by zoidberg » Sun 20 Jan 2008, 02:05:06
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Oil-Finder', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('zoidberg', '
')Ha! In situ involves freezing a section "a freeze wall" and the heating another chunk for 2-3 years to 650 to 700 degrees F.
Can you imagine the energy requirements for that, even supposing the EROI is positive? The upfront energy costs are huge. How feasible is it to divert that much electrical energy to the extraction process for that long? I dont know how large the area to make it economically feasible is, but I'm guessing its huge. Secondly wheres the nuke plant(plants) necessary being built in the area? Nowhere as far as I know. Those things take a long time to get built, therefore I say oil shale production isnt on the medium term horizon.
In conclusion while it may be economical at current electrical rates to extract oil shale, that would change dramatically when you consider what would happen to rates when the process is started or constructing nuke plants is taken into consideration.
Oil shale is nothing more than propaganda for the sheeple, a con game for energy companies looking for investors(ie suckers), and a pipe dream for American patriots.
According to Shell, whose shale in-situ process is farthest along among all the companies doing western shale research, they intend to use natural gas extracted from the shale to power electrical power plants used to freeze the walls. Thus, they won't need to pay market rates for electricity, since they will be generating their own.
They also say the EROEI of their process will be between 3:1 and 7:1, depending on the scale of the project, and that the process is feasible as long as oil is $30/barrel and up.
http://money.cnn.com/2007/10/30/magazin ... /index.htm
Shell has a huge interest in playing this up as much as possible. I remember the massively optimistic Thermal Depolymerization methods that would turn anything into oil at $10 a barrel.
CNN money's article about TDP
Maybe I'm not trusting enough. It just seems to me that natural gas and energy are already high quality energy sources, and it doesnt seem efficient to use them to convert very low quality energy sources into another high quality source. I also have a hard time swallowing that freezing and heating the same rocks close together is a good idea. I'm not saying the process is fraudulent, but there may be a few "technical" or "engineering" difficulties in the years ahead. I'm sure CNN money will have a few more optimistic articles about that.
Also, this idea seemed to pick up steam after Shell announced it was cutting its reserves 20% way back when
Shell cuts reserves
and then they started buying back shares shortly after
Share buy back 2005
And it seems the buyback and cancellation of shares continues...
[url=http://www.shell.com/home/content/investor-en/financial_information/buybacks/buybacks.html]
Share buybacks from 2005 to current[/url]
From 2005 the number of share outstanding dropped from 4,075,697,250 to 3,577,955,000, a drop of about 12%. Maybe they're so confident in the new revenue stream they'd like to concentrate ownership in the hands of a few select investors. Or maybe they're boosting the stock price for the sake of their management's stock options while they're preparing to liquidate the company when their reserves completely give out on them. Like the other oil majors.
Shell stock price end of 2005: $61
Shell stock price currently: $75
Considering inflation and the reduction in supply of shares, seems a pretty tame stock. Certainly not one possibly sitting on three Saudi Arabias. Its a shame no-one can hope to see results till 2015 either. I guess you'll just have to buy and hold their stock no matter what eh? Please pardon the sarcasm. Theres a few layers of BS with this story.
