U.s. Oil Resources

[NorCal57]

U.S. Oil Shale Resources Are Three Times Larger Than the Current Oil Reserves in Saudi Arabia

 

YET CONGRESS RECENTLY VOTED TO MAKE IT ILLEGAL TO DEVELOP U.S. OIL SHALE RESOURCES

 

With oil prices at an all-time high, Americans are facing escalating gas, diesel, and aircraft fuel increases. Oil prices are projected to increase further.

Congress, however, has made it illegal to develop vast domestic oil resources in large parts of the United States.

The most startling Congressional prohibition on domestic oil production concerns the recently enacted ban on the development of oil shale resources in parts of Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming in the Green River Formation. According to a Rand Study estimate, this reserve contains over one trillion barrels of oil, with 800 billion barrels fully recoverable, or three times the current oil reserves as Saudi Arabia:

 

The largest known oil shale deposits in the world are in the Green River Formation, which covers portions of Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. Estimates of the oil resource in place within the Green River Formation range from 1.5 to 1.8 trillion barrels. Not all resources in place are recoverable. For potentially recoverable oil shale resources, we roughly derive an upper bound of 1.1 trillion barrels of oil and a lower bound of about 500 billion barrels. For policy planning purposes, it is enough to know that any amount in this range is very high. For example, the midpoint in our estimate range, 800 billion barrels, is more than triple the proven oil reserves of Saudi Arabia. Present U.S. demand for petroleum products is about 20 million barrels per day. If oil shale could be used to meet a quarter of that demand, 800 billion barrels of recoverable resources would last for more than 400 years.

 

(James T. Bartis, et. al., "Oil Shale Development in the United States: Prospects and Policy Issues" (Santa Monica: RAND Corporation, 2005), p. ix. http://rand.org/pubs/monographs/2005/RAND_MG414.pdf) (emphasis added)

 

The same RAND study indicated that technology exists today that would allow oil shale extraction and that the process would be cost effective once the price of a barrel of oil was $95 (p. x). The price of a barrel of oil today is around $130.

 

However, Shell Oil has been investing in technology that would make extraction much cheaper than standard pit mining:

 

Shell Oil Company has successfully conducted small-scale field tests of an insitu process based on slow underground heating via thermal conduction. Larger scale operations are required to establish technical viability, especially with regard to avoiding adverse impacts on groundwater quality. Shell anticipates that, in contrast to the cost estimates for mining and surface retorting, the petroleum products produced by their thermally conductive in-situ method will be competitive at crude oil prices in the mid-$20s per barrel.

 

(James T. Bartis, et. al., "Oil Shale Development in the United States: Prospects and Policy Issues" (Santa Monica: RAND Corporation, 2005), p. x. http://rand.org/pubs/monographs/2005/RAND_MG414.pdf)

 

In short, if the Congress removed its prohibition, America could develop a substantial amount of its oil needs from domestic oil shale resources rather than relying on foreign governments.

 

The Energy Policy Act of 2005 specifically declared that it was the policy of the United States to recognize oil shale as a strategically important domestic resource. Section 369 states:

 

DECLARATION OF POLICY.—Congress declares that it is the policy of the United States that—

 

(1) United States oil shale, tar sands, and other unconventional fuels are strategically important domestic resources that should be developed to reduce the growing dependence of the United States on politically and economically unstable sources of foreign oil imports;

 

(2) the development of oil shale, tar sands, and other strategic unconventional fuels, for research and commercial development, should be conducted in an environmentally sound manner, using practices that minimize impacts; and

 

(3) development of those strategic unconventional fuels should occur, with an emphasis on sustainability, to benefit the United States while taking into account affected States and communities.

 

(Energy Policy Act of 2005, http://www.epa.gov/oust/fedlaws/publ_109-058.pdf)

 

Yet, buried in a Department of Interior appropriations bill passed in December 2007 was an amendment that prevented establishing regulations for leasing land to drill for oil shale. The House passed that amendment, proposed by Rep. Mark Udall of Colorado, on June 27, 2007, by a vote of 219-215.

