[SoberGoose]

I think there is a very viable solution to solving our current energy crisis which is in turn causing inflation in nearly every industrial market, except the housing and automobile industry.

In the western United States (Colorado, Utah, Wyoming) we hvae ENORMOUS deposits of oil-shale...which is for the most part, solid oil. The estimated deposits there are approximately triple that of the oil reserves that Saudi Arabia has. It is more expensive to recover and process this oil-shale that conventional liquid petroleum. And, approx 75% of the deposits lie under gov't controlled land. I suggest that we invest our resources into developing the necessary technology to recover these vast supplies of oil more efficiently and use our own natural resources and move toward becoming less dependent on foreign oil.

The major issues lie with environmental lobbyists not wanting to harm the environment with the recovery and production of more "pollution causing ways of energy". I am not saying the environment is not important. We should continue to develop hydrogen, nuclear, and other renewable sources of energy. But if we can tap into these shale oil reserves, and use them to cover even a quarter of our current oil consumption, they will last for about 400 years. If by tapping into this enormous resource of energy in our own nation we can give our nation a more reasonable timeline to develop our energy infrastructure with nuclear, hydrogen, and other renewable sources. If not, sooner than later, our nation will face a national security crisis the likes we have not seen since we wont be able power our nation.

[chenopodium]

Take a look at this chart:

http://www.theoildrum.com/files/ch_balloon_tod.png

Do you see where the tar sands are? (oil shale is not even on the chart). It's hard to see, in the very lower left corner...

What this means? That it takes a huge amount of energy to extract oil from oil shale.

So to be optimistic, let's say oil shale has an eroi of 2:1, and imported oil 20:1. That means to replace 1 gallon of imported oil, you have to produce 10 gallons of oil from oil shale. And oil shale is not even oil, it has to be converted to oil, meaning it is a huge operation to get a tiny bit of oil from rock that has to be cooked first....

Maybe you should try to compute how many such "factories" would be needed to replace even percentage of imported oil... and compute how much such an infrastructure would even cost (ignoring the environmental impact, global warming etc....)

[SILENTTODD]

In the western United States (Colorado, Utah, Wyoming) we hvae ENORMOUS deposits of oil-shale...which is for the most part, solid oil. The estimated deposits there are approximately triple that of the oil reserves that Saudi Arabia has. It is more expensive to recover and process this oil-shale that conventional liquid petroleum. And, approx 75% of the deposits lie under gov't controlled land. I suggest that we invest our resources into developing the necessary technology to recover these vast supplies of oil more efficiently and use our own natural resources and move toward becoming less dependent on foreign oil.

SoberGoose, I don't want to come off like some of the flamers who you will see after me (or even before me) who will be replying to your post. This site has been going on for nearly 4 years, don't you think everyone who is involved with this subject has heard and investigated what you just stated? Let me just cut to the chase, Shale Oil is a joke within the Oil industry, "Shale Oil, the Energy of the Future, and always will be". No one has yet shown how you can produce more liquid fuel energy (gasoline) from shale oil than you use to produce it!

Learn this acronym by heart "EROEI"- Energy Return On Energy Investment

SoberGoose, let me point you to a couple of good books you need to read before you post again, and I mean this sincerely because I believe the difference between ignorance and stupidity is ignorance is curable, and I don't assume if your reading this site your stupid.

Read if nothing else:

"The Party's Over"- Richard Heinberg

"Out of Gas: The End of the Age of Oil" -David Goodstein

[MonteQuest]

In the western United States (Colorado, Utah, Wyoming) we hvae ENORMOUS deposits of oil-shale...which is for the most part, solid oil.

You said all you need to know about oil shale.

I suggest that we invest our resources into developing the necessary technology to recover these vast supplies of oil more efficiently and use our own natural resources and move toward becoming less dependent on foreign oil.

We cannot become less dependent upon foreign oil. Oil production in the US has been in terminal decline since 1971. No amount of drilling on the coastal plain, ANWR, or extracting oil shale will ever produce more than 1 or 2 mbpd of oil in any near term scenario.

We use 875,000 barrels an hour in the USA.

By the time these in-house resources come on line, we will use 1 mbpd hour or more and have declined another million or so barrels in domestic production.

By 2025 will will import 68% of our oil. Today we import about 60%. And only 17% of that inported oil comes form the Middle East. Our top two suppliers are Canada and Mexico.

