expect to see cheap oil again. The pressure of demand is too great.

Subject: RE: BS: Oil Shales
From: DougR
Date: 29 Jun 08 - 08:33 PM

I say, drill as soon as possible in any area of the U.S.where it is known that oil or gas is available. We MUST get out from under the yoke of OPEC.

Also, exploration of other energy alternatives to oil and gas should be put on the fast track.

Someone, it may have been Q, said that we should have started distancing ourselves from OPEC in the 1970's. I agree.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Oil Shales
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 29 Jun 08 - 02:00 PM

What Bill D. describes is the fate of land that was stripped and not properly 'reclaimed.' The land ends up as sort of a no mans land, which people nearby use as a dump because the land is useless for most purposes. Some of the land in Illinois that is newly reclaimed gets the same treatment; despite keep out warnings and threats of fines, the land is used for drunken parties, dumping, illegal hunting, etc.
-----------------------------

The object of the management of any company is profit. The energy companies are no worse than the rest in that regard.
The directors of a company are responsible to the shareholders, who want a return on their investments. Shareholders vote on company policies and direction. Shareholders may scan the proposals, but most just return the signed forms or consign them to the wastebasket.
Occasionally there is a shareholders revolt, but most of us, the public, don't rock the boat. As long as we receive dividends, we are happy and don't worry about the company's direction.
Those of us who have money invested in savings funds, retirement and pension funds, life insurance, bank deposits, etc., know that the funds are invested to make the interest or money that they pay you or add to your savings. The companies also receive their proxys, which usually are signed automatically and returned without thought, unless they are unhappy enough with the investment that they join a revolt- but nearly always, they just sell the stock and move on to another investment. No one complains.

Who is ultimately responsible for the direction and actions of a company? It is the investor, large or small.

Oil company exploration IS long term. Exploration, planning and finally development takes years. A large professional staff, in the laboratory, in the field, in the land department, the tax and accounting divisions, etc., is involved. Consultants from several fields may be brought in. It may be a long time before the company gets its money back and makes a profit on a particular project.
The tar sands are an example; many years work and many employees working in many special fields of study are behind the current realization of profits.

Beaufort slope exploration is another Canadian example. Pilot studies on how to build ice islands (those of us who watched the large scale experiments carried out in a large artificial pool, using the expertise of engineers from several fields of study, won't forget the experience), the research of permafrost scientists, both company and government, the contributing university experts on the Arctic slope, the many in-company geologists, geophysicists, paleontologists, sedimentologists, geochemists and engineers and logistics specialists- a very large group indeed. It will be some years before significant profits are gained, if ever.

Subject: RE: BS: Oil Shales
From: pdq
Date: 29 Jun 08 - 12:43 PM

From the "unpleasant" link in the Bill D post:

"Take in deep breaths of furnace oil as you view the punctured and dismembered tanks positioned along the roadways. Don't forget to view the heaps of roofing shingles, complete with their buckets of tar - especially the ones where attempts were make to burn them, forming abstract sculptures made by dripping then setting. Marvel at the autos only the insurance fraud artists who placed them there could identify, being burnt and stripped beyond recognition. Take a load off by taking a break on the many sofas artfully arranged throughout the site."

What that describes is illegal dumping of local garbage. Sounds more like the average vacant lot in New York, New Jersey, or perhaps Los Angeles County.

Putting fresh dirt back over land that has been mined for coal is not as pretty as most of us would like, but the mining is necessary. Please do not exagerate, it does not strengthen your case.

