Gas Prices

SilverEagle · June 8, 2008

Another potential resource.

http://ostseis.anl.gov/guide/oilshale/index.cfm

Here is my favorite quote.........Other impediments to development of the oil shale industry in the United States include the relatively high cost of producing oil from oil shale (currently greater than $60 per barrel), and the lack of regulations to lease oil shale.

About Oil Shale

Basic information on oil shale, oil shale resources, and recovery of oil from oil shale.

What Is Oil Shale?

Oil shale

The term oil shale generally refers to any sedimentary rock that contains solid bituminous materials (called kerogen) that are released as petroleum-like liquids when the rock is heated in the chemical process of pyrolysis. Oil shale was formed millions of years ago by deposition of silt and organic debris on lake beds and sea bottoms. Over long periods of time, heat and pressure transformed the materials into oil shale in a process similar to the process that forms oil; however, the heat and pressure were not as great. Oil shale generally contains enough oil that it will burn without any additional processing, and it is known as "the rock that burns".

Oil shale can be mined and processed to generate oil similar to oil pumped from conventional oil wells; however, extracting oil from oil shale is more complex than conventional oil recovery and currently is more expensive. The oil substances in oil shale are solid and cannot be pumped directly out of the ground. The oil shale must first be mined and then heated to a high temperature (a process called retorting); the resultant liquid must then be separated and collected. An alternative but currently experimental process referred to as in situ retorting involves heating the oil shale while it is still underground, and then pumping the resulting liquid to the surface.

Oil Shale Resources

Location of the Green River Formation Oil Shale and Its Main Basins

While oil shale is found in many places worldwide, by far the largest deposits in the world are found in the United States in the Green River Formation, which covers portions of Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. Estimates of the oil resource in place within the Green River Formation range from 1.2 to 1.8 trillion barrels. Not all resources in place are recoverable; however, even a moderate estimate of 800 billion barrels of recoverable oil from oil shale in the Green River Formation is three times greater than the proven oil reserves of Saudi Arabia. Present U.S. demand for petroleum products is about 20 million barrels per day. If oil shale could be used to meet a quarter of that demand, the estimated 800 billion barrels of recoverable oil from the Green River Formation would last for more than 400 years1.

More than 70% of the total oil shale acreage in the Green River Formation, including the richest and thickest oil shale deposits, is under federally owned and managed lands. Thus, the federal government directly controls access to the most commercially attractive portions of the oil shale resource base.

See the Maps page for additional maps of oil shale resources in the Green River Formation.

The Oil Shale Industry

While oil shale has been used as fuel and as a source of oil in small quantities for many years, few countries currently produce oil from oil shale on a significant commercial level. Many countries do not have significant oil shale resources, but in those countries that do have significant oil shale resources, the oil shale industry has not developed because historically, the cost of oil derived from oil shale has been significantly higher than conventional pumped oil. The lack of commercial viability of oil shale-derived oil has in turn inhibited the development of better technologies that might reduce its cost.

Relatively high prices for conventional oil in the 1970s and 1980s stimulated interest and some development of better oil shale technology, but oil prices eventually fell, and major research and development activities largely ceased. More recently, prices for crude oil have again risen to levels that may make oil shale-based oil production commercially viable, and both governments and industry are interested in pursuing the development of oil shale as an alternative to conventional oil.

Oil Shale Mining and Processing

Oil shale can be mined using one of two methods: underground mining using the room-and-pillar method or surface mining. After mining, the oil shale is transported to a facility for retorting, a heating process that separates the oil fractions of oil shale from the mineral fraction.. The vessel in which retorting takes place is known as a retort. After retorting, the oil must be upgraded by further processing before it can be sent to a refinery, and the spent shale must be disposed of. Spent shale may be disposed of in surface impoundments, or as fill in graded areas; it may also be dispoed of in previously mined areas. Eventually, the mined land is reclaimed. Both mining and processing of oil shale involve a variety of environmental impacts, such as global warming and greenhouse gas emissions, disturbance of mined land, disposal of spent shale, use of water resources, and impacts on air and water quality. The development of a commercial oil shale industry in the United States would also have significant social and economic impacts on local communities. Other impediments to development of the oil shale industry in the United States include the relatively high cost of producing oil from oil shale (currently greater than $60 per barrel), and the lack of regulations to lease oil shale.

