"Geo" <taxpayer779@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:86e7effb-6338-4478-af90-432766c05b9d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
May 15, 5:52 pm, "Larry Hewitt" <larryh...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> "Geo" <taxpayer...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>
>
news:41144beb-773f-4aee-8c53-471e4833f011@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
>
>http://www.examiner.com/a-1389682~Salazar_sponsors_bill_to_slow_down_...
>
> > Once again, democrats decide to be a part of the problem instead of
> > the solution. For the life of me I can't understand why they want
> > America to be weak.
>
> > =====
> > Salazar sponsors bill to slow down oil shale development
>
> > DENVER (Map, News) - Sen. Ken Salazar, D-Colo., said Tuesday that he
> > will introduce a bill to slow down moves toward commercial oil shale
> > development in the region.
>
> > His announcement came the same day that an amendment intended to speed
> > up oil shale development died in the Senate. Sen. Wayne Allard, R-
> > Colo., co-sponsored the amendment.
>
> Oil shale is a wild goose chase. The true net energy output from mining
> oil
> shale is very near zero, and may even be negative.
>
> Oil shale does not have bitumen (petroleum) locked in its ****es, but
> kerogen. Kerogen is a precursor to bitumen, having a large percentage of
> the original plant life locked up in it. It is also full of low quality,
> heavy oil that is unsuitable for most uses without significant
processing.
>
> And despite the large estimates for the recoverable volume of oil, the
> RAND
> corp estimates that by 2020 production would be an insignificant 100,000
> barrels a day.
>
> Current technology requires the expenditure of huge amounts of energy to
> mine, then heat the kerogen to remove the valuable ****tions.
>
> Less than 2/3 of the volume of Colorado kerogen is valuable. This
fraction
> must then be distilled, not cracked as for gasoline. This is another
> energy
> intensive process yielding diesel fuel and heating oil.
>
> The source for this heat is either recovered shale oil/natural gas or
coal
> trucked to the site, burning more diesel oil.
>
> The process also requires huge amounts of electricity. How much
> electricity?
> The RAND Corp estimates a dedicated power plant larger than any other in
> Colorado, one capable of powering a city of half a million people, would
> be
> needed. Shell is proposing using na natural gas fired plant,, because it
> is
> more efficient than coal, but virtually the whole output of ng would be
> needed to fire the generating plant to produce the oil and ng.
>
> Complicating the equation are the environmental issues, the reason
Salazar
> is concerned. Huge amounts of water are needed to cool the processing
> equipment. And the heating/extraction process actually expands the slag
> to
> a larger volume than it started with. This slag is also highly toxic.
>
> Using Shell Oil's published figures for their test project an initial
> investment of $7B to $10 B, including the construction of a new electric
> generation plant and coal mine to feed it, is predicted just to produce
> 100,000 barrels a day.
>
> http://www.aspencore.org/images/pdf/OilShale.pdf
>
> http://www.glossary.oilfield.slb.com/Display.cfm?Term=kerogen
>
> Larry
Wild goose chase? Right, that's why Chevron Shale Oil Company, Eesti
Energia, EGL Resources, ExxonMobil, Fushun Mining Group, Hom Tov,
Independent Energy Partners, Kiviõli Keemiatööstus, Millennium
Synfuels, Mountain West Energy, Oil Shale Exploration Company,
Petrobras, Queensland Energy Resources, Red Leaf, Shale Technologies
LLC, Shell Frontier Oil and Gas, VKG Oil and others are either in
production or testing the technology. Thanks for your links, but the
author is hardly objective. And, somehow, I think the folks at all of
the aforementioned companies have just a bit more brain power than you
on this subject. Or, perhaps they should just pick up a phone and
call Larry Hewitt and shut down all production because you say so.
Well, I provided links explaining why. If you choose not to read them, oh
well,.
AS my links, especially the links provided by my sources showed, the
problem
is that the primary producers, those you list, do not pay the full cost of
extraction. They especially are counting on government assistance to bring
water to the region
http://www.energybulletin.net/34875.html
Another problem is that the amount of recoverable oil in he region is open
to debate. Some US government agencies (see above link) are claiming that
as
much as 2 trillion barrels are recoverable,
But your link puts the amount at 800 million barrels, less than half that,
and Shell and Rand put that figure in doubt..
Canada, with its easier to extract tar sand is expecting a yield, with
current technology, of about 11% of the deposit, maybe as much as 30% with
advanced (as yet undeveloped) techniques. Projecting this to Colorado puts
the possible yield down to below 400 million barrels.
With tax incentives, government assistance with environmental issues,
etc.
exploration can be profitable (as Shell found out, making money with
government grants without producing a barrel commercially). RAND says that
government subsidies are the only way these fields can be profitable at
prices below $100 a barrel. Using these shales would make high price oil
permanent.
For example, the Canadian sands, amenable to open pit scoop and shovel
extraction and requiring less processing once extracted, cost $20 a barrel
to extract _before_ the cost of energy skyrocketed (the increase in the
cost
of coal is one of the reasons they want to build a nuke).
http://skeptically.org/oil/id17.html
This is so low because the Canadian
government has forgiven the payment of taxes until the costs of the
production equipment are recovered, ie, the taxpayers paid for the plant.
Your oil companies want the same deal in Colorado.
The companies you list want the government credits and incentives for
exploration. They have no intention of producing at this time.
Do not confuse Colorado shale oil with the Canadian tar sands. They are
two
different animals.The Canadian sands contain a large amount of bitumen,
petroleum. Colorado has kerogen, an inferior product. The product is
far
easier and cheaper to extract from sand than shale.
You also seem to want to ignore the results of the Shell test project that
leads RAND to project output of a trivial 100,000 barrels a day by 2020.
Larry
|