 

On May 15, 2008 in a 15-14 vote, the Senate Appropriations Committee rejected an amendment by Sen. Wayne Allard (R-CO) to allow oil shale drilling and overturn the Udall moratorium.

 

(http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008...ale-moratorium/)

 

if you believe it, here's a link to a website to sign a petition to let Congress that We The People want some say in this matter-

American Solutions for Winning the Future

 

also lots of good reading there

[bigbengalbubba]

You can also go here and send a letter to your representatives suggesting they open Anwar for drilling.

 

Drill Anwar Now!

[branhap]

To help reduce the energy costs for the electric grid can we put up wind propellers along the California beaches? With the constant wind, i think if the San Fran bay had a couple thousand of those it would really alleviate the electricity shortages that California sees during the summer time.

 

One thing that should be noted. Did you know that many of the oil wells currently here in Wyoming are currently idle? Wyoming has fewer active pads right now than they did in January. The reason why? Foreign companies own the oil & gas rights (Most of the rights in question are owned by BP). Get those companies to get their current wells up and running and perhaps I'll start thinking that the water pollution caused by the oil & gas drilling is worth ruining more forests, killing off additional wildlife, etc. Likewise, many of the refineries in the country are currently sitting idle, or most places refuse to allow them to be built. Oil isn't in shortage. Refined oil products are in shortage.

 

I'm not a tree hugger, but at the same time I think most people who bring this up are the ones that don't live out here. When you are open to getting all of the energy resources from your area of the country, then you can come talk about an area that you don't live in. until then, I think more people need to worry about how to harness the available energy in their own state.

 

Of course, California gets all upset about Coal electricity, but they get their coal and their electricity from plants here in Wyoming instead of using the coal available in the sierra nevadas and building power plants in their own state.

 

Paul

[Wingnut]

I don't think that the shale oil is a) all that recoverable or b) all that plentiful.

 

And for anybody saying "drill in Alaska"...Guess what...It aint all that and a bag of chips. If we sqeeze every last drop out of ANWR, and use it up, we'll burn through it in around what...4 months at our current rate of consumption? Yeah. Not worth it to me.

 

 

Longer term solutions are needed...Like everybody but us has to ride a bike from now on!

[tobias]

I don't think that the shale oil is a) all that recoverable or b) all that plentiful.

 

And for anybody saying "drill in Alaska"...Guess what...It aint all that and a bag of chips. If we sqeeze every last drop out of ANWR, and use it up, we'll burn through it in around what...4 months at our current rate of consumption? Yeah. Not worth it to me.

 

 

Longer term solutions are needed...Like everybody but us has to ride a bike from now on!

Monkeynut approves this message!

 

 

(I know, I know, it's old but you haven't supplied anything newer for me to work with so Monkeynut it is.)

[omegafiler]

Agreed. Enough with the calls for drilling more oil! It's going to take a lot more than that to fix our energy and economical problems. I know it sounds good on paper, but in reality, it'll never accomplish any of the goals people think it will. Well, other than give more money to the oil companies.

 

Oil is "old news" man. Time to move forward with more renewable, cheap, and environmentally friendly power/fuel sources. That won't happen if people are still obsessed with drilling for more oil. Let it go!

[Jackson]

this isn't meant to be taken as an offense to anyone, but I don't think anyone.......at least anyone with sense...........is saying drilling in Alaska is going to totally solve the issue. I also don't think anyone..........again, at least anyone with sense.....is saying that we should solely depend on Alaska because as mentioned if that were 100% of our supply it would be gone in no time.

 

.....HOWEVER, there is absolutely no reason that we should not drill to supplement the supply and help drive prices down.

 

the bigger picture to this puzzle is the refineries and why we haven't built one since the 80s. our capacity to refine oil and not supply is a bigger reason as to why prices are where they are.

[Wingnut]

The "bigger picture" is that it won't matter.

