OT: Oil Shale

[RN7]

Has anyone noticed the coming importance of oil shale in the worlds energy supply?

Estimates set the total world resources of oil shale at potentially over 5 trillion barrels of shale oil. Although only part of it is technically or economically recoverable at the moment, conservative estimates of recoverable oil in place well in excess of 1 trillion barrels. For comparison the world's proven conventional oil reserves are estimated to be 1.317 trillion barrels.

The largest oil shale reserves in the world are in America with an estimated 1.5–2.6 trillion barrels, with Colorado and the mountain states of Utah and Wyoming having by far the largest reserves, but there are large deposits across America. Basically America now has viable oil shale reserves equivalent to five times that of the conventional oil reserves of Saudi Arabia, and possibly a lot more than that.

Last year during the presidential campaign Mitt Romney (who I don't like but did like what he was saying about this) discussed the potential of harnessing it for America's future. Although there are environmental issues its potential is enormous, and when America brings it on-line it will change the course of 21st Century history. Over the next 20 years it could create tens of millions of jobs in extraction, refining, infrastructure, shipping and all types of services. The worlds petro-chemical industry will also gravitate towards America. Oil tankers will be sailing out of New York, the Gulf and California to ports all across Europe, the Far East and beyond. OPEC will collapse and the Arab oil states and the Middle East will become irrelevant as the price of oil plummets. The tax dollars it could generate are mind boggling, and with this resource at America's disposal you can forget about China or anyone else ever overtaking America.

[Cdnwolf]

The biggest problem is that to extract the oil you need a technique called fracking which creates a whole new sort of problems.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydraulic_fracturing

[raketenjagdpanzer]

I'm all for shale oil production in the US. Enough already with the mid-east.

Also (and I realize this is beyond the bounds of a T2k setting, please bear with me): our vehicles - air and land - are becoming more and more and more fuel efficient. Even if we ratchet up "regular" oil production in the US by 2020 we'll be able to give Saudi Arabia the middle finger it so richly deserves.

[RN7]

The biggest problem is that to extract the oil you need a technique called fracking which creates a whole new sort of problems.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydraulic_fracturing

There is no doubt its a complicated process, and there will be a lot of opposition from environmentalists, but its now viable and a majority of the worlds new oil and gas wells are now being hydraulically fractured. Conventional oil drilling is neither clean or easy either, offshore drilling is expensive and very complicated, and nuclear power and green energy also has its drawbacks and limitations.

But the economics of it are to large to ignore. Complete independence in energy supply, in fact America would become the worlds largest exporter by a country mile and it could change world trade patterns. It could also change the foreign policy of America and others. The Arabs must be worried as there will no longer be a need to suck up to their distasteful regimes in the Middle East, and spend a fortune basing military forces there as no one will need their oil anymore. Its a massive boost to America's economic future.

[kalos72]

Oil independence at what cost? The fact we are not spending more money on researching the NEXT new technology is troubling.

I do not want another 50 years on oil...

[raketenjagdpanzer]

Oil independence at what cost? The fact we are not spending more money on researching the NEXT new technology is troubling.

I do not want another 50 years on oil...

(Note: this may seem like I'm grousing at you, but I promise I'm not)

...at the cost of no more wars for the stuff? No more living under the sword of damocles and bowing and genuflecting to a bunch of 14th-century tribesmen who happen to have lear jets and bentleys and brutally suppress anyone who's not them (I mean, specifically them)? No more excuses for the OBLs of the world because fuck them and their big black rock in the middle of the damn desert?

Yeah that's a hell of a terrible price to pay.

Fact is, you're never going to get away from oil. Ever. Nuclear is safer, but what about the exotic (read: lithium) materials for the electric batteries in your car? Not exactly recyclable. Also those aren't in quantity in the US and we wind up going overseas for it...back to square one. Plus there's a lot POL does that doesn't go into your gas tank - tires, asphalt, lubricants, jets which despite recent advances don't fly on anything BUT dirty ol' kerosene. If we ditch oil and go electric with our vehicles, pollution will skyrocket because clean coal is further off than oil independence and still has a huge human cost and environmental impact. Plus - fun fact - coal smoke has radioisotopes in it! So downwind from a coal plant is like being downwind from a nuclear plant in terms of what you're breathing, eating and drinking in.