The most we can hope for is to slow the rate of growth in our dependency upon foreign oil.

We should continue to develop hydrogen, nuclear, and other renewable sources of energy.

Sorry, hydrogen is not a source of energy nor is it renewable. Nuclear is not renewable either. Uranium is a finite resource.

But if we can tap into these shale oil reserves, and use them to cover even a quarter of our current oil consumption, they will last for about 400 years.

5.25 mbpd from oil shale?

Even tar sands won't do that by 2030. Tar sands production is now 1 million barrels a day and is projected to increase to 5mbpd by 2030.

400 years?

Let me give you a lesson in current consumption.

The US has about 250 billion tons of recoverable coal reserves. According to the EIA figures, we can see that we have 255 years of coal remaining in the year 2000 given our current rate of consumption. That prediction assumes equal use of all grades of coal, from anthracite to lignite. Population growth alone reduces the calculated lifetime to some 90-120 years. However, if we look back in history, we see that there were 300 years of coal reserves in 1988, 1000 years reserves in 1904, and 10,000 years reserves in 1868! As each year goes by, our coal consumption increases and we see that the projection becomes meaningless.

[kpeavey]

Sobergoose:
Welcome to the site.

You've started in the right direction, looking for alternatives. You'll find the people around here do their homework and may come off harsh sounding at times, particularly if you have not done your homework. While oil shale has potential as a fuel, it does have problems to overcome, and at best will offer a tiny portion of the USs energy needs.

Stick around, keep learning. You'll find that there is a lot of information to assimilate. Its a DEEP rabbit hole.

[Dezakin]

SoberGoose, I don't want to come off like some of the flamers who you will see after me (or even before me) who will be replying to your post. This site has been going on for nearly 4 years, don't you think everyone who is involved with this subject has heard and investigated what you just stated? Let me just cut to the chase, Shale Oil is a joke within the Oil industry, "Shale Oil, the Energy of the Future, and always will be". No one has yet shown how you can produce more liquid fuel energy (gasoline) from shale oil than you use to produce it!

Learn this acronym by heart "EROEI"- Energy Return On Energy Investment

Thats meaningless conventional wisdom. First its wrong, based on the Shell studies. Second its irrelevant as long as you have an energy source to convert to liquid fuel (such as a nuclear reactor, or natural gas in the case of the Alberta oil sands)

The real reason oil shale won't be useful is production cost. If it costs over twice what CTL costs (which it does), you wont be producing oil shale for liquid fuels untill coal costs go that high. If it costs more than doing synfuel from nuclear hydrogen and limestone (which is possible) it'll never be produced.

Oil shale certainly is viable, and everyone shoots it down for the wrong reason. The real reason it wont compete is because theres something better for a long time to come.

[Dezakin]

We should continue to develop hydrogen, nuclear, and other renewable sources of energy.

Sorry, hydrogen is not a source of energy nor is it renewable. Nuclear is not renewable either. Uranium is a finite resource.

The hydrogen is not a source of energy is almost strawman. It is a fuel and chemical component for producing synthetic fuels. Hydrogen production via thermochemical and high temperature electrolysis should be developed. Mix it with CO2 over the right catalysts and you have diesel fuel. Do it with all the CO2 from limeburning from cement plants around the world and you have 10-20 million barrels per day of diesel fuel.

As for uranium being a finite resource: Meaningless.

With 120 trillion tons of thorium and uranium and 1 ton of thorium capable of producing 2 GW thermal, you would deplete the earths supply sometime in the next 16 million years if you burn it as fast as you can without exceeding the raw heat dissapation capacity of the earth, or some 1000 times the current energy consumption of all of global civilization. Its finite. So's sunlight.

[Judgie]

SoberGoose, I don't want to come off like some of the flamers who you will see after me (or even before me) who will be replying to your post. This site has been going on for nearly 4 years, don't you think everyone who is involved with this subject has heard and investigated what you just stated? Let me just cut to the chase, Shale Oil is a joke within the Oil industry, "Shale Oil, the Energy of the Future, and always will be". No one has yet shown how you can produce more liquid fuel energy (gasoline) from shale oil than you use to produce it!

