Why not get oil from shale?

Question

I have heard from talk show on AM radio that a huge amount of shale is here in U.S and it would cost 37 dollars a barrel to get out of the ground
so why is someone not working on this?

Answer 1

There are a number of other issues which make shale not quite as viable of a source as it first seems.
...............................................................................
The fact that large quantities of heat are required to obtain a usable fuel from the rock means that this is a far less efficient source of energy than conventional oil. Shell claims it can produce 3.5 units of energy for every unit input, though one wonders whether the energy content of all the inputs is taken into account in such figures. The lower this ratio, the more the cost of producing oil from shale would rise as energy prices go up. Another implication of the high energy needs for processing is that significantly more greenhouse gases are released per barrel of usable fuel produced. Concerns about greenhouse emissions appear to have been the basis on which Greenpeace succeeded in closing down the Australian demonstration plant.

The rock expands in size upon heating, meaning you can't put it back in the ground, and it is carcinogenic. Two metric tons of rock are required to obtain a barrel of synthetic crude.

Three barrels of water are needed per barrel of oil produced, and it is not clear how current users of that water might be persuaded to surrender its use for oil shale.

Answer 2

Because it costs $2-3 per barrell to drill traditional holes. They have been talking about oil shale since the 1970s! Indeed, there is enough oil in shale to last an additional 150 years at current consumption rates.

Answer 3

Not sure where you got your number but it does not appear to be the actual end cost to produce oil from shale. It is very expensive to extract and covert the shale into usable crude oil. China and Brazil and Estonia have done it limited amounts but no modern nation has ever thought of it as a real resource. According to a couple of different articles, 40% of its potential energy is lost in the conversation process.
Yes, it can be done and has been done in tight times but its not the best option.

Answer 4

Mostly economics, I assume. Imported oil is probably cheaper.

Besides, mining shale ruins a lot of ground.

And the used up shale has to be dumped somewhere (I believe that the shale takes up more volume AFTER the oil is removed because the process causes the shale to expand).

The process uses a lot of water & energy (I believe that it requires steam to extract the oil).

Mining and processing shale also creates air, water & soil pollution as by-products.

Answer 5

Shale oil would cost $37 to get out of the ground, true, but it also costs way more to refine so it's not a viable option. At least as far as the oil companies are concerned. At least so far. Recent news about BPs pipeline problems isn't helping.

Answer 6

Much of the oil in the world is extracted from shale, especially in Canada which is the #2 producer of oil in the world.

Answer 7

1. It's not SHALE....it's SHALE SAND that contains enormous amounts of oil. However, the technology needed to extract this oil from the sands has not fully developed yet.

2. Environmental concerns (activists) have prevented large-scale development of these oil reserves. Oil companies are not going to throw money at the advancement of the technology if they are going to be prevented from extracting this oil reserve.

Answer 8

Because it would be cheaper to switch to E-85 ethanol, which is made from plants and could be sold for as little as a dollar per gallon.

Answer 9

why not have vehicles run on something other than oil products? screw the middle east!

Answer 10

it would be to easy to be independant of other countries. if we got it they wouldn't allow us to build any new refineries so we would have to send it to a nother country to get it refined.