Solar cells wear out, and the chemicals used to make them are horrendously toxic and many are petroleum based plastics. Wind farms are a joke at the kwh/cost ratio, hydro-electric only works near places you've got the rivers, waterfalls and lakes to dam up (and good luck with getting that through environmental concerns). Fusion should start up in a "prototype" stage in France by 2050 thanks to a multi-national effort that will, when they switch the thing on, have cost $500 billion. And all it is is a prototype. By 2080, we'll hopefully have a working design where they can start using them regularly. Hopefully.

The reality is this: none of it is a great option but some are better than the others. As I said our vehicles are getting more and more fuel efficient and cleaner anyway, we're digging the stuff out of the ground here at home so it's gonna get cheaper - all in all we're in pretty good shape. Practically, we're "on oil" forever, in some way shape or fashion. There's no silver bullet fix for our energy needs...

[RN7]

Oil independence at what cost? The fact we are not spending more money on researching the NEXT new technology is troubling.

I do not want another 50 years on oil...

Well it depends on what new technology your referring to. In all technology fields America is generally the leader or one of the leaders ranging from aerospace to space exploration, to biochemistry and nanotechnology. In regards to energy the only bigger event than could occur than America's new oil resources would be viable nuclear fusion. In that field American research done at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Los Alamos, the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory and Sandia among others is only rivalled by European research reactors in England, France and perhaps Russia.

[kalos72]

But thats just it...there is no next technology.

We are so sold on oil that instead of spending the money looking for that next tech, we would rather look for more oil.

Big business has our R&D bought so they would never release the next tech without them controlling it.

[Schone23666]

But thats just it...there is no next technology.

We are so sold on oil that instead of spending the money looking for that next tech, we would rather look for more oil.

Big business has our R&D bought so they would never release the next tech without them controlling it.

Not saying that your argument is invalid, but that "next technology" is likely going to have some hiccup/developmental headache/environmental impact/etc. of some sort. There are, sadly, no free rides when it comes to energy issues.

While I wouldn't mind in fact seeing us slowly moving away toward another energy source at some point, you're not going to get rid of petroleum production anytime soon. Too many other products are made with it as mentioned, all-important lubricants among them.

[Targan]

For the most part, globally speaking, there's no real sense of urgency in moving to non-fossil fuel-based energy production. It's particularly a problem in democracies. It's natural for most human beings to focus on the near-to-medium term. If someone tells the average human that they can have an easy, cheap energy source now but maybe that will cause sea levels to rise and climate to change decades in the future, or they can have more expensive, less easy energy now (at some personal cost and inconvenience) but that will mitigate possible environmental issues decades in the future, the average human will take the easy option every time.

I understood very clearly what the greenhouse effect is when I was a child. Luckily for me my parents have a very broad general knowledge so most of my questions received sensible, detailed answers. Before the age of 10 I understood that Venus is the brightest object in the sky after the Sun and the Moon because it's atmosphere is mostly carbon dioxide. It has a runaway greenhouse effect. Technically Venus is in our solar system's habitable zone but the way the coin flipped in it's development resulted in it having a surface temperature higher than the melting point of lead.

Greenhouse effect isn't some fantasy construct, you can see an example of it in the sky at night. Human-induced, rapid climate change has been pretty conclusively proven. The western world has had its industrial revolution and has reaped the rewards of centuries of continuous industrial and economic development. Now China and India are quite rightly demanding their place in the sun and their pollution levels will dwarf those of the western world in the coming decades. It's kind of hypocritical to expect them not to do exactly as our countries did to make us powerful and comfortable and blessed with a large and healthy middle class.

