[wildsparrow]

Has anyone seen this article? Could perhaps delay the onset of PO -

rockymountainnews

Originally published on slashdot so the site may be running slow due to high traffic.

[backstop]

WildSparrow -

Last Monday I saw the British government's cheif scientist interviewed on TV over Katrina. He was very clear on the strong probability that the unprecedented GoM sea temperatures (that changed the storm from a Cat.1 to a Cat 5 in just 24 hours) were an outcome of Global Warming.

He spoke of the growing global scientific consensus of this origin for Katrina's destructive power. The implication is that what we now see in sudden global oil problems is a shock of Climate Destabilization interacting with the stresses of Peak Oil.

I suggest that being committed to action over one while being complacent over the other is pointless and, as in NO, lethally dangerous and economically ruinous. I'm not accusing you of complacency by the way, but rather those who hype the likes of tar sands and oil shales for profit.

They ignore the fact that far from increasing our CO2 pollution via these options, we urgently need to cut it globally by 2/3rds, just to stop making the problem of excess atmospheric CO2 worse.

Given also that the scale of growth of these FFFs (filthiest fossil fuels) required to keep ahead of annual oil reserves' depletion is way beyond anything ever acheived in the days of cheap oil, they are, in reality, a non-starter.

So, in answer to your question, could they perhaps delay the onset of PO, I'd have to say no, not a chance.

regards,

Backstop

[Raxozanne]

Sorry I keep on editing this because I don't know what I want to say really apart from that I agree with what Baby says below. At 3.5 units for every 1 unit of energy invested these sands are no where near as good as oil was and will not be able to keep business as usual.

[BabyPeanut]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'D')rop heaters down the shaft. Cook the rock until the hydrocarbons boil off, the lightest and most desirable first.

[NeoPeasant]

And between the second and third paragraph of this article explaining why you needn't worry about oil is an ad for a GM SUV.

Newspapers are roughly 50% by weight automobile and suburban real estate ads. They would not exist without them. Newspapers don't dare publish anything suggesting that auto suburbia has anything less than a rosy future.

[bobbyboy]

According to Jean Laherrere the electricity costs alone for this Shell project are $200/Barrel.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he production with 50 workers on site (+100 at headquarters) is rumored to be 10 b/d with an electric bill of 2000 $/d!

[joe1347]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('bobbyboy', 'A')ccording to Jean Laherrere the electricity costs alone for this Shell project are $200/Barrel.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he production with 50 workers on site (+100 at headquarters) is rumored to be 10 b/d with an electric bill of 2000 $/d!

[Etalon]

To be viable, I would think they would be using nuclear power for the heating/refrigeration. It would be more efficient than normal, as waste heat from the plant can be used directly as the heat source.

This whole oil shale thing does not seem to be about "making" energy (yes im well aware you cant make energy) it seems to be about using a inconvenient energy source (nuclear power) to make convenient energy source you can use in your car. I say make, as it looks like you end up putting more energy in than you get out, although the energy out is of higher value.

[sicophiliac]

Ok, It seems like anytime a new technology or potential means to extract oil gets brought up its almost always shot down by the doomers sighting global warming concerns. However signifigant that problem is or may be its still not the issue here. Can this postpone peak oil ? Id say theres a good chance of it. They state an EROEI of 3.5:1 which is better than the rate of tar sands. That link did state that was only for the energy envolved in heating it rather then the refrigoration too but that might have just been overlooked in the article. It was not explicitly mentioned by the way... and I doubt Shell would simply forget to factor that in before investing millions of dollars into this. Also with any really small scale experimental procedure like this the total costs of energy and what not in ratio to energy recovered would be alot higher then a large scale comerically viable project. Its like the first experimental nuclear plants of the first time somebody did research setting up a small scale offshore drilling rig.

[wildsparrow]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('backstop', 'W')ildSparrow -

Last Monday I saw the British government's cheif scientist interviewed on TV over Katrina. He was very clear on the strong probability that the unprecedented GoM sea temperatures (that changed the storm from a Cat.1 to a Cat 5 in just 24 hours) were an outcome of Global Warming.

He spoke of the growing global scientific consensus of this origin for Katrina's destructive power. The implication is that what we now see in sudden global oil problems is a shock of Climate Destabilization interacting with the stresses of Peak Oil.

I suggest that being committed to action over one while being complacent over the other is pointless and, as in NO, lethally dangerous and economically ruinous. I'm not accusing you of complacency by the way, but rather those who hype the likes of tar sands and oil shales for profit.

