GAO To Obama: More Oil Than Rest Of The World

Aoxomoxoa said:
Processing oil shale by ex-situ methods involves the use of huge amounts of water. Cleaning all that up and removing the aromatic hydrocarbons, heavy metals, arsenic, sulphur and other pollutants is by no means a trivial task and would involve considerable costs. This only applies to water used to cool the shale residues, water that is used as part of the retort process is lost to hydrogenation.
Click to expand...

Stop trying to talk down to me, you ain't impressing anybody. YES, the process of extracting oil from shale is tedious and expensive, that's why we haven't really messed with the idea much, we've known of these deposits for years. But when gasoline is approaching $5 a gallon, and people are laughing at the prospects of ever seeing $2 gas again, the process is becoming ever more viable and worthy of consideration. Again... When President Kennedy challenged us to put a man on the moon, we could have all wrung our hands and worried about this problem or that, pontificated on how totally impossible the idea was, and reject any talk of even trying... but we didn't do that, did we? Nope... we took the brass ring, we accepted the challenges, and tackled the impossible. We could have never done it with attitudes like yours.
 
Althea said:
Yes, but there are two distinct ways to access it.
Click to expand...

????

As far as I am aware, there is only one method for extraction of shale oil from oil shale deposits. This is what we have been discussing, I thought... the process for extracting shale oil? Are you sure you are following the conversation? If so, do you have some kind of information to expound on your rather confusing statement?
 
Dixie said:
Not true. As of Sept 2011, runoff was at 128%.
Click to expand...

So your contention is that there is plenty of water in the Colorado River and only "Obama" is keeping America from producing a virtually inexhaustible supply of oil?
 
\\\(())/// said:
So your contention is that there is plenty of water in the Colorado River and only "Obama" is keeping America from producing a virtually inexhaustible supply of oil?
Click to expand...

I never mentioned Obama.

Colorado River....average flow rate of 21,700 cubic feet per second... it's been doing this for the past 100k years or so, as best we can tell, and as long as snow melts in the Rockies, will likely continue to do so for another 100k years.
 
Dixie said:
I never mentioned Obama.
Click to expand...



You didn't? What's the thread title?

Who posted this?

Dixie said:
...Exploding the Big Lie pushed by President Obama...
Click to expand...


Dixie said:
Colorado River....average flow rate of 21,700 cubic feet per second... it's been doing this for the past 100k years or so, as best we can tell, and as long as snow melts in the Rockies, will likely continue to do so for another 100k years.
Click to expand...


So what's preventing the flow of oil from the Green River formation?
 
Dixie said:
Shale oil comes from oil shale deposits.
Click to expand...

As one of my readers told me back in 2008:
Keith, the literature in 1949 would have believe oil from this rock was coming tomorrow, except the papers were dated in 1910. Now it's 2008 and once again they're saying it's right around the corner.
But we know that everything has its price.
How much more attractive will developing the Green River oil shale be when a barrel of crude oil costs $200?
Although some of the largest oil companies are still trying to make the numbers work, the reality here is that the production process requires too much time, money, and water right now. Shell's been at it for nearly fifty years without a breakthrough.
I'll let you make up your own mind as to whether or not we'll get around to developing the vast oil shale deposits...
What I won't let you do, however, is fall for the common misconception that this is the same as shale oil plays like the Bakken. Failing to recognize the drastic difference between these two oil investments would be a catastrophic mistake.
Unlike the kerogen in the Green River, the production coming out of North Dakota is of the light, sweet variety.
Click to expand...



http://www.energyandcapital.com/articles/oil-shale/1917
 
Dixie said:
????

As far as I am aware, there is only one method for extraction of shale oil from oil shale deposits. This is what we have been discussing, I thought... the process for extracting shale oil? Are you sure you are following the conversation? If so, do you have some kind of information to expound on your rather confusing statement?
Click to expand...
It's only confusing because you haven't done your research. There's plenty of info out there, if you are interested.

Google 'in situ' vs. 'mined' shale oil extraction. Two VERY distinct processes, each with benefits/detriments.
 
Althea said:
It's only confusing because you haven't done your research. There's plenty of info out there, if you are interested.

Google 'in situ' vs. 'mined' shale oil extraction. Two VERY distinct processes, each with benefits/detriments.
Click to expand...

You are getting confused as well. As I've already said, shale oil is not the same as oil shale which isn't even shale for the most part. There is really only one process for shale oil which is basically to heat it up and collect the crude oil. Oil shale is not even oil but kerogen, so it needs to be cooked to convert it to oil. There are two main methods, ex-situ and in-situ. The former requires vast amounts of heat and water and is very dirty, the latter is much cleaner and uses far less water but is still at the experimental stage.
 
Last edited:
Aoxomoxoa said:
You are getting confused as well. As I've already said, shale oil is not the same as oil shale which isn't even shale for the most part. There is really only one process for shale oil which is basically to heat it up and collect the crude oil. Oil shale is not even oil but kerogen, so it needs to be cooked to convert it to oil. There are two main methods, ex-situ and in-situ. The former requires vast amounts of heat and water and is very dirty, the latter is much cleaner and uses far less water but is still at the experimental stage.
Click to expand...
What about my post gives you the impression that I'm confused?
 
ZappasGuitar said:
Because, as you'd expect, Dixie's claim that there's enough water in the Colorado is total bullshit.
Click to expand...

There are several areas where he is wrong. First, some of the water is lost in the retorting process via hydrogenation, secondly the water used to cool the shale becomes highly polluted and thirdly I can't see the farmers in that region taken very kindly to being told they can't have so much water. Maybe the Shell project using in-situ techniques will work eventually but I doubt that it would come on stream in less than 10-15 years.
 
\\\(())/// said:
I guess Dixie has heard of the Colorado, but that's about the extent of his "knowledge"...


Since the mid-20th century, intensive water consumption has dewatered the lower course of the river such that it no longer reaches the sea except in years of heavy runoff....

The Colorado River is now considered among the most controlled and litigated in the world, with every drop of its water fully allocated...

Declines in runoff and heavy water use could lead to severe shortages by the mid-21st century, endangering power generation and water supply...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado_River
Click to expand...


Don't bother wasting Dixie's time with boring old "FACTS"...he's said numerous times he doesn't believe anything anyone posts on here regardless of how many outside sources back it up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top