Aint nothing going to stop rapid global warming now. Sea levels will rise, probably quite noticeably in my lifetime. The 45 degree Celsius days I experience in my city during summertime will eventually be 50 degree days. Low-altitude people who have always wanted a beachfront property will eventually have it without having to move, at least for a while until the waves are lapping through their kitchens. Long story short, teach your kids to swim.

[pmulcahy11b]

Don't get me started on oil shale and our deliberately ignoring global climate change...

[Raellus]

It's all about human nature regarding instant versus delayed gratification and taking the path of least resistance. And the profit motive.

[kato13]

It's all about human nature regarding instant versus delayed gratification and taking the path of least resistance. And the profit motive.

As someone who has looked closely at the underlying math, I feel there is a huge profit motive behind the whole "Carbon credits" and "Carbon Tax" schemes (my word of choice).

I personally am a "denier" regarding carbon dioxide. If there has any human effect on weather (most admit there has been no warming since 1998) i feel that methane, deforestation, and urbanization would have had an equal or larger effect than carbon dioxide (which by my research mathematically suggests it could not provide more than a 1/3 of a degree C net effect), but IMO carbon dioxide has been made the villain because it is easier for people to make money off it.

I don't want this forum to descend into posts of conflicting studies, but I feel that the case is no where near closed on this matter.

[Raellus]

I don't doubt that the planet is warming up. The science is pretty conclusive on that point. I experience it with my own sensory organs as well. It was 114F in Tucson yesterday and, with only a couple of exceptions, each summer that I've lived here (this will be the 20th) has been hotter, and generally drier, than the last. My mind's not quite made up as to if or to what degree humans have influenced this trend, but it seems to me that we sure aren't helping matters any.

I certainly don't think "global warming" is a conspiracy to make money through carbon credits or taxes. There's already literally trillions of dollars being made every year by traditional (coal, oil, natural gas) energy suppliers so if the money leads anywhere, it would seem to lead to suppression of information about the human influence on global warming rather than the manufacturing of hoax data to support alternative clean energy money-making schemes. Petrochemical companies have way more financial muscle than Universities, or solar cell manufacturers, or liberal think tanks, or all of them put together. If anyone can drive a political agenda, it's big money.

[kato13]

I don't doubt that the planet is warming up. The science is pretty conclusive on that point. I experience it with my own sensory organs as well. It was 114F in Tucson yesterday and, with only a couple of exceptions, each summer that I've lived here (this will be the 20th) has been hotter, and generally drier, than the last. My mind's not quite made up as to if or to what degree humans have influenced this trend, but it seems to me that we sure aren't helping matters any.

I certainly don't think "global warming" is a conspiracy to make money through carbon credits or taxes. There's already literally trillions of dollars being made every year by traditional (coal, oil, natural gas) energy suppliers so if the money leads anywhere, it would seem to lead to suppression of information about the human influence on global warming rather than the manufacturing of hoax data to support alternative clean energy money-making schemes. Petrochemical companies have way more financial muscle than Universities, or solar cell manufacturers, or liberal think tanks, or all of them put together. If anyone can drive a political agenda, it's big money.

You really think that a "Carbon Tax" in the US would be small potatoes? The lowest estimates I have seen is 1000 dollars per household with some people saying it would need to be 5000 dollars per household to effect real change in peoples usage. That is some serious money running into someones hands and it would of course be dispensed to worthy green projects not horribly run businesses run by connected political donors (**cough** Solyndra **cough**). Maybe i am more of a cynic that most because i see this as an extension of Chicago Style politics, but it is clear as day to me.

Say there is a problem
Regulate and Tax to try to solve it
Reward those who support you with partial enforcement of the regulations and or tax breaks and by direct grants.
Reap political rewards

In addition to the government wanting to control that much money is the fact that balancing out the power of "big money" is the power of "big media". There were 92 global warming stories on US network television news in the past year and not a single one mentioned the lack of statistically significant warming since the mid to late 90s.

Yes we are seeing some very warm days in some locations (on the other hand last night it was only in the low 50s F here in Chicago), but the earths weather system is monumentally complicated. The weather in the 1930s was just as "weird" as stuff we have seen recently (It also was at the tail end of a normal warming cycle), and some prominent scientists blamed the proliferation of AM radio for what they were seeing then. When things seem to be out of mans ability to control our nature is to try to find some cause we can manage.