Subject: RE: BS: Oil Shales
From: Bill D
Date: 29 Jun 08 - 10:34 AM

Q mentions "overburden", which means basically the topsoil and/or whatever combination of 'stuff' was covering the area being dug up to find coal, shale, oil sands...etc.
I have seen attempts to replace this in W. Virginia and Kansas, and anyone can see that they were only marginally successful. It will be even worse in the West, where 'overburden' may only be ½"-2" of 'soil'. The coal or oil, undisturbed where it was created,is seldom a problem, but once dug into and, inevitably, partially mixed with the 'saved' overburden, creates runoff problems as Q notes. You simply cannot DO such mining on a large scale without seriously altering the ways the land can be used in the future.....and farmland & forest are scarce enough already. Even in areas where little or no farming or forests are involved, the aesthetic results are ummmm.. unpleasant

Here is some history of mining in the West

*IF* money and pressure are allowed to convince government to use significant amounts of oil shale and related resources, we merely extend the date when there is no more, and as a side-effect, delay the study of renewable energy sources.

Subject: RE: BS: Oil Shales
From: Sandy Mc Lean
Date: 29 Jun 08 - 02:33 AM

The problem as I see it is that the big oil and other energy companies are only interested in short time profit. CEO's make a profit show on the annual balance sheet bottom line, grab the golden handshake and stock option and get out before the roof falls in.
The technical ability to store energy is the root of the problem. Potential Energy from eons past is already stored in oil and natural gas deposits and the equipment needed to exploit it is already in place. If the reserves drop the old law of supply and demand will up the price and keep the profit flowing long enough to grab that executive bonus.
In order to properly plan for alternative energy to come on stream there is a lag factor of several to many years and it holds no attraction for those seeking short term results. Energy can be generated cheaply from wind, water, and sunlight but it is kinetic energy and it must be used right away. More expensive processes must be used to convert it to potential energy.
The technology to use hydrogen as an alternative pollution free fuel has been with us for many years. The development of fuel cell technology makes this even more efficient and it will eventually come to pass but...........
It is the big oil companies who control the storage and distribution of existing energy sources. They are making huge profit doing so and show little desire to put in place any expensive hydrogen distribution and storage system. Why would they as long as the millions and billions of dollars pour in? They exist to make a profit, not to provide a service that would require a subsidy.
Eventually government intervention will force alternatives but only in reaction to perceived crisis and it will probably result in even larger profit for those who refuse to use foresight now. Capitalism has failed the little guy badly in energy supply but he/she still votes in the Bush and Harper governments who keep kissing the oil executive arses. On and on it goes.............

Subject: RE: BS: Oil Shales
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 28 Jun 08 - 11:54 PM

Bill D is correct; experimentally methods such as burning in situ, heating by various other methods using horizontal driling, etc., have not worked practically. The monster holes being dug in the formerly boreal forest of northeastern Alberta, and the clearing of land surrounding them, look like something seen on barren planets. Partial filling, and lakes are planned, but the concentrated contaminants, I am afraid, will leave scars for at least a century regardless of reclamation efforts.

In Illinois, I have seen where the overburden has been restored and planted after strip-mining of coal layers, but the ecology of the area is changed. Although covered by four feet of soil slurry by regulation, acid leaks from the former coal bed site. The reclaimed areas are turned into wetlands or grasslands but the land, which was prime agricultural land before stripping, will not return completely to that state, although massive amounts of limestone (50-75 tons/acre) are tilled into the soil and covers like winter wheat are planted. Acidity can leach upward years later, so the problem is not completely solved.
This article, "From Wastelands to Wetlands," Southern Illinois University, is too optimistically cast, in my opinion, but is shows what is being done. Written eight years ago, I know of no advances in the field since then.
Wasstelands to Wetlands

Subject: RE: BS: Oil Shales
From: Bill D
Date: 28 Jun 08 - 10:53 PM

Unfortunately, it is not 'drilling'....it is scraping & gouging, and any plan to 'restore' what is left will be judged as too expensive.....watch!

Subject: RE: BS: Oil Shales
From: Rapparee
Date: 28 Jun 08 - 10:44 PM

The Bakken Field will be exploited, just as the fields in Wyoming are being exploited.

I have no quarrel with drilling the oil shales IF there is long term planning which takes into account the eventual depletion of the resource and which will not leave a "blasted heath" behind.

We should use what we have now (with care) and work for the future. It could have started in the 1970s, but....