They ignore the fact that far from increasing our CO2 pollution via these options, we urgently need to cut it globally by 2/3rds, just to stop making the problem of excess atmospheric CO2 worse.

[Lehyina]

Shell's ingenious approach to oil shale is pretty slick
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'O')n one small test plot about 20 feet by 35 feet, on land Shell owns, they started heating the rock in early 2004. "Product" - about one-third natural gas, two-thirds light crude - began to appear in September 2004. They turned the heaters off about a month ago, after harvesting about 1,500 barrels of oil.

While we were trying to do the math, O'Connor told us the answers. Upwards of a million barrels an acre, a billion barrels a square mile. And the oil shale formation in the Green River Basin, most of which is in Colorado, covers more than a thousand square miles - the largest fossil fuel deposits in the world.

Wow.

[Dukat_Reloaded]

It's bull, just another scam to get investors money.

[Lehyina]

Probably should have posted this under Wildsparrows earlier thread. Apologies for not seeing it earlier. Mods feel free to move this.

{thread merged by moderator}

[rowante]

This reports suggest this will not mitigate world peak.

http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/200 ... 14.sum.pdf

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '[')b]In-situ retorting
In-situ retorting entails heating oil shale in place, extracting the liquid from the ground, and transporting it to an upgrading or refining facility. Because in-situ retorting does not involve mining or aboveground spent shale disposal, it offers an alternative that does not permanently modify land surface topography and that may be significantly less damaging to the environment. Shell Oil Company has successfully conducted small-scale field tests of an insitu process based on slow underground heating via thermal conduction. Larger-scale operations are required to establish technical viability, especially with regard to avoiding adverse impacts on groundwater quality. Shell anticipates that, in contrast to the cost estimates for mining and surface retorting, the petroleum products produced by their thermally conductive in-situ method will be competitive at crude oil prices in the mid-$20s per barrel. The company is still developing the process, however, and cost estimates could easily increase as more information is obtained and more detailed designs become available.

Development Timeline.
Currently, no organization with the management, technical, and financial wherewithal to develop oil shale resources has announced its intent to build commercial-scale production facilities. A firm decision to commit funds to such a venture is at least six years away because that is the minimum length of time for scale-up and process confirmation work needed to obtain the technical and environmental data required for the design and permitting of a first-of-a-kind commercial operation. At least an additional six to eight years will be required to permit, design, construct, shake down, and confirm performance of that initial commercial operation. Consequently, at least 12 and possibly more years will elapse before oil shale development will reach the production growth phase. Under high growth assumptions, an oil shale production level of 1 million barrels per day is probably more than 20 years in the future, and 3 million barrels per day is probably more than 30 years into the future.

[Ming]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Lehyina', '[')url=http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/news_columnists/article/0,1299,DRMN_86_4051709,00.html]Shell's ingenious approach to oil shale is pretty slick[/url]
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'O')n one small test plot about 20 feet by 35 feet, on land Shell owns, they started heating the rock in early 2004. "Product" - about one-third natural gas, two-thirds light crude - began to appear in September 2004. They turned the heaters off about a month ago, after harvesting about 1,500 barrels of oil.

While we were trying to do the math, O'Connor told us the answers. Upwards of a million barrels an acre, a billion barrels a square mile. And the oil shale formation in the Green River Basin, most of which is in Colorado, covers more than a thousand square miles - the largest fossil fuel deposits in the world.

Wow.

[Ming]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')ccording to Jean Laherrere the electricity costs alone for this Shell project are $200/Barrel.

[go5star]

Oil shale can be processed efficiently, economically and with little environmental impact. Shell is not the only player in town and as many of you have noticed there is quite a bit of information missing from their equations. Let me first start of by saying, I think the Rand report was CRAP! It would have received a failing grade by any university professor for lack of documentation. Come on guys (and gals), did any one not notice the prediction for the price of oil in 2025? $50 per barrel, or how about the price for the Shell process footnote on page 43, "RAND calculation assuming specific heat of oil is 0.5 and average deposit richness of 25 gallons per ton." Why didn't they actually publish their calculations and the entire set of assumptions they used. Utter CRAP. Oil shale, lest I sound repetitve is ready to be used and can be processed economically. I'll tell you how later but I have to run for now.

[sicophiliac]

Go5star - Do you work in the energy industry or something? Your post ending is intruiging me.

[go5star]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('sicophiliac', 'G')o5star - Do you work in the energy industry or something? Your post ending is intruiging me.