Surface Retorting

While current technologies are adequate for oil shale mining, the technology for surface retorting has not been successfully applied at a commercially viable level in the United States, although technical viability has been demonstrated. Further development and testing of surface retorting technology is needed before the method is likely to succeed on a commercial scale.

Surface Retort

In Situ Retorting

Shell Oil is currently developing an in situ conversion process (ICP). The process involves heating underground oil shale, using electric heaters placed in deep vertical holes drilled through a section of oil shale. The volume of oil shale is heated over a period of two to three years, until it reaches 650–700 °F, at which point oil is released from the shale. The released product is gathered in collection wells positioned within the heated zone.

Shell's current plan involves use of ground-freezing technology to establish an underground barrier called a "freeze wall" around the perimeter of the extraction zone. The freeze wall is created by pumping refrigerated fluid through a series of wells drilled around the extraction zone. The freeze wall prevents groundwater from entering the extraction zone, and keeps hydrocarbons and other products generated by the in-situ retorting from leaving the project perimeter.

Shell's process is currently unproven at a commercial scale, but is regarded by the U.S. Department of Energy as a very promising technology. Confirmation of the technical feasibility of the concept, however, hinges on the resolution of two major technical issues: controlling groundwater during production and preventing subsurface environmental problems, including groundwater impacts.1

Both mining and processing of oil shale involve a variety of environmental impacts, such as global warming and greenhouse gas emissions, disturbance of mined land; impacts on wildlife and air and water quality. The development of a commercial oil shale industry in the U.S. would also have significant social and economic impacts on local communities. Of special concern in the relatively arid western United States is the large amount of water required for oil shale processing; currently, oil shale extraction and processing require several barrels of water for each barrel of oil produced, though some of the water can be recycled.

1 RAND Corporation Oil Shale Development in the United States Prospects and Policy Issues. J. T. Bartis, T. LaTourrette, L. Dixon, D.J. Peterson, and G. Cecchine, MG-414-NETL, 2005.

For More Information

Additional information on oil shale is available through the Web. Visit the Links page to access sites with more information.

SilverEagle · June 8, 2008

And then there are "tar sand" deposits.

http://ostseis.anl.gov/guide/tarsands/index.cfm

Green P1 · June 8, 2008

The answer to all of our problems. I have no idea why this is not getting more attention.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NwV1VZcPvt0

UNTflyer · June 8, 2008

The answer to all of our problems. I have no idea why this is not getting more attention.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NwV1VZcPvt0

Congress alone could make us energy independent overnight!

God knows everything else they do is counterproductive.

While China drills just 50 miles from Key West.

Drilling for more oil may not reduce gas prices, but it should help stop them from rising further. The scary thing is that even if Congress today said "Yes" to drilling offshore and in ANWR, it would take about 5 years before we see that oil flowing. But it's far better than waiting 20 years for someone to figure out how to run the world on sunshine and unicorn farts.

KingDL1 · June 8, 2008

Congress alone could make us energy independent overnight!
God knows everything else they do is counterproductive.
While China drills just 50 miles from Key West.
Drilling for more oil may not reduce gas prices, but it should help stop them from rising further. The scary thing is that even if Congress today said "Yes" to drilling offshore and in ANWR, it would take about 5 years before we see that oil flowing. But it's far better than waiting 20 years for someone to figure out how to run the world on sunshine and unicorn farts.

Every time I see that map, and see that China is now in our backyard. By the why Cuba offered bidding rights to US companies but we would not let our companies bid.

Makes me want to beat the shit out a tree huger, EPA bastard==any will do.

