[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
Science/Tech See other Science/Tech Articles Title: Can Royal Dutch Shell's Shale Extraction Technique End 'Peak Oil' Paranoia? Over the past few years, more and more apocalyptic stories have been popping up about a supposed phenomenon known as "peak oil." The theory is that we're running out of oil, the big powers are keeping it quiet, and as supplies dwindle, world-wide economic chaos will ensue. This is hardly a new theory. According to the Chicken Littles of the world, we've been "about to run out of oil" for over thirty years. Obviously it hasn't happened yet. With the recent upswing in strife in the Middle East, however, the notion has gained in popularity. The thing is, this theory is utterly false, and can be laid to rest with a single well-established fact: there is more oil in the Colorado shale fields than the entire Middle East had at its peak. The only reason we're still importing oil is that, at present, it is cheaper to do so than to extract it from shale. Until recently, getting oil out of shale has been a nasty and expensive business. That's about to change, though, as engineers at Royal Dutch Shell have applied for a patent on a new method of extracting shale oil cheaply and cleanly. (As an interesting side note, it is the largest patent application in U.S. history.) Amazingly, this method: * Is cleaner than conventional drilling * Generates the highest grade of light-sweet crude oil, which burns cleaner than other varieties * Becomes profitable with oil just north of $30 a barrel (which we've already blown past) In other words, with Shell's new technique, it actually benefits the environment to switch to shale oil. I found this hard to believe at first, but seeing as I am a patent lawyer, I decided to pull the patent application to see for myself. When I saw the invention laid out on paper, I was convinced that it would work. As with most great ideas, the basic concept is simple. In brief, engineers dig holes around the extraction area, into which they insert giant cooling rods. The water in the soil freezes, and forms an "ice-bowl," which traps the oil and prevents seepage. The center of the formation is then heated, causing the oil to bubble up through the rocks, from which it may then be extracted with ease. The ice-bowl prevents all the nasty chemicals released by this process from getting into the water table. This Wikipedia Article provides more details. Shell has been granted rights to a small patch of shale field in Colorado to make an experimental run with its new method, and all present signs suggest it will be a success. Make no mistake, however. Even if Shell's idea is a disastrous failure, existing technologies can get oil out of the shale — it's just expensive. Other new extraction methods are also being tried by a number of companies. Here's a partial list: # Petrobras (NYSE: PZE - News) # Shell Frontier Oil and Gas # Exxon Mobil (NYSE: XOM - News) # Chevron Shale Oil Company (NYSE: COP - News) # EGL Resources # Milennium Synfuels # Oil Shale Exploration, Inc. The absolute worst case scenario I can fathom is that oil prices could get high enough to make existing shale extraction techniques economically feasible (some estimates put the break-even point at about $75 a barrel). At that point, we could tap our shale reserves and continue on, whether any of the new methods work or not, without any significant changes in infrastructure. Sure, gas would be more expensive, but probably no more-so than Europeans pay now. The economy may go through a rough patch during the transition, but the theory of a global economic meltdown over peak oil just isn't credible. In fact, once shale production takes off, we could easily become the world's biggest exporter of oil, with China as our biggest customer. Strange as it may sound, it is quite possible that, within our lifetimes, Chinese government officials may take to fretting about their dependence on "Middle-Western" oil. In short, don't buy into the peak oil paranoia. It is nothing more than a fairy tale, and is dangerous in that it distracts attention from the real impending crisis within our energy policy: global warming. It makes no sense to waste our time fretting about running out of oil when we in truth should be concentrating on figuring out how to curb our usage of it. After all, even if we were running out, wouldn't the best solution be the same?
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 9.
#5. To: Indrid Cold (#0)
It will only work if you get more energy from the oil extracted than you put into extracting it. Otherwise, it is a total loser.
That's why the bulk cost is ~$30 a barrel, that includes extraction energy costs. BTW, that "small experimental parcel" opened is ~16,000 square miles. The biggest problem with the original oil shale processing technology was that it involved mining the shale, and ending up with huge quantities of tailings that were essentially worthless, or worst, cost money, to manage or get rid of. With Canadian kerogen sands, they at least end up with sand which has a potential use as engineered fill. The articles implied connection with oil and global warming kind of spoiled it for me, as TTMA mentioned, the whole issue is a silver platter feast of fear to get the masses to turn complete energy, and subsequently economic power, over to elites. Global warming is solar and the end result will be better climate than now. And the freakin' polar bears and penguins and all the other cold clime critters made it through the last few dozen cycles fine...
You're exactly right. Almost all global warming is caused by cyclical variations in the sun. Right now, there is global warming on Mars. So the seas might rise by a few inches temporarily. Boo hoo. Then someday they'll go down again. And yes, the polar bears and the penguins will survive, just like they always have. The "elites" mean for us to live in shacks and ride bicycles while they live in mansions and are driven around in limousines. Al Gore's mansion uses 30 times the energy of the average house. He's not going to give that up, being that he believes he is morally and intellectually superior to all us unwashed masses in Flyover Land.
There are no replies to Comment # 9. End Trace Mode for Comment # 9.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|
||