[mikeo80]

If I may, i would like to get back to the discussion on the oil shale in western USA. There was a proposal in 1965 that would use nuclear explosions to "crack" the dense shale to make extraction of oil easier.

http://www.onepetro.org/mslib/servlet/onepetropreview?id=00001068

This is one experiment that I for one am glad they never tried.

My $0.02

Mike

[kato13]

In a mid frame science fiction scenario (out 15-100 years, but before room temperature super conductors) I could see a mix of fusion and oil shale being used to power the US.

In addition to powering the grid, the fusion energy could be used to process the shale in oil, which has tremendous advantages in long term storage and transportation.

The oil continues to be processed into gas which until Room temp super conductors will still probably out perform batteries as far as mobile energy storage goes.

[kalos72]

I understand oil will be around for a long time, but why not at least take steps to reduce consumption?

I mean seriously, most average houses can be powered by the solar. Make it mandatory that every new home can produce at least 50% of the occupants consumption and see what happens to research in that technology.

All I want to see is some effort but the oil industry will stop at nothing to get that killed...

[kato13]

Solar has many limitations.

First is only being able to be use about 33% of the time when you take into account nighttime and cloudy/overcast days.

Second is the current technology requires to use rare earth elements. If you tried to put them on every home costs would skyrocket (With a ton of the money going to China).

Coal (which is going to be around even longer than oil) was about 50 times cheaper to create a Kw hour in 2007 IIRC

The average American home used 11,280 kWh per year in 2011. If you want to cover your usage during daylight hours you would need the following
$34,000 to $42,000 installed (2008 prices)
275 to 360 square feet
This would cover 30-45% of your energy depending on the weather conditions. (I expect in Seattle you would generate much less Phoenix a bit more.)

[Raellus]

You really think that a "Carbon Tax" in the US would be small potatoes? The lowest estimates I have seen is 1000 dollars per household with some people saying it would need to be 5000 dollars per household to effect real change in peoples usage. That is some serious money running into someones hands and it would of course be dispensed to worthy green projects not horribly run businesses run by connected political donors (**cough** Solyndra **cough**). Maybe i am more of a cynic that most because i see this as an extension of Chicago Style politics, but it is clear as day to me.

And big oil isn't a connected political donor? I'm a cynical as you when it comes to politics, but perhaps I'm a little more cynical when it comes to the political influence of multinational corporations. Look at the top earning corporations over the last decade or so and big oil dominates the top five nearly every year. I don't have any figures to back it up, but I'd be willing to wager all of my worldly possessions and life savings that fossil fuel and petrochem companies spend more on political donations and advertising than solar, wind, hydro, nuclear and every other conceivable sustainable energy company combined, each year, every year. I don't see that changing anytime soon.

If big oil can profit from a carbon tax, well then I'm right there with you in thinking that it will eventually happen because they have the financial muscle and political influence to get it done. Solyndra and Al Gore and the California State University System simply don't.

I just don't see scientists, the media, and liberal politicians conspiring to raise taxes by crafting what would be the biggest, most wide-reaching hoax of all time. To quote the late, great Bob Marley, "You can't fool all the people all the time."

I respect you Kato and I don't want this to get testy so this is the last I'm going to say on the matter. You've got the last word. I'm fine with agreeing to disagree on this one.

[kato13]

I just don't see scientists, the media, and liberal politicians conspiring to raise taxes by crafting what would be the biggest, most wide-reaching hoax of all time. To quote the late, great Bob Marley, "You can't fool all the people all the time."

I respect you Kato and I don't want this to get testy so this is the last I'm going to say on the matter. You've got the last word. I'm fine with agreeing to disagree on this one.

We can come back to this in ten or fifteen years to see who was right, but remember that in the 1970s global cooling was going to kill us all.

[Raellus]

We can come back to this in ten or fifteen years to see who was right, but remember that in the 1970s global cooling was going to kill us all.