 

We're not short on the supply side of the house. Reserves are filling up worldwide.

[Jackson]

......right, supply is almost even with demand based on the latest figures I've seen, which shows you that we can't refine it quicker than we are using it.....

[Wingnut]

There's no supply shortage, there's been no demand spike here...New refineries won't help either.

 

Oil is a commodity that shouldn't be allowed to be traded by people that have no capacity to store/refine it...Because when we let them buy/sell/trade/etc, they use it like a stock and bid the price up citing all sorts of random and perceived problems in the system. They'll blame supply, they'll blame demand, they'll blame refineries, they'll blame instability in Africa, they'll blame Iraq...But they're just using that stuff as a mechanism to drive up the price so they don't take a bath on the futures they bought.

 

That's how I understand it anyway.

[VMax2007]

Aw screw it, let's just burn it all up and let somebody else worry about after were all gone.

[Draenor]

There's no supply shortage, there's been no demand spike here...New refineries won't help either.

 

Oil is a commodity that shouldn't be allowed to be traded by people that have no capacity to store/refine it...Because when we let them buy/sell/trade/etc, they use it like a stock and bid the price up citing all sorts of random and perceived problems in the system. They'll blame supply, they'll blame demand, they'll blame refineries, they'll blame instability in Africa, they'll blame Iraq...But they're just using that stuff as a mechanism to drive up the price so they don't take a bath on the futures they bought.

 

That's how I understand it anyway.

Thats exactly the problem. Oil is actually valued around $40 a barrel. The rest is an insane markup.

 

 

Aw screw it, let's just burn it all up and let somebody else worry about after were all gone.

Lets use it up, especially in the Middle East. Then those bastards cant make anymore money off of us.

[Wingnut]

I think that it MIGHT be valued closer to $60-$70 a barrel, as worldwide demand really IS up a bit, and their not getting quite as much out of the ground these days either...

 

 

*shakes in boots*

[Jackson]

There's no supply shortage, there's been no demand spike here...New refineries won't help either.

 

Oil is a commodity that shouldn't be allowed to be traded by people that have no capacity to store/refine it...Because when we let them buy/sell/trade/etc, they use it like a stock and bid the price up citing all sorts of random and perceived problems in the system. They'll blame supply, they'll blame demand, they'll blame refineries, they'll blame instability in Africa, they'll blame Iraq...But they're just using that stuff as a mechanism to drive up the price so they don't take a bath on the futures they bought.

 

That's how I understand it anyway.

 

 

that makes sense. good points.

[matt3]

The Rocky mtns are full of oil shale and a lot of it is recoverable but, it is expensive. With the price of a barrel of oil so high right now it is definatly worth it to process the oil out. Another part of the problem is the lack of U.S. refineing capabilities. There hasn't been a new refinery built in the U.S. for about 35 years. Everyone wants gasoline but, everyone says not in my backyard when it comes time to build a refinery. Not to mention the added cost of building a new refinery with all the limits the EPA puts on and a new refinery must have all the up to date emissions reducing equipment which addes considerabley to the cost. Lastly, it is the stock traders the a f***ing everything up. They get rich and don't care what it does to the cost of gasoline since they now have the money and can afford to buy gas at whateverprice. In some ways the price of a barrel being so way high actually f***s the few oil companys who don't own their own oil fields and the price of a barrel has risen so fast that the price at the pump hasn't quite caught up with it. The oil companies that do own their own oil fields are making a KILLING since it is all paper shuffel to make you believe they aren't making any money. They are the ones who make money pumping it out of the ground and more money refining the crude and more money selling it to us. I wish the U.S. government would take the oil shale/sands process the cude out, build their own network of refineries and sell it ONLY to U.S. gas stations that might help.

 

By the way when oil is trading at $130 a barrel or whatever it is for that matter. Know that that is the price for light, sweet crude. Most oil refineries now process heavy, sour crude and some process a mixture of both.

The price for the heavy sour stuff is considerably less than what the good stuff is going for.