| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front Economy |
| Oil Shale Research |
| 2006-10-03 |
| Chevron and Los Alamos National Laboratory Launch Research Project to Unlock Hydrocarbons Trapped in Oil Shale Formations {I think China has a lot of oil shale too - presumably they still have access to Los Alamos research.} SAN RAMON, Calif., Sep. 25, 2006 -- Chevron Corporation (NYSE: CVX) and Los Alamos National Laboratory today announced the creation of a joint research project to improve the recovery of hydrocarbons trapped in oil shales and slow-flowing oil formations. The goal of the Chevron-Los Alamos collaboration is to develop an environmentally responsible and commercially viable process to recover crude oil and natural gas from western U.S. oil shales. The joint research and development effort will focus on oil shale formations in the Piceance Basin in Colorado. The work will include reservoir simulation and modeling, as well as experimental validation of new recovery techniques, including a form of in-situ (in-ground) processing that has the potential to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions. Oil shales are sedimentary rocks containing a high proportion of organic matter called kerogen that can be converted into crude oil or natural gas. The U.S. Geological Survey estimates the United States holds 2 trillion barrels of oil shale resources, with about 1.5 trillion barrels of those resources located in the western United States, primarily in Wyoming, Colorado and Utah. The research project will be conducted under the Strategic Alliance for Energy Solutions launched by Los Alamos and Chevron in 2004. The alliance supports Los Alamos in its mission, on behalf of the U.S. Department of Energy, to advance the national, economic and energy security of the United States through scientific and technological innovation. It also supports Chevron's strategy to develop innovative research and educational partnerships within the energy industry. |
| Posted by:Glenmore |
| #16 An article in Rantburg (about a month ago), reported that in Israel they had developed a cost effective catalyst to retrieve most of the oil from shale and the remaing oil in the shale rock was burned off in an electrical generating plant.I thought it cost $20 dollars a barrel. |
| Posted by: Flomoter Ulolush5791 2006-10-03 23:59 |
| #15 BA you're off by a whole factor, try using BILLION not trillion. The oil shale reserves in the US are considered quite possibly the largest reserve of oil ANYWHERE in the world. |
| Posted by: Valentine 2006-10-03 23:54 |
| #14 #13 - 174 tbarrels isn't much good if 100 tbarrels have to be used up to slowly extract the oil. All the Saudis have to do is run their pumps and dump the liquid into the oil tankers offshore. I will get interested in oil from shale after I have pumped some of it into the tank of my pickup, if it doesn't rust to pieces by then. I have next to no hope there will be much of an improvement in world oil supply in my lifetime. I am holding on to my 1983 Ford diesel pickup, which can run on vegetable oil in the summer time, and can even be push-started. This Dept of Energy article gives an estimate 2-6 trillion barrels of "well-bore" oil -- that has ever existed on earth. 1 trillion barrels have already been consumed, the stuff which was the cheapest/easiest to recover. The remainder will be harder to bring out, and much of it is located in Islamistan. There are a lot of tall tales about "reserves" -- the oil producers don't want to upset the market with pessimism. Perhaps the reason they aren't building refineries is that they anticipate less stock to refine in the near future, so why waste the investment? The author James Kunstler is as much against Islamic fascism as our host is, but he posted this on his blog yesterday: Possession of the largest reserve of the world's crucial resource, oil, has no doubt driven the people of the Middle East crazy. It has fed the resurgence of a militant Islam that seeks to punish and antagonize the Judeo-Christian West (and, call it whatever else you will, the 9/11 attack was certainly an act of antagonism). It has also caused populations to swell far beyond the carrying capacity of the region, with predictable results. [i.e., The lives of the people of the Middle East are even more dependent on oil than the lives of Americans - my note] But with most of the Middle East nations now at or past peak oil production -- including Iran and Saudi Arabia --we can expect only more dangerous behavior....Sooner or later America will lose its ability to influence the people and events in the Middle East, and at the same time we will probably lose access to the oil of the region. Yes, oil is a "fungible" resource that finds its way through markets. But the markets themselves will be badly destabilized by the economics of post-peak production. Do not expect on-time delivery....The Canadian producers have substantial contracts with China for the products of the tar sands. I have no doubt the US will invoke the Monroe Doctrine to cancel those contracts. Expect a pissed off China.... [ #9] Don't get too excited about Chevron's "Jack" discovery in the deep waters of the Gulf of Mexico. Even at its most fantastical extrapolation, it would represent about two years of US oil consumption, and it would be expensive to a laughable extreme... The bottom line is that the only meaningful project for the US now is to turn its attention and remaining resources to the job of preparing for civilized life without oil [or at least a hell of a lot less annual consumption than is currently happening - my note]. This is the topic that is absent from our political discourse on all sides and at all levels. [my emphasis]The anti-war community is itself either lost in raptures of Bush-hatred or preoccupied with fantasies for running the interstate highways on used french-fry oil. We have to talk about things beyond just running our cars by other means. |
