Like the illusion of Wall Street, with its vast and powerful investment banks, now shuttered, China too is an illusion perpetuated by the Globalists that gave us the 15,000 mile Caesar salad, poisoned cat food and lead based paint on babies' pacifiers. Like the illusion that money would come from thin air to always push housing prices higher, China has spent a generation pursuing its illusion. Pursuing an unattainable dream to be like the West, while 6000 years of its carefully shepherded top soil blows into the sea.
Joined: Jul 21, 2004 Posts: 327 Location: Chicago, IL
Posted: Sat Dec 04, 2004 8:28 pm Post subject:
Oil shale is a lousy alternative. Given the fact that it has a low EROEI, as the price of oil skyrockets, shale will become very expensive as well (energy is required in the conversion process). I recommend an article by Dr. Reynolds
Reynolds, Douglas B. (1998) "Entropy Subsidies," Energy Policy, February, Volume 26, Number 2, pp. 113-118.
Joined: Aug 10, 2004 Posts: 1104 Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Posted: Sat Dec 04, 2004 10:10 pm Post subject:
marek wrote:
Oil shale is a lousy alternative. Given the fact that it has a low EROEI, as the price of oil skyrockets, shale will become very expensive as well (energy is required in the conversion process). I recommend an article by Dr. Reynolds
Reynolds, Douglas B. (1998) "Entropy Subsidies," Energy Policy, February, Volume 26, Number 2, pp. 113-118.
Agreed. We can possibly derive oil feedstock (for plastics, etc) from shale, but that's no different than mining for metals. A plastic mine, so to say. It's not an energy source and solid scientific thinking is pessimistic that it ever will be. The Govt is funding additional work as we speak to try Shale mining once again. But it will never replace the oil we burn in our cars.
Shale oil also presents serious environmental problems. It heavy shale oil mining takes place, then I think we are looking at a dangerous acceleration of the rate of global warming.
I don't think shale oil is a wise use of our resources, given that nuclear and solar energy is available.
Well I understand the EROEI arguments, the reason I bring up Oil Shale is...
1. The report I posted a link to above.
2. The sheer volume of the resource.
3. If the technology allows us to extract Oil from Shale at a pollution rate less than that associated with oil production it might not be so bad.
As long as the EROEI is reasonable say 2 for 1 then I think it could be an excellent source of energy.
I guess the weakest points with Shale are the ability to increase production to levels in the order of 80 million barrels per day. Including boosting this to 100 million barrels and more required for our growth based economy.
Also converting Shale to oil would be much more capital and energy intensive, both elements which add to environmental pollution.
Anyhow it seem like a good idea at the time, especially considering the volume of the resource. _________________ "Once the game is over, the king and the pawn go back in the same box."
-Italian Proverb
From what I hear, the EROEI of shale oil is not even as good as 2:1. 2:1 sounds more like tar sands. In fact, there are many scientists who suggest that the EROEI for oil shale is below unity. If that is the case, shale oil will not be used as an energy source irrespective of the price of oil. Remember, shale oil, unlike tar sands is geologically the penultimate stage of oil formation, it is not true oil. It requires H2 upgrade under high pressures and temperatures to form oil. There are many other limitations of shale oil like water availability, space to store the waste which occupies a greater volume than the initial shale etc. I can confidently predict that shale oil will not contribute to energy needs in the next 20 years if ever. As a source of chemical feedstock, maybe.
Joined: Nov 23, 2004 Posts: 67 Location: melbourne
Posted: Wed Dec 08, 2004 1:54 pm Post subject:
With shale and (moreso) tar sands, I do hold out hope (not a lot, mind you)for some sort of technological processing innovations that make them much more viable. It's not beyond the realms of possibility imho, even in the next decade even. But failing that, shale & tarsands don't count for much in the whole peak oil question, although I think the Canadian Oil Sands trust is still a very good po investment.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
News
Discussions
Resources
Members
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