Edited June 8, 2008 by KingDL1

GoMeanGreen1999 · June 8, 2008

But it's far better than waiting 20 years for someone to figure out how to run the world on sunshine and unicorn farts.

Great line.

HoustonEagle · June 9, 2008

I have a real problem with spending 45 trillion on a hoax.

You sound very sure of yourself. I wish I was that confident. What degree do you have? What research have you done? Sadly I am stuck in the position of reading the work of other researchers and scientist. Which leaves me much less sure that it is all a mass conspiracy.

I will say this......I hope you are right.

UNTflyer · June 9, 2008

You sound very sure of yourself. I wish I was that confident. What degree do you have? What research have you done? Sadly I am stuck in the position of reading the work of other researchers and scientist. Which leaves me much less sure that it is all a mass conspiracy.
I will say this......I hope you are right.

When ideological groups shout from the rooftops that "the debate is over," I get very suspicious. They treat skeptics with vitriolic condemnation, and that's no way to present a scientific theory.

The warming that occurred during the Medieval Maximum is far greater than what we see today, yet there were no factories and planes and cars. But what followed that warming period was increased farm production, population growth in forest and wildlife, new settlements in the northern parts of Europe, and one of the greatest periods of human development, the Rennaisance. Who's to say that the earth warming up a few degrees is a bad thing?

HoustonEagle · June 9, 2008

When ideological groups shout from the rooftops that "the debate is over," I get very suspicious. They treat skeptics with vitriolic condemnation, and that's no way to present a scientific theory.
The warming that occurred during the Medieval Maximum is far greater than what we see today, yet there were no factories and planes and cars. But what followed that warming period was increased farm production, population growth in forest and wildlife, new settlements in the northern parts of Europe, and one of the greatest periods of human development, the Rennaisance. Who's to say that the earth warming up a few degrees is a bad thing?

Far greater? Where can I find some reports on that? I have yet to find anything that mentions temps were far greater.

Censored by Laurie · June 10, 2008

Makes me want to beat the shit out a tree huger, EPA bastard==any will do.

Forget trees...someone needs to hug you

Green Mean · June 10, 2008

I wonder how much longer this thread can go....I think gas prices will be a debate for the rest of our lives. I say we shoot for 10,000 posts for this thread. I think that will make GMG.com history.

UNTflyer · June 10, 2008

Drill here, drill now, pay less.

http://www.americansolutions.com

GoMeanGreen1999 · June 10, 2008

I wonder how much longer this thread can go....I think gas prices will be a debate for the rest of our lives. I say we shoot for 10,000 posts for this thread. I think that will make GMG.com history.

I noticed your quote on your signature from Greggo - any idea where they guy is now? Last I heard he was going to have a show on ESPN radio in June, but have not heard anymore.

Now back to gas.

Green Mean · June 10, 2008

I noticed your quote on your signature from Greggo - any idea where they guy is now? Last I heard he was going to have a show on ESPN radio in June, but have not heard anymore.
Now back to gas.

Thats the last I heard of him as well. Actually I think his "problem" was probably more serious than a lot of us thought. I would have thought that he would have a job almost instantly after The Ticket. I think he has some serious issues with his meds or whatever was wrong with him. At some point he will get a gig its just a matter of time.

Oh and back to gas.

Goodness gracious I just let out a dead rat out of my ass!

DeepGreen · June 10, 2008

If this information/congressional dialogue has been posted, then I apologize. I just didn't want to wade through 26 pages of the Gas Prices thread.

The Dems think that taxing the oil companies even more will help the price at the pump. Brilliant thinking! The Repubs just do nothing. The rest of us have to pay for all of these policy making idiots.

To me, this is part of the problem.

"THIS SHOULD TELL YOU WHAT SHOULD BE DONE AND WHY NO PROGRESS IS AVAILABLE WITH THIS CONGRESS

from Powerline

May 21, 2008

Oil E xecutives Try to Educate Senate Democrats, But Democrats Appear Hopeless

Earlier today, the Senate Judiciary Committee summoned top executives from the petroleum industry for what Chairman Pat Leahy thought would be a politically profitable inquisition. Leahy and his comrades showed up ready to blame American oil companies for the high price of gasoline, but the event wasn't as satisfactory as the Democrats had hoped.