Deal. Assuming, that is, that we haven't all melted by then. ;)

[kalos72]

Global warming/cooling is one of the big hoaxes my friends. Not that they exist or not but it keeps us fighting/arguing about that rather then facing the FACT we cannot live on oil alone.

The FACT is big oil doesn't want a new tech because then they would lose out on the billions in profit per quarter they are making now.

Until our leaders make the decision we need to start looking past oil as our lifeblood resource, we will be stuck. Problem is our leaders dont lead unless someone donates. :(

[Cdnwolf]

Okay people way off topic now.

It would make a great way to rebuild the world after the war ends though. Nations coming together to make a brave new world... :D

[kato13]

Okay people way off topic now.

You are very right.

[kalos72]

Well, how do you extract the oil from shale? Isn't the process harder then normal drilling for liquid petroleum products?

[Targan]

Well, how do you extract the oil from shale? Isn't the process harder then normal drilling for liquid petroleum products?

Fracking (haydraulic fracturing) is how you do it. If you can, watch the documentary film Gasland. Then tell me how you feel about shale oil.

[RN7]

I'm not fully convinced that humans are a major contribution to climatic change. Pollution certainly, but I'm not convinced about climatic change. Why? Because climatic change has continually occurred throughout history and mostly before human society was industrialised, and it will happen again.

I used to be an archaeologist and palaeoclimatology has confirmed that climatic events have affected human societies since the Stone Age. The Ancient Greeks, Egypt, Rome, China, Mesoamerican civilisations and Medieval Europe have all been effected by it.

New shale oil deposits in America will not make the world warmer or colder.

[kato13]

Well, how do you extract the oil from shale? Isn't the process harder then normal drilling for liquid petroleum products?

Yes it is energy/heat intensive. Most methods will also require volumes of water. Natural gas is often produced as a byproduct or is found in the formations so that can help with the heat source, but water has often been a limiting factor.

Extraction was nearly economically viable in the early 80s when oil prices were at historically high levels.

Opec's response to us potentially tapping our own reserves was to increase production to make it economically nonviable (in 1986 the price of oil dropped 46%). Lots of investors in the technology went bankrupt so the market has been very gun shy about approaching it again.

The thought now is that with emerging markets in China and India, OPEC can not meet demand enough to crater prices again. That combined with historical high prices has renewed interest.

Game wise I would have expected there to be little interest in US Shale until the war started and the desire to be self sufficient presented itself. Given there were very few people interested in it during the 90's building the infrastructure from scratch would have been difficult.

Maybe there would some small pilot programs similar to what the Air Force is doing now with converting coal to jet fuel.

[Targan]

I'm not fully convinced that humans are a major contribution to climatic change. Pollution certainly, but I'm not convinced about climatic change. Why? Because climatic change has continually occurred throughout history and mostly before human society was industrialised, and it will happen again.

I used to be an archaeologist and palaeoclimatology has confirmed that climatic events have affected human societies since the Stone Age. The Ancient Greeks, Egypt, Rome, China, Mesoamerican civilisations and Medieval Europe have all been effected by it.

New shale oil deposits in America will not make the world warmer or colder.

I strongly disagree with some of what you said (although I completely agree that non-human influenced climate change has occurred countless times before) but the views being expressed here are obviously so entrenched I don't think any further OT discussion here will be helpful.

[RN7]

Fracking (haydraulic fracturing) is how you do it. If you can, watch the documentary film Gasland. Then tell me how you feel about shale oil.

Is there an alternative to oil? Living near a nuclear power station would not be to my liking, and scientists have been trying to make breakthroughs in nuclear fusion since the start of the atomic age but yet to no avail. Green energy would be great but hydroelectricity only works in areas with favourable geography and solar panels just don't produce enough power. Also people who live near wind farms complain about the noise causing a lack of sleep and being irritating and down right unbearable. Oil shale is America's energy future, although it will need some serious government regulation to avoid irresponsible wildcatting and profit mongering in the early stages of its development.