Subject: RE: BS: Oil Shales
From: Bill D
Date: 28 Jun 08 - 10:34 PM

It is sad that there are so many like 'guest', who are willing to believe ANY rumor, lie or conspiracy theory if it helps support their basic distrust of government. I am assuming that 'guest' never even tried to absorb carefully presented material from Q, a professional in the field, before stating that "oil is a renewable resource". As I have noted before, ONE guy is largely responsible for that myth, and his theories are NOT accepted by 99% of those who are qualified to assess the idea. Oil as a limited, temporary resource has NOT "been thoroughly debunked".

ALL possible sources of energy should be explored...even those which can only be utilized in a limited, local way. Wind, solar, tidal, ethanol.... Every little bit helps..

And if we'd seriously do something about population growth, we'd automatically make progress on energy consumption.

I would HATE to see the oil shale areas seriously exploited, as that involves enormous amounts of fragile land dug up.

Subject: RE: BS: Oil Shales
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 28 Jun 08 - 09:38 PM

Janie, well said. Rapacious exploration without careful planning fouls our nest (the earth and seas) and hurts us all.

Subject: RE: BS: Oil Shales
From: Janie
Date: 28 Jun 08 - 09:25 PM

John,

A combination of rapaciousness and lack of awareness of consequences has tilted the balance so radically that a very strong environmental protectionism is necessary to try to get back to the "middle."    Rapaciousness is still more the norm than not (and I am not just talking about "big money". the big money is there because of the market that individuals create by their demands.)    The environment of the earth is seriously compromised, and a strong tilt toward "pristine" is the only hope of bringing the environment back into sustainable balance. That tilt, however, is not likely to occur rapidly enough or steeply enough. Rapacious use continues at an alarming speed, only slightly checked by environmental advocacy.   The short-term matters very, very much. The industries that have the capacity to develop and exploit the Western World's rapacious appetite continue to have much, much more money to buy influence among policy makers than do environmental advocates. Environmental advocates mainly have the long, slow, ability of changing public opinion and patterns of consumption over time.   A long time. And there is not much time.

I don't agree that environmentmentalism, over time, represents an inherent demand for the pristine. I simply think that environmentalism recognizes that for now and for the foreseeable future, radical preservation, conservation, and reversal in trends of consumption are absolutely necessary to counter the effects our our "dominion over the earth" to try to insure a sustainable environment.

Subject: RE: BS: Oil Shales
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 28 Jun 08 - 09:12 PM

"Elite of the world" Omigod!
"Privately owned governments"
"Oil is a renewable resource"
"monopolists"

What asylum did that guest escape from?

Subject: RE: BS: Oil Shales
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Jun 08 - 08:50 PM

Monopoly. That's what oil is about. The elite of the world saw 150 years ago that petroleum was the future, so they focused on monopolizing it. They own the oil fields and refineries. What fields they don't own they get their privately-owned governments to declare off limits to drilling, thus maintaining a choked supply of the stuff. They fed us a lie about oil being a "fossil fuel" that's not replenishable. That lie's been thoroughly debunked. The earth spews up oil constantly. It's a renewable resourse. Alternative fuel sources have been suppressed by the monopolists. When Jimmy Carter was president, The China Syndrome was released into movie theaters, then 2 weeks later we had the Three Mile Island incident. The result was a stifling of the expanding nuclear industry and a continuation of oil dependence. The same people who ran Carter run Obama, so look for another nuclear incident if he gets into office. He'll "have" to continue polluting. He also has strong ties to the antiquated coal gassification operations in his home state of Illinois, too, so he'll sell you on that nasty industry somehow. Oil is everywhere, but the people who control it also control the media and feed you lies.

Subject: RE: BS: Oil Shales
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 28 Jun 08 - 08:33 PM

Of course they're trouble. Anything that disturbs the earth is trouble. The answer is to mitigate those problems. Technology has come a long way to do this. And mother earth and daughter ocean also go a long way in healing themselves. There needs be a balance along the continuum of rapacious usage and don't touch pristine. We used to call that balance conservation. We seem to be on the pristine side of the continuum these days. We call that environmentalism. Rapaciousness is just plain greed.