The industry lineup was formidable: Robert Malone, Chairman and President of BP America, Inc.; John Hofmeister, President, Shell Oil Company; Peter Robertson, Vice Chairman of the Board, Chevron Corporation; John Lowe, Executive Vice President, Conoco Philips Company; and Stephen Simon, Senior Vice President, Exxon Mobil Corporation.

Not surprisingly, the petroleum executives stole the show, as they were far smarter, infinitely better informed, and much more public-spirited than the Senate Democrats.

One theme that emerged from the hearing was the surprisingly small role played by American oil companies in the global petroleum market. John Lowe pointed out:

"I cannot overemphasize the access issue. Access to resources is severely restricted in the United States and abroad, and the American oil industry must compete with national oil companies who are often much larger and have the support of their governments.

We can only compete directly for 7 percent of the world's available reserves while about 75 percent is completely controlled by national oil companies and is not accessible."

Stephen Simon amplified:

"Exxon Mobil is the largest U.S. oil and gas company, but we account for only 2 percent of global energy production, only 3 percent of global oil production, only 6 percent of global refining capacity, and only 1 percent of global petroleum reserves. With respect to petroleum reserves, we rank 14th. Government-owned national oil companies dominate the top spots. For an American company to succeed in this competitive landscape and go head to head with huge government-backed national oil companies, it needs financial strength and scale to execute massive complex energy projects requiring enormous long-term investments.

To simply maintain our current operations and make needed capital investments, Exxon Mobil spends nearly $1 billion each day.

Because foreign companies and governments control the overwhelming majority of the world's oil, most of the price you pay at the pump is the cost paid by the American oil company to acquire crude oil from someone else:

Last year, the average price in the United States of a gallon of regular unleaded gasoline was around $2.80. On average in 2007, approximately 58 percent of the price reflected the amount paid for crude oil. Consumers pay for that crude oil, and so do we.

Of the 2 million barrels per day Exxon Mobil refined in 2007 here in the United States , 90 percent were purchased from others."

Another theme of the day's testimony was that, if anyone is "gouging" consumers through the high price of gasoline, it is federal and state governments, not American oil companies. On the average, 15% percent of the cost of gasoline at the pump goes for taxes, while only 4% represents oil company profits. These figures were repeated several times, but, strangely, not a single Democratic Senator proposed relieving consumers' anxieties about gas prices by reducing taxes.

The last theme that was sounded repeatedly was Congress's responsibility for the fact that American companies have access to so little petroleum.

Shell's John Hofmeister< /STRONG> explained, eloquently:

"While all oil-importing nations buy oil at global prices, some, notably India and China , subsidize the cost of oil products to their nation's consumers, feeding the demand for more oil despite record prices. They do this to speed economic growth and to ensure a competitive advantage relative to other nations.

Meanwhile, in the United States , access to our own oil and gas resources has been limited for the last 30 years, prohibiting companies such as Shell from exploring and developing resources for the benefit of the American people.

Senator Sessions, I agree, it is not a free market.

According to the Department of the Interior, 62 percent of all on-shore federal lands are off limits to oil and gas developments, with restrictions applying to 92 percent of all federal lands. We have an outer continental shelf moratorium on the Atlantic Ocean, an outer continental shelf moratorium on the Pacific Ocean, an outer continental shelf moratorium on the eastern Gulf of Mexico, congressional bans on on-shore oil and gas activities in specific areas of the Rockies and Alaska, and even a congressional ban on doing an analysis of the resource potential for oil and gas in the Atlantic, Pacific and eastern Gulf of Mexico.

The Argonne National Laboratory did a report in 2004 that identified 40 specific federal policy areas that halt, limit, delay or restrict natural gas projects. I urge you to review it. It is a long list. If I may, I offer it today if you would like to include it in the record.

