"Oil discovery in Colorado" is this real?

Question

With the energy crisis we are currently going through how is this not apart of the discussion?

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002463368_oilstudy01.html

In the artical it says that the oil deposit in Colorado is larger than all deposits in the Middle east combined.

This is the only mainstream news story I could find.

What do you think?

Answer 1

The problem is that the discovery is oil shale, not oil. From what I have read oil shale is neither oil nor shale but a layer of underground rock that has to be heated to around 700 degrees to extract a black gooey material that can be refined like oil can. Up until now, it has been cost prohibitive to mine and refine. A project in Australia tried it, successfully but used a tehnique of strip mining to uncover and extract the oil shale deposits. The area of the discovery also iincludes parts of Utah and Wyoming.

Since the article that you site was written (2005) and with increasing oil prices on the world markets (primarily driven by increased demand in China and India by their developing middle class - thanks to Most Favored Nation status given to China and the movement of US companies to use cheap labor in China and India), US oil producers have ways to recover the "oil" from oil shale and are beginning to look at using them because of the price per barrel.

Shell has plans to heat the rock while it is still in the ground and pumping the "oil" out, not having to resort to strip mining.

Internet search for "oil shale" and you'll find more articles.

Answer 2

Between what we have under Colorado, up in ANWR, out in the Gulf and the Pacific, we'd be fine on our own for a long time. I think the Colorado deposit is mostly just the shale though, but as technology and oil prices increase, the costs to extrude oil from the shale is starting to become more economically feasible.

People tend not to look past the fact that oil produces more than just gasoline for America's SUVs. Oil goes towards gas, lubrication, textiles, styrenes, lubrication for just about every industry in the world and all of those varities of fuels used in transportation, i.e. heavy fuel oil for ships and such.

While I agree we should try and lessen our oil consumption via cleaner burning, non-fossil fuel driven cars, it's going to take a lot longer to cater to everything else.

What it comes down to is that we'll still need oil for many things, but if we're going to have to use it, why can't we use our own, drive an economic boom buildnig refineries, pump the nation full of jobs, lower our fuel and transportation costs, export our OWN oil and gas and not be depenedant on a bunch of terrorists who are capable of raising oil prices if someone sneezes the wrong way. Unless I'm missing something, that seems to be about the best possible solution right now for the future of America.

Answer 3

I don't know if this article is true or not but would say it could be. One thing I do know is the U. S. has the largest oil deposits in the world and I don't understand why we don't use more of it.
Have at it you thumbs down people. Give thumbs down for what you don't know about the U. S. oil.

Answer 4

Shale oil has been under consideration since the Carter administration. The U.S. also has the largest helium deposit on earth.

See all the helium heads?

Answer 5

These deposits are in heavy shale and are not cost effective at this time. It actually cost more to produce a barrel of crude from this shale than the barrel is worth.

Answer 6

It's very possible but we don't have the technology to recover it yet.Also in those same states there is supposed to be 800 years worth of coal that can be converted into liquid fuels but there has to be a way to make it clean enough to get by enviromentalists.

Answer 7

I would think because of the Yellowstone volcano, you know the one that if it erupts 98% of life on earth dies.

Answer 8

Coloradan here. Yes we heard this noise. Boy are they in for a fight. We think they are exaggerated.