We have enough OIL SHALE in the USA to keep us running for about the next 1,000 years. WHY aren't we using it?

Question

(One of my co-workers asked this question in another section, and a responder suggested that it be posed to sections populated with environmentalists, and Democrats, respectively. He wanted to do that, but had reached his questioning limit for the day. So I'm doing it for him, which is fine with him. And I'm just as interested in the answers to this as he is!)

The bulk of the oil shale is in Colorado, and Big Oil said, back in the 1980s (when oil was around only $20 or so per barrel) that once the price reached $60 or so, it would be economical for us to start gleaning and refining it. So by NOW, we could be making ourselves TOTALLY independent of foreign oil. So NOW what is Bush's, and Big Oil's, excuse for not doing that?

To "Dr. Blob" -- The only "political" aspect of the question, above, is his mention of Bush. He tells me that Bush was mentioned *only* because of his close association with OIL -- not because of his politics.

Also -- could new and efficient nuclear power plants furnish the energy for processing the oil shale? And -- don't the higher Rocky Mountains have snow and ice caps all year-'round? Could that furnish the necessary water?

Answer 1

Perhaps it has to do with the quality and processing of the oil versus the simplicity of importing known, quality oil from our "friends" in Venezeula... I personally think the best solution now is a grid with multiple energy sources ranging from oil, gas, nuclear to wind and hydro.

Answer 2

As the price of oil continues to climb, the profit of "Mining" the oil shale and processing it into oil becomes more attractive.

A positive upside with oil prices becoming more costly to the consumer, more replacement ideas abound. There is a distinct possiblity that the use of coal being converted to oil, such as what Hitler had Germany doing during WWII to run his war machine, will become more widespread.

A fuel cell that breaks down water to Oxygen and Hydrogen, a very burnable fuel, is more likely to be taken seriously now that oil may price itself out of it's own market.

The higher oil prices climb, the sooner different sources of energy will be discovered or made more viable because of either renewed interest or cost. Which as a sidenote, will make the oil from the Mideast less of a politcal issue also.

Answer 3

Oil shale is kerogen, a precursor to oil. You have to retort the stuff to make oil. It does make fantastically good light single grade oil when retorted. But it takes energy to retort. And water. They are trying in-situ with some really wacky technology like creating freeze zones around the area to keep from losing the oil and contaminating the strata. So you drill and insert chillers around the edges to freeze, then drill and insert electric heaters in the middle and after about 9 months this fantastic oil collects at the lower strata where you can pump it out. Going from memory, the best oil wells get 30:1 return on energy input total system considered. Oil shale I think worse case is 3:1 or even 1:1, horrible. Plus there is no water where the shale is. And um, small problem. It would take the energy equivalent of the known coal reserves of North America to retort all the oil shale and convert it to oil. The oil sands of Alberta and Orinoco are degraded oil, the opposite.

Just another example of those pesky complexities that come back and bite you.

Edit: sorry, got a little off track. deleted.

Edit2:
Back on track. Read the answers here, they are instructive and illustrate the problem. The arguments are generally moot, with the exception of Bella and Water_Skipper, because they don't address the underlying issue.

It is thermodynamically impossible / pointless to try to convert the kerogen into oil on a large scale. If you could generate the amount of energy needed – you could just use the energy rather than go through the exercise of converting it into another form and taking all the losses in the process. Like, generate some renewable electricity and use electric cars.

The oil shale will be used as a strategic reserve for things like military jet fuel and plastics after the regular oil runs out – but at great energy and environmental cost.

But again, it is thermodynamically pointless – you can make jet fuel and plastic from hemp, algae, jatropha, whatever we invent.

So to me this is a great example of the information problem we have around the environmental and global warming problems.

Please, no offense intended, but a lot of people get taken in by incomplete arguments. We are misinformed on a great many things.

Here is one that is just completely cut and dry – it is not “oil” shale - it has no oil. And yet we are still debating it 30 years later.

Also, people in the west need that water to irrigate. And to drink.

Answer 4

I live in the area.
1. As cost of everything has gone up, so has the cost of extraction. It is about at the break even point now I think.
2. The problem is the leftovers. Removing the oil leaves a much higher volume of material than was actually mined, What do you do with it. (Think popcorn to popped corn volume wise)
3. The first shale 'boom' left social problems in the area that have not yet been completely solved when it collapsed, and the 'local' people don't want a repetition of that scene.

Answer 5

The prediction that shale oil would be economical if regular oil rose to $60 per barrel is just one more wrong prediction. I suspect that prediction assumed it would be economical if the cost of oil tripled only if the cost of extracting oil from shale stayed the same. In fact, it is not only oil that has gone way up since 1980. Everything has gone up, including the cost of extracting shale oil.

Answer 6

After working for a rather special dept of defense, you get to know how it plays out and that is money.
Look to where this large amount of $ is showing up, record earnings for the stock.
I was around when the first oil price rise, look back in time and do some research as to what was happening in the world-Viet-Nam Water gate etc. When you find out the price of fuel to crack into various uses, and then the fact your paying $3.50 per gal. Fallow the $ $ $ $$

Answer 7

I believe that you are correct in assuming it is now economically feasible to extract oil from shale. Canada has been doing it for some time.

I believe what is holding us back is the availabilty of cheaper sources. When we run out of cheap oil, the shale oil will start to look good.

Answer 8

It has not yet become economically viable to extract oil from shale as it is much cheaper to import it, however when oil becomes expensive enough it will be processed, Canada also has large reserves of Oil shale.

Answer 9

CARBON EMISSIONS? Hmmm, there seems to be a bit of a problem with CARBON EMISSIONS, doesn't look like anybody has really noticed yet. Perhaps we should make a section on Yahoo! Answers and call it Global Warming? ...............................................................................................


















Nah ................................................... everybody will just make up reasons so they can continue their over consumptive lifestyles ...... Wait they won't have a choice soon, because even with oil shale and tar oils the processing costs will be so much more financially, energy and environmentally expensive, it probably won't be worth doing. So should I tell them that Carbon Emissions are a real problem and that regardless of what we believe we will face Peak Oil? ...................................................




Nah, nobody will ever believe it.

Answer 10

I don't know much about this, except that Canada is steaming ahead with oil sand extraction. The boomtown Fort McMurray in Alberta is now known as 'Fort McMoney'...

Somehow Canada can circumvent its rabidly regressive environmental crowd to pursue its goal of energy independence - hopefully the US can follow suit.