When many of these policies were implemented, oil was selling in the single digits, not the triple digits we see now. The cumulative effect of these policies has been to discourage U.S. investment and send U.S. companies outside the United States to produce new supplies.

As a result, U.S. production has declined so much that nearly 60 percent of daily consumption comes from foreign sources.

The problem of access can be solved in this country by the same government that has prohibited it. Congress could have chosen to lift some or all of the current restrictions on exportation and production of oil and gas. Congress could provide national policy to reverse the persistent decline of domestically secure natural resource development."Later in the hearing, Senator Orrin Hatch walked Hofmeister through the Democrats' latest efforts to block energy independence:

HATCH: I want to get into that. In other words, we're talking about Utah , Colorado and Wyoming . It's fair to say that they're not considered part of America 's $22 billion of proven reserves.

HOFMEISTER: Not at all.

HATCH: No, but experts agree that there's between 800 billion to almost 2 trillion barrels of oil that could be recoverable there, and that's good oil, isn't it?

HOFMEISTER: That's correct.

HATCH: It could be recovered at somewhere between $30 and $40 a barrel?

HOFMEISTER: I think those costs are probably a bit dated now, based upon what we've seen in the inflation...

HATCH: Well, somewhere in that area.

HOFMEISTER: I don't know what the exact cost would be, but, you know, if there is more supply, I think inflation in the oil industry would be cracked. And we are facing severe inflation because of the limited amount of supply against the demand.

HATCH: I guess what I'm saying, though, is that if we started to develop the oil shale in those three states we could do it within this framework of over $100 a barrel and make a profit.

HOFMEISTER: I believe we could.

HATCH: And we could help our country alleviate its oil pressures.

HOFMEISTER: Yes.

HATCH: But they're stopping us from doing that right here, as we sit here. We just had a hearing last week where Democrats had stopped the ability to do that, in at least Colorado

HOFMEISTER: Well, as I said in my opening statement, I think the public policy constraints on the supply side in this country are a disservice to the American consumer.

The committee's Democrats attempted no response. They know that they are largely responsible for the current high price of gasoline, and they want the price to rise even further. Consequently, they have no intention of permitting the development of domestic oil and gas reserves that would both increase this country's energy independence and give consumers a break from constantly increasing energy costs.

Every once in a while, Congressional hearings turn out to be informative.

SilverEagle · June 10, 2008

Here is some interesting information.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0611/p08s01-comv.html

SilverEagle · June 10, 2008

Here is an interesting article.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0611/p08s01-comv.html

UNTflyer · June 10, 2008

Drill here, drill now, pay less.

http://www.americansolutions.com/

GoMeanGreen1999 · June 10, 2008

Let's hope Oil doesn't get this high - if so, gas would be close to $8:

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/23928598-36c1-11...?nclick_check=1

UNTflyer · June 11, 2008

The latest Big Apple trophy being coveted by oil-rich sovereign wealth funds is the landmark Chrysler Building.
Sources say the super-rich Abu Dhabi Investment Council is negotiating an $800 million deal for a 75 percent stake in the Art Deco treasure that has defined the Midtown skyline since 1930.

We're selling America's soul to Middle East oil tycoons piece by piece.

Drill here, drill now, pay less

http://www.americansolutions.com

Cerebus · June 11, 2008

Holy crap how did I miss this thread? :blink:

I am deeply saddened that I have to even post this, but the next person who posts a link to a racist website like that is going to get banned back into the stone age. :censored:

Green Mean · June 11, 2008

Holy crap how did I miss this thread?
I am deeply saddened that I have to even post this, but the next person who posts a link to a racist website like that is going to get banned back into the stone age.

I'm confused.....did I miss something here?

Censored by Laurie · June 11, 2008

Holy crap how did I miss this thread?
I am deeply saddened that I have to even post this, but the next person who posts a link to a racist website like that is going to get banned back into the stone age.

So you didn't fully understand the barage of oddly titled threads last week? Wish you hadn't shut them down now, huh?