[RN7]

I strongly disagree with some of what you said (although I completely agree that non-human influenced climate change has occurred countless times before) but the views being expressed here are obviously so entrenched I don't think any further OT discussion here will be helpful.

Climate change like politics is very divisive and can bring out extreme views. My intension was to start a discussion about oil shale not climatic change and its starting to go way OT.

[kalos72]

Can oil shale be burned as is, like coal maybe? Otherwise, I don't see the T2k timeline working for the relatively new tech.

Unless you live in an area with no coal or oil I guess...then you do what you can to survive.

[RN7]

Extraction was nearly economically viable in the early 80s when oil prices were at historically high levels.

Opec's response to us potentially tapping our own reserves was to increase production to make it economically nonviable (in 1986 the price of oil dropped 46%). Lots of investors in the technology went bankrupt so the market has been very gun shy about approaching it again. The thought now is that with emerging markets in China and India, OPEC can not meet demand enough to crater prices again. That combined with historical high prices has renewed interest.

After using oil as a weapon against the west for decades, and creating massive nationally owned oil concerns to freeze out the Western Supermajors, it now seems that worlds largest oil reserves are in America and there is nothing they can do about it. How ironic!

I would just love to know what OPEC and the Arabs are thinking?

[kato13]

Can oil shale be burned as is, like coal maybe? Otherwise, I don't see the T2k timeline working for the relatively new tech.

Unless you live in an area with no coal or oil I guess...then you do what you can to survive.

Most of it would burn but I believe it would produce ash residue similar to very low grade coal. That makes it very non desirable for power generation.

Another thing to remember is that almost all of the chemical industry developed as coal and oil were being tapped as a resource. This is due to the huge number of chemicals in oil, oil shale and coal what can be acquired from their pre-processing.

[Raellus]

There's apparently a Gasland II coming out soon on HBO. It's focus is the corporate influence on politics resulting in a scaling back of environmental impact studies and government regulation of the drilling industry.

[kato13]

As I said before I do not want this thread to descend into conflicting studies, but since i looked them up and read them I felt others might find them interesting. Here are counter points from opponents of the Gasland documentary, an affirmation document from the director and a summary of the discussed errors from the New York Times

Debunking Gasland
http://www.energyindepth.org/2010/06/debunking-gasland/

Affirming Gasland
http://1trickpony.cachefly.net/gas/pdf/Affirming_Gasland_Sept_2010.pdf

New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2011/02/24/24greenwire-groundtruthing-academy-award-nominee-gasland-33228.html?pagewanted=all

[Bullet Magnet]

If you're going with the v1 timeline, it may not be that big of an issue. "Classic" drilling, once back in operation, should be able to provide at least a good proportion of our oil needs. Keep in mind the population depletion as a result of the war, though this may also result in a shortage of skilled workers.

I'm not sure what level of development we had for fracking by 2001. I'd imagine as we got into post-war rebuilding, there might be some efforts on research in this field, though I cannot speculate on the rate of progress relative to real world. On one hand, the consensus may be "we have more important things to worry about right now", slowing progress. However, if more people think along the lines of "we need to make sure we have an infrastructure in place so we're not so hosed if some asswipe decides to start up WW4" could make the T2K progress equal to real world, or maybe even a little ahead.

[Targan]

I'm not sure what level of development we had for fracking by 2001.

This from the Wikipedia article on hydraulic fracturing:

Due to shale's high porosity and low permeability, technology research, development and demonstration were necessary before hydraulic fracturing could be commercially applied to shale gas deposits. In the 1970s the United States government initiated the Eastern Gas Shales Project, a set of dozens of public-private hydraulic fracturing pilot demonstration projects. During the same period, the Gas Research Institute, a gas industry research consortium, received approval for research and funding from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

In 1997, based on earlier techniques used by Union Pacific Resources, now part of Anadarko Petroleum Corporation, Mitchell Energy, now part of Devon Energy, developed the hydraulic fracturing technique known as "slickwater fracturing" which involves adding chemicals to water to increase the fluid flow, that made the shale gas extraction economical.