Learn this acronym by heart "EROEI"- Energy Return On Energy Investment

Thats meaningless conventional wisdom. First its wrong, based on the Shell studies. Second its irrelevant as long as you have an energy source to convert to liquid fuel (such as a nuclear reactor, or natural gas in the case of the Alberta oil sands)

The real reason oil shale won't be useful is production cost. If it costs over twice what CTL costs (which it does), you wont be producing oil shale for liquid fuels untill coal costs go that high. If it costs more than doing synfuel from nuclear hydrogen and limestone (which is possible) it'll never be produced.

Oil shale certainly is viable, and everyone shoots it down for the wrong reason. The real reason it wont compete is because theres something better for a long time to come.

I really REALLY wish this guy was a pollie, and I a cartoonist! :D

[Dezakin]

SoberGoose, I don't want to come off like some of the flamers who you will see after me (or even before me) who will be replying to your post. This site has been going on for nearly 4 years, don't you think everyone who is involved with this subject has heard and investigated what you just stated? Let me just cut to the chase, Shale Oil is a joke within the Oil industry, "Shale Oil, the Energy of the Future, and always will be". No one has yet shown how you can produce more liquid fuel energy (gasoline) from shale oil than you use to produce it!

Learn this acronym by heart "EROEI"- Energy Return On Energy Investment

Thats meaningless conventional wisdom. First its wrong, based on the Shell studies. Second its irrelevant as long as you have an energy source to convert to liquid fuel (such as a nuclear reactor, or natural gas in the case of the Alberta oil sands)

The real reason oil shale won't be useful is production cost. If it costs over twice what CTL costs (which it does), you wont be producing oil shale for liquid fuels untill coal costs go that high. If it costs more than doing synfuel from nuclear hydrogen and limestone (which is possible) it'll never be produced.

Oil shale certainly is viable, and everyone shoots it down for the wrong reason. The real reason it wont compete is because theres something better for a long time to come.

I really REALLY wish this guy was a pollie, and I a cartoonist! :D

When you can't actually argue, mock.

[wisconsin_cur]

We should continue to develop hydrogen, nuclear, and other renewable sources of energy.

Sorry, hydrogen is not a source of energy nor is it renewable. Nuclear is not renewable either. Uranium is a finite resource.

The hydrogen is not a source of energy is almost strawman. It is a fuel and chemical component for producing synthetic fuels. Hydrogen production via thermochemical and high temperature electrolysis should be developed. Mix it with CO2 over the right catalysts and you have diesel fuel. Do it with all the CO2 from limeburning from cement plants around the world and you have 10-20 million barrels per day of diesel fuel.

As for uranium being a finite resource: Meaningless.

With 120 trillion tons of thorium and uranium and 1 ton of thorium capable of producing 2 GW thermal, you would deplete the earths supply sometime in the next 16 million years if you burn it as fast as you can without exceeding the raw heat dissapation capacity of the earth, or some 1000 times the current energy consumption of all of global civilization. Its finite. So's sunlight.

I have to be an agnostic on the science, I confess I do not have the background to parse it one way or another.

I am, however, capable of following trends and the news so my question would be this, assuming that our problems can be fixed and the carrying capacity of the earth maintained/expanded using thorium and uranium to replace delpleting oil fields as feed stock for the many goods service that have expanded us to 6 billion + people,

1. Is the technology in place today?

2. Are projects planned or already being implemented to make this crossover?

3. If not, how quickly can they be put into place?
3a. Are there any politicians advocating this and how far advanced is their political agenda?

4. Understanding that Cantrell is declining at an amazing rate (20%+) and that even a slow decline in Ghwar would be alot of oil in addition to the decline in the North Sea (Link) and that the just in time delivery dogma is now excepted in nearly every industry what are the effects of the possible time lapse between declining oil production and its nuclear replacement?

5. What are the practical effects of deprivation that might/will occur during that lapse? In other words, if there is less fertilizer and thereby less food (to pick one example out of many possible) and the social deprivation/unrest and political gamesmanship that would result wouldn't we expect that obstacles would go up to the building of new nuclear power plants esp if such construction is seen as "benefiting the rich" or people start wanting that money to subsidize their grocery bill, feed their kids or fight illegal immigration or what ever?

These are, I think, serious questions that need to be factored in. It is not only the science that needs to work (and like I said I am forced by ignorance into agnosticism) but the society has to work in order to implement the science.

Will the society work?