Subject: RE: BS: Oil Shales
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 28 Jun 08 - 08:30 PM

"Petroleum geologists know where the oil is." As a research geologist in petroleum exploration for most of my professional career, I can tell you that there is little chance of a big oil play in the continental U. S. except for the oil shale formations (expensive); research still in progress on the most economic and effective means of extracting the oil. Whatever methods are used (and they will be multiple because the deposits are not uniform), it will be expensive.
Starting some 50 years ago, the Alberta Research Council, university partners, and oil company research groups worked in the laboratory and in field experiments on how to extract the bitumens locked in Alberta and Saskatchewan (and Dakotas) sediments. Many methods were proposed and tried, including in situ burning and flushing. It took a long time to pick the most viable means just for the sands. As it is, only the most accessible and rich oil sand deposits are being produced today. Engineering of equipment was a headache which is still being researched.
The United States Geological Survey and several research institutions in the states have carried out similar research.
No one seems to have any idea of the amount of research and engineering that has to go into making a new type of oil play viable. Then one must deal with the infrastructure, the people on the land and provide for reasonable environmental care.

There is talk of the offshore oil plays on the U. S. continental shelf. A few scattered test wells have hinted at possible commercial oil deposits, but all predictions are guesstimates. Much drilling from platforms, plus more than just run-of-the-mill amounts are needed to prove whether the reserves are accessible and exploitation is economic. The costs will be high.
Prudhoe Bay was an important field, but current production has dropped to 25% of peak production as the reserves are used up. It will not be viable much longer. Prospects are there on the Arctic Coast, but not proven of commercial size. Towards the Canadian shelf, thermal effects reduce the prospects of liquid oil. The cost to the environment may be great.

World demand and increasing costs of exploration insure that prices will remain high.
My personal opinion is that alternative sources of energy, most likely nuclear, and emission controls for coal-fired plants, should be selected, designed and built now to take care of industrial needs. We have large coal reserves, as does China.

Subject: RE: BS: Oil Shales
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 28 Jun 08 - 07:26 PM

Refineries are trouble for a long time, even after they close. Imperial Oil closed its refinery in Calgary. They formed a unit to reclaim and build houses in the area.
Very nice middle income housing was built.
The reclamation was either only partly effective- or was impossible from the start. Problems from contaminated soil soon plagued the area. First part, then all of the housing had to be bought back. Of course the suits and arguments over claims went on for a long time. The houses have been destroyed.

I think all of the suits and arguments have been settled by now, but the whole affair caused home buyers, and the city, a lot of grief.
A park or something occupies the land now. I haven't checked lately.

There is another large lot in Calgary, east of the city center, used to be a Gulf(?) refinery there. I remember little shacks on it, something to do with reclamation. I think it is still empty.

Oil remaining in continental U. S. - I wlii comment on that later.

Subject: RE: BS: Oil Shales
From: pdq
Date: 28 Jun 08 - 06:21 PM

Sounds more like a golf course.

Subject: RE: BS: Oil Shales
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 28 Jun 08 - 05:39 PM

Is that a baseball team, the Richmond Greens?

Subject: RE: BS: Oil Shales
From: pdq
Date: 28 Jun 08 - 05:20 PM

There is a large oil refinery in Richmond, California, just a bit north/west of Oakland. It must be one of the oldest continuously operating such plants in the US. Built in 1901 by old Standard Oil, it made the land around it less desirable and therefore lower in price.

Blacks from the South came in large numbers to work in the shipyards during WWII. Housing was cheap and near work. They bought most of the houses offered.

Here is what people (activists) now say about the

                         Richmond Refinery

Subject: RE: BS: Oil Shales
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 28 Jun 08 - 05:02 PM

Q, all you say is true. You may have seen my post from several days ago on another 'Cat thread.