| Posted by: Anguper Hupomosing9418 2006-10-03 18:43 |
| #13 Oldspook: Last data I saw (and granted this is from the Atlanta Journal-Constipation) was that Saudi had roughly 260 Trillion barrels "proven reserves" in the ground. So, 2 trillion is mere pocket change. However, on that same article (6/13/2004 AJC), Canada had some 174 trillion barrels of crude and tar sands combined (making it the 2nd largest reserve in the world, if you include tar sands). So, Canucks could very well be our saving grace (seems like I've read here at RB too, that Canada's already fired up several tar-sands wells, or are drilling them as we speak). |
| Posted by: BA 2006-10-03 16:09 |
| #12 Doesn't Colorado have more reserves than Saudi Arabia if they can figure out how to extract it economically? |
| Posted by: Oldspook 2006-10-03 14:10 |
| #11 Inject CO2 into the oil shale field 'plates'. Three things will happen. The so-called sequestration of CO2 (not my favorite, but hey, it pays the bills and lights up the eyes of the investors). Supercritical CO2 'solvates' and makes mobile the hydrocarbons exposed, which then go into solution. The most mobile (lightest) fractions move first, allowing a sort of in ground fractionation. Heat required is greater than 100 F, so depth is a factor. Multiple source pumps for greatest dispersion, one or more return lines for extraction. Pressure decrease causes the CO2 to unburden itself of whatever it solvated. Close the loop on the return to prevent loss of the CO2. Pilot is being built. |
| Posted by: Whiskey Mike 2006-10-03 14:00 |
| #10 I remember a nuke explosion, in my youth, where they were trying to convert oil shale to natural gas with a huge underground explosion. It made the oil too radioactive. Has anybody revisited the test site to see if the radiation has dropped enough to use the gas? |
| Posted by: 3dc 2006-10-03 13:53 |
| #9 chevron is also the company that had the deep (25k ft) well in the Gulf of Mx also, I own stock in this company too; unfortunately they have had a difficult time repairing infrastructure damaged in the 05 hurricane season-- if they hadn't had this trouble the stock would probably be at least 20% higher |
| Posted by: mhw 2006-10-03 13:20 |
| #8 This is some sort of me-too with government bells-and-whistles. Shell's been playing with oil shale for over two years now. |
| Posted by: Mitch H. 2006-10-03 13:20 |
| #7 Crurt, Warning on oil shale companies is sound, but do note that this is not some penny stock outfit, nor even a middlin' Fortune 500 one. This article is, however, a corporate press release - aka propaganda piece. (I've done well with their stock over the past few decades.) C-Low, Oil extraction from shale is costly and has not been competitive with other energy sources, but it does have a positive energy balance (consumes less than one barrel to get one barrel out - I'm not sure ethanol does) and so could be economic at the right price. Water is the biggest issue - if the shales were in Louisiana we could probably be producing them now. RD, Glad someone appreciated my snark. |
| Posted by: Glenmore 2006-10-03 13:11 |
| #6 {I think China has a lot of oil shale too - presumably they still have access to Los Alamos research.} |
| Posted by: RD 2006-10-03 12:48 |
| #5 Another limitation on shale recovery, which is especially troubling in the Western US, is the vast amount of water required to process the stuff. The firm that figures out how to process oil shale without the high temperature and water requirements will be rich indeed. |
| Posted by: Dreadnought 2006-10-03 12:43 |
| #4 I read somewhere forget were that the only thing holding the Oil Shale back was the gov EPA not allowing them a green light to use Nuclear reactors. My interpretation was that right now they use fuel to heat with rods the earth were oil shale is trapped then once liquified they suck it out. Right now the cost to heat the earth makes the resulting oil shale oil too expensive compared to standard crude wells. The Nuclear angle is that the nuclear energy is alot by a factor cheaper and efficiant at the job. I don't know if this is the answer personally I think the Gulf, Alaska, Apalachans ect.. should be tapped full alt. We currently give billions upon billions a year to foreign UNFRIENDLY nations for oil, I think it a national catastrophy even criminal that we have oil here we could tap and send those billions to OUR people OUR economy but instead we don't. The definition of Hypocracy is to claim to be the good guy by not doing something that is a nessecary evil yourself, but in the same breath paying someone else to do that evil for you. We can't drill oil for EPA reason here but we are OK to buy oil drilled in 3rd world backwaters WTF. Sounds more like giving welfare to those 3rd world dumps to do what we can and should do ourselves benefiting from the money. It pisses me off that our leadership dont put the US population above all else in the world. |
| Posted by: C-Low 2006-10-03 12:36 |
| #3 T. Boone Pickens "waits on them" also. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2006-10-03 12:32 |
| #2 It's nice to dream that those shale oil stocks will pay off, but don't go spending your money just yet. Your grandparents waited on those, your parents waited on them and while I wish you well - just keep that in mind. |
| Posted by: Crurt Sneth8456 2006-10-03 12:24 |
| #1 Hopefully this bears fruit quickly. |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2006-10-03 11:32 |