[SILENTTODD]

SoberGoose, I don't want to come off like some of the flamers who you will see after me (or even before me) who will be replying to your post. This site has been going on for nearly 4 years, don't you think everyone who is involved with this subject has heard and investigated what you just stated? Let me just cut to the chase, Shale Oil is a joke within the Oil industry, "Shale Oil, the Energy of the Future, and always will be". No one has yet shown how you can produce more liquid fuel energy (gasoline) from shale oil than you use to produce it!

Learn this acronym by heart "EROEI"- Energy Return On Energy Investment

Thats meaningless conventional wisdom. First its wrong, based on the Shell studies. Second its irrelevant as long as you have an energy source to convert to liquid fuel (such as a nuclear reactor, or natural gas in the case of the Alberta oil sands)

The real reason oil shale won't be useful is production cost. If it costs over twice what CTL costs (which it does), you wont be producing oil shale for liquid fuels untill coal costs go that high. If it costs more than doing synfuel from nuclear hydrogen and limestone (which is possible) it'll never be produced.

Oil shale certainly is viable, and everyone shoots it down for the wrong reason. The real reason it wont compete is because theres something better for a long time to come.

Dezakin, we've been hearing this crap since 1979 (I don't know if your old enough to remember the "2nd Oil Crisis", I came of age during the 1st one of 1973). It always seems if the price of oil was 'just' $20 a barrel more, shale oil would come into it's own.

I remember hearing this when oil was under $30 a barrel! If only the price rose to $60 shale oil would come pouring into the world market!

Well Dazakin? What happened? Oil at this moment is over $130 a barrel and I haven't heard of drop entering the system for the reason I've already pointed out.

What's the old saying? '$ talks, Bullshit walks' . If you don't agree with that list who is producing it , and how much are they producing!

[kpeavey]

Lets say alternatives and renewables can replace petroleum as an energy source. Petroleum is a complex compound from which are derived chemicals and compounds used as feedstock, ingredients and materials for producing other goods. Reduce the oil, you lose plastics, pesticides, herbicides, synthetic fabrics, rubber, solvents, all sorts of things we take for granted everyday. Petroleum decline is not just about the energy. Its the stuff we make out of it that also needs to be replaced with an alternative feedstock.

[Dezakin]

I have to be an agnostic on the science, I confess I do not have the background to parse it one way or another.

I am, however, capable of following trends and the news so my question would be this, assuming that our problems can be fixed and the carrying capacity of the earth maintained/expanded using thorium and uranium to replace delpleting oil fields as feed stock for the many goods service that have expanded us to 6 billion + people,

1. Is the technology in place today?

Light water reactors can be ordered today and operational in 5 years. They're inferior to liquid fluoride/molten salt reactors, in that they have lower operational temperature and consume 200 tons of uranium per year and so might only supply electricity for some thousand years... I would think we'd develop molten salt reactors that we've allready prototyped by then.

2. Are projects planned or already being implemented to make this crossover?

Sort of. We're just at the beginning of the demand spike of oil before it starts declining in supply so there isn't a lot of coherent policy. There is a lot of pollyanna's in the oil industry just as there are a lot of chicken littles... here; Which makes getting coherent restructuring policy difficult. CTL just plants are starting to be put into place, and a well designed CTL plant can still turn any syngas (hydrogen and CO) into liquid fuels. They'll be more common in a decade.

3. If not, how quickly can they be put into place?

It takes several decades. We're in for a rough ride. There are supply chain bottlenecks for light water reactors (heavy forgings for pressure vessels) and development of commercial liquid fluoride reactors still needs to be pursued.

3a. Are there any politicians advocating this and how far advanced is their political agenda?

There are a number of politicians advocating large nuclear builds. John McCain is the most prominent one I can think of. Obama is about as entheusiastic about new nuclear build as you can be when running for the democratic nomination for president. Nearly 80% of the french electric grid is nuclear. China is embarking on massive nuclear buildup today.

4. Understanding that Cantrell is declining at an amazing rate (20%+) and that even a slow decline in Ghwar would be alot of oil in addition to the decline in the North Sea (Link) and that the just in time delivery dogma is now excepted in nearly every industry what are the effects of the possible time lapse between declining oil production and its nuclear replacement?

It is a rough ride, but there are other replacements for declining fields coming online that buy time. Coal will last many decades and supplant with CTL plants. Deepwater fields are likely to come online for a bit of capacity. And finally, theres enough oil wasted that we can survive decreased supply, even though it won't be pleasant.

