| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Economy |
| Study reveals huge U.S. oil-shale field |
| 2005-09-04 |
| The United States has an oil reserve at least three times that of Saudi Arabia locked in oil-shale deposits beneath federal land in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming, according to a study released yesterday. But the researchers at the RAND think tank caution the federal government to go carefully, balancing the environmental and economic impacts with development pressure to prevent an oil-shale bust later. "We've got more oil in this very compact area than the entire Middle East," said James Bartis, RAND senior policy researcher and the report's lead author. He added, "If we go faster, there's a good chance we're going to end up at a dead end." For years, the industry and the government considered oil shale — a rock that produces petroleum when heated — too expensive to be a feasible source of oil. However, oil prices, which spiked above $70 a barrel this week, combined with advances in technology could soon make it possible to tap the estimated 500 billion to 1.1 trillion recoverable barrels, the report found. The study, sponsored in part by the U.S. Department of Energy, comes about a month after the president signed a new energy policy dramatically reversing the nation's approach to oil shale and opening the door within a few years to companies that want to tap deposits on public lands. The report also says oil-shale mining, above-ground processing and disposing of spent shale cause significant adverse environmental impacts. Shell Oil is working on a process that would heat the oil shale in place, which could have less effect on the environment. Shell claims the insitu extraction is profitable at $30/barrel. |
| Posted by:ed |
| #11 Yeah but a good Cigar is a Cigar. |
| Posted by: Mona Gorilla 2005-09-04 18:42 |
| #10 Saw a Discovery docu on those oil sand.They have soe massive operations under way. |
| Posted by: raptor 2005-09-04 17:25 |
| #9 Me too US. Bacteria is the way to go. Them little tiny robots can go turin on 'ya at any moment. |
| Posted by: Mona Gorilla 2005-09-04 17:24 |
| #8 thirty dollars in the 80's isn't 30 dollars today. |
| Posted by: Mark E. 2005-09-04 15:40 |
| #7 Bah. Alberta oil sand petroleum is running at $12/barrel extraction cost. |
| Posted by: Ptah 2005-09-04 15:13 |
| #6 Ima hope engineered bacteria(s) Knot robots? /stand in/ ship shot |
| Posted by: Ulack Shelet9404 2005-09-04 11:17 |
| #5 ..Actually, Brer's comment has a point in it I'm not sure if anyone else noticed. If the oil companies knew in the 80s that the stuff was profitable - not viable, not break-even, but profitable - at $30+/bbl, that tells me that (at least) the oil company involved here has made a long-range decision that oil will never go back that low, and is planning accordingly. Mike |
| Posted by: Mike Kozlowski 2005-09-04 09:33 |
| #4 I don't know about the "reveals" part. I worked on a project in the early '80's that tapped some of this oil. I remember the $30 a barrel figure from back then. More old news. |
| Posted by: BrerRabbit 2005-09-04 07:30 |
| #3 A much bigger prize could be obtained with the conversion of high sulfur coal to fuel oils. The US has such vast quantities of HSC that it could meet our energy needs for several hundred years. However, the problem lies in removing the sulfur to produce cleaner-burning fuel. The solution to this might be in engineered bacteria(s) that could process vast amounts of coal overnight in several ways. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2005-09-04 00:33 |
| #2 Has everyone forgotten about the untapped oil "gold mine" in Alaska? Oh but wait, that's right we don't want to upset the wildlife. |
| Posted by: Soliderwife Robin 2005-09-04 00:21 |
| #1 Quoting RAND can be as bad as relying on CNN. better info on this at: http://ww2.scripps.com/cgi-bin/archives/denver.pl?DBLIST=rm05&DOCNUM=20000 |
| Posted by: mhw 2005-09-04 00:16 |