Summarizing:
A friend of mine was a refinery engineer for Fleur Corp. for about 25 years beginning in mid-'60s. His early projects were in the States, but increasingly he was sent overseas for projects.

Getting environmental and other approvals for projects in the States had become increasingly difficult. He changed careers.

The reason refineable oil is not available in the states--which could make refineries viable--is that it is near impossible to drill for it for the same reasons as above.

Petroleum geologists know where the oil is, it really is a matter of getting the national will to get it.

As you say, it takes time to develop these projects, so the time to start is now.

Subject: RE: BS: Oil Shales
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 28 Jun 08 - 04:20 PM

The South Dakota refinery, 400,000 bbls/day, is designed to convert Alberta Oil Sands crude into low-sulfur fuels. Hyperion plans to break ground for the project in 2010, on 3300 acres of farm land.
Applications have yet to be submitted to local, state and federal officials. Legal actions against it seem to be brewing in spite of its approval by local Union County voters.
See article in gas2.org, June 4, 2008

Most new refineries have been built abroad, 1. to refine crude close to source, 2. Lower costs, 3. fewer regulations and restrictions. In the future, probably most oil will be shipped in the refined state.

SaudiAramco and Mobil have collaborated on a new sophisticated refinery currently putting through 400,000 bbl/day, but there are plans to increase the size. www.samref.com. A similar plant is operated with Shell.
With Sumitomo of Japan, SaudiAramco has built a refinery and is building a large refinery-petrochemical plant.
It owns refineries in several countries.
Overall, the Saudi-owned Saudi Aramco refines 2.05 million bpd domestically and 1.6 million bpd overseas.

It takes time to develop a new plant. Getting the various levels of government to agree on any action can go on and on.
Pipelines must be built to gather the hydrocarbons. Again, deals must be made with landowners affected by the line, governments must approve, etc. Of course one hopes that development of the resource by drilling, mining or whatever will procede smoothly without roadblocks. AND, everyone hopes, that the initial go-ahead, based on a few test wells or digs, and small-scale engineering studies, was based on accurate assessment of the prospect and its development.

Subject: RE: BS: Oil Shales
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 28 Jun 08 - 02:45 PM

"Some 5-10 years development will be needed after start-up to get the hydrocarbons to the pump in any volume."

This type of argument often is used to do nothing (and I am not saying that this is what you mean): It will take 8 - 15 years to build a nuclear energy project but we need energy now--and forget drilling oil where the oil is altogether. It will take 30 years to build a comprehensive transportation system, but we need to get around now. It will take 6 years to build a desalination plant, but we have a water shortage and need potable water now. So we wring our hands, implement short term, temporary solutions which work (sort of), and then do sweet nothing to implement the long term solutions. Then we have the conversation all over again in a couple of years.

As I noted on another thread, I noted the the US has not built a new oil refinery in over 30 years, and the one's in use (many have been taken off line) are old and require more and more maintenance. I have read, thankfully, that one of the Dakotas has approved the construction of a new refinery.

Subject: BS: Oil Shales
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 28 Jun 08 - 01:52 PM

A good article on oil shales from the U. S. Geological Survey:

Oil Shales

"Geology and Resources of Some World Oil Shale Deposits"
Topics defined and discussed in brief:
Origin of Organic Matter
Thermal Maturity of Organic Matter
Discussion of oil shales from various world regions
Estimates of recoverables
etc.

Various threads, some unrelated to oil (such as the "Free Speech" thread)- have had posts on the subject.
Since both the U. S. and Canada have large oil shale deposits, Mudcats have discussed and speculated on these deposits, since everyone is cussing gas prices.

Points to remember are that production costs from oil shales, and to a lesser extent oil sands, are high, and that exploitation can be destructive to the environment. Some (oil sands of Alberta, in production) require large volumes of water to process.
If oil prices remain at $150/bbl or thereabouts, we will see active work begin on the shale resources. Some 5-10 years development will be needed after start-up to get the hydrocarbons to the pump in any volume.