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?

Answer 1

I believe the amount that exists within retrievable areas is somewhere around 1.1 trillion barrels of oil, which is not quite enough for 1,000 years. If we keep consumption at current rates, it would last a little over 110 years, which is plenty of time for us to transition to a better source of energy.

We are expanding production to the Oil Shales, unfortunately the only methods available right now to get the Oil Shales, is a process developed by an oil company that involved heating the oil shales to a high temperature for extended periods of time, slowly the oil shales turn into thick poor grade crude oil, which is then extracted and must undergo expensive Oil Refining.

Another method for retrieving the oil in Oil Shales involves Strip mining the Oil shales, and extracting the oil from it, unfortunately strip mining is incredibly inefficient, pollutes like crazy, and is incredibly hazardous to the environment.

A commonly discussed problem with Oil Shale Mining is the tremendous need for energy to turn the Oil Shales into Oil. For a large scale Oil Shale operation in the west a power plant larger then the largest power plant in Colorado would have to be built. Because it requires so much energy even the most efficient power plant based off an expensive use of Natural Gas, would yield a energy return of 1:4. However, the more likely option uses the much cheaper more abundant resource of coal, which pollutes tremendously. Using this method, the energy taken from the Oil would yield about 2x more then the energy needed to get it. for a ration of 1:2. This would still yield a profit.

Finally, the good news, estimates place the beginning of large scale Oil Shale production to start around 2012, because we have to find less polluting methods for retrieving it, until then we will have to put up with $90-100 per barrel of oil, and $3-$4 per gallon of gasoline.

I hope this answers your questions!

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

Okay.

I'm getting pretty tired of these "trap" questions. IF President Bush were to announce some Presidential initiative to authorize wholesale mining of oil shale, you'd be in Yahoo Answers screaming that these "evil" Republicans are raping the Planet...

If he doesn't, you scream that he's not doing enough for energy independence.

Tell me, is here any position the President could take that would satisfy you?

By the way, all of the president's assets are held in a blind trust. He has no idea what industries he is invested in. He doesn't even know the name of the manager that takes care of his accounts. The idea that he is somehow "profiting" from high oil prices is a fantasy.

If you could prove such an allegation, I'd join you in seeking impeachment. You can't, so it won't happen.

Answer 4

because every company that invests in developing technology to harness its potential fails and goes to more lucrative oil sales.

oil shale is dirt, worse then coal and you will so some ******* pissed off people if you try to dig up my home state of Colorado the way they do mining coal. i should slap you silly for suggesting it. (if you want to see how bad it really is vbs.tv has a really good documentary on it.

Petroleum contains 50% more energy than the best coal, twice that of the hardest oak. There’s a lot of “grunt” in a gallon of gasoline, enough to propel a 3,000 pound car thirty miles.
If crude oil is king, oil shale is a pauper. Pound per pound, oil shale contains just one-tenth the energy of crude oil, one-sixth that of coal, and one-fourth that of recycled phone books.

the true solution to the world energy crises is in devolping efficient new technology. When it comes to cars i see the king becoming the new high capacity capacitor technology. (there are a few company's investing in this, it has a potential to charg in less then 5min and store enough power to run a prius for over 200miles.) and the future will be in trying to replace the damn coal power plants. with the best prospect being wind solor and nuckliar with my money on the later.

Answer 5

According to something I read a year or so ago, a major oil company is testing methods of retrieving and refining shale oil that are cheaper and more environmentally friendly. I believe they said it was a five year study.

Answer 6

If people think Tarsands are expensive to mine they have no idea of what Shale oil costs to mine or the mess it makes environmentally.
Shure you can fuel USA on Shale oil mining but you will need to dig up a third your country to do it and it will bankrupt you.

Answer 7

because Bush makes more money this way, after all he is an oil man.. and its more like 30 years.. lol

EDIT: I really dont know anything about the problem, I was meaning to be funny, but when it comes to politics people have no sense of humor. I agree with whoever below said that the president cant win for trying.. He is damned if he does and damned if he doesnt. But I am still learning about politics so I dont know enough to actually give this and factual answer... sorry.

Answer 8

You might want to read this before you get all down on "big oil" and big government" getting shale oil is not like sucking a Slurpee....

http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2005/09/oil_shale_retor.html

Answer 9

Don't blame Pres. Bush he has tried to drill in the gulf of Mexico, Alaska, and other places but the Democrats (and more specifically the environmentalists tree huggers) block his bills. If you want to blame somebody for high gas prices let's look at our Democrat friends who own huge shares of overseas oil companies and not our President who started an oil business in the U.S.A.

Answer 10

We aren't using it because the USA wants to use the worlds oil and then when that runs out. The US can control the world with the only oil source. You can blame this on both the democrats and republicans because they both agreed to this back in the 70's.