5. What are the practical effects of deprivation that might/will occur during that lapse? In other words, if there is less fertilizer and thereby less food (to pick one example out of many possible) and the social deprivation/unrest and political gamesmanship that would result wouldn't we expect that obstacles would go up to the building of new nuclear power plants esp if such construction is seen as "benefiting the rich" or people start wanting that money to subsidize their grocery bill, feed their kids or fight illegal immigration or what ever?

I somewhat doubt there would be serious opposition to the only game in town that has a proven ability to power nations without fossil fuels. If there is, its only because coal is still cheap. I suppose its possible that political games will prevent infrastructure from being built in some places. They'll deserve what they get.

[Dezakin]

Lets say alternatives and renewables can replace petroleum as an energy source. Petroleum is a complex compound from which are derived chemicals and compounds used as feedstock, ingredients and materials for producing other goods. Reduce the oil, you lose plastics, pesticides, herbicides, synthetic fabrics, rubber, solvents, all sorts of things we take for granted everyday. Petroleum decline is not just about the energy. Its the stuff we make out of it that also needs to be replaced with an alternative feedstock.

Oh no! If I could only synthesize that stuff from CO and H in some sort of reactor with some sort of catalysts! Sounds like strange Nazi science that some evil regime in South Africa would persue though, and everyone knows that thats science fiction.

[wisconsin_cur]

TY for the answers... I'm still pretty "doomy" but appreciate the effort that went into the responses.

[Dezakin]

Dezakin, we've been hearing this crap since 1979 (I don't know if your old enough to remember the "2nd Oil Crisis", I came of age during the 1st one of 1973). It always seems if the price of oil was 'just' $20 a barrel more, shale oil would come into it's own.

I remember hearing this when oil was under $30 a barrel! If only the price rose to $60 shale oil would come pouring into the world market!

Well Dazakin? What happened? Oil at this moment is over $130 a barrel and I haven't heard of drop entering the system for the reason I've already pointed out.

That has nothing to do with it. The reason shale oil was, is, and allways will be too expensive is theres a limited amount of capital in the world. In 1973, 1979, and today that capital first chased slightly more expensive oil, deepwater oil, and now CTL. Its not about production cost... theoretically Shell could turn a profit today, according to their own studies. But they could turn a bigger profit investing their dollars elsewhere, like deepwater oil, arctic oil, or CTL.

And CTL plants are being built today around the globe, because its cheaper than shale.

[Dezakin]

TY for the answers... I'm still pretty "doomy" but appreciate the effort that went into the responses.

Well, a good example of how fast we could ramp up production with strong public policy support is France. They went from almost no nuclear power supply in 1970 to about 80% in 1990, as a political response to the 1970's oil shocks. I would like the US to pursue such a rush to nuclear power policy, but I think it'll be a bumpier ride than that. Still, it gives an idea of what is possible.

[wisconsin_cur]

TY for the answers... I'm still pretty "doomy" but appreciate the effort that went into the responses.

Well, a good example of how fast we could ramp up production with strong public policy support is France. They went from almost no nuclear power supply in 1970 to about 80% in 1990, as a political response to the 1970's oil shocks. I would like the US to pursue such a rush to nuclear power policy, but I think it'll be a bumpier ride than that. Still, it gives an idea of what is possible.

bold mine.

Do you think it is likely?

[SILENTTODD]

We should continue to develop hydrogen, nuclear, and other renewable sources of energy.

Sorry, hydrogen is not a source of energy nor is it renewable. Nuclear is not renewable either. Uranium is a finite resource.

The hydrogen is not a source of energy is almost strawman. It is a fuel and chemical component for producing synthetic fuels. Hydrogen production via thermochemical and high temperature electrolysis should be developed. Mix it with CO2 over the right catalysts and you have diesel fuel. Do it with all the CO2 from limeburning from cement plants around the world and you have 10-20 million barrels per day of diesel fuel.

As for uranium being a finite resource: Meaningless.

With 120 trillion tons of thorium and uranium and 1 ton of thorium capable of producing 2 GW thermal, you would deplete the earths supply sometime in the next 16 million years if you burn it as fast as you can without exceeding the raw heat dissapation capacity of the earth, or some 1000 times the current energy consumption of all of global civilization. Its finite. So's sunlight.

You know Dezakin, you have all the answers and just how to do it, you should be be putting you money where your mouth is! Who knows you could be having Paul Allen and Bill Gates washing and waxing your cars!