U.S. has largest untapped oil reserve in the world

I don't think this has been posted but forgive me if it has. According to this link, which I found browsing Fark.com lmao, the worlds largest oil reserve is under the U.S. Rocky Mtns. This is news to me, and I haven't heard this anywhere. I didn't even flinch when I read it, because this is what I expect from my government.

Shortened Link for Source


I thought the war on "terror" was mainly about my damned Zionist government getting their hands on middle eastern oil and protecting Israel from being destroyed by everyone over there. But why still go for Islam's oil? Why deceive us into thinking we depend upon middle-east oil? Must be unbelievably greedy SOBs ay? And another thing...I read predictions that say the dollar is going to shnit. If this comes to pass before we seriously tap it, our government is to blame because it's withholding THE answer to the economic problems threatening our livelihood.



[edit on 3-9-2006 by Cherubimsfire]

[edit on 9-3-2006 by worldwatcher]

If it is really feasable to extract this oil, then for big-oil it makes sence to leave it alone for as long as possible. If they have their hands in the oil that is owned by other countries, and make the money that they have in the last few quarters, what happens when they start exporting oil drilled on their own soil? $$$. Let the oil-thirsty world suck all the current oil fields to the point where it is very expensive to extract...tap the oil fields in the US...export that oil...and make a lot more $$$. That's my 2 cents if this oil is actually feasable to extract and export.

That sounds logical to me, rockieboy.

Unfortunatly, all that oil is locked up in what's called Oil Shail. It's solid rock with trace amounts of petro-chemicals bound up in it.

As yet, no one has found a way of extracting the oil from the rock without expending more energy than you get out.

It's a total non-starter until someone can come up with a way to get the oil out at a much reduced energy cost... and even then, it's likely to case some very nasty enviromental damage.

Not much of you lot becoming a bit more energy concious then.
This really worries me - one would hope that as oil becomes more scarce, more thought would go into energy saving and more economical cars etc. With this descovery does it give the US a green light to be as wasteful as ever ?
More pollution, CO2 .... not much hope for slowing global warming.

This has been discussed before on this thread

3 trillion barrels of oil found in Colorado !

and extracting oil from shale was mentioned here

Promise in Extracting Oil from Shale Economically

the first thread has alot good info. in it.

PS. If you are not sure if a topic or article has been discussed already try using the search at the top of the page

I took Geology in Colorado, At the University of Northern Colroado at Greeley. I actually had the pirvalage fo seeing the oil shale, and learning about it.

YES IT IS OIL>

But, The amount of energy requiried to turn this into a viable source, is not worth the end result.

I mean, I knew of Oil Shale 8 years ago, learning it in Geology in college. Trust me, the thought has gone around, and its just not feasable.

BitRaiser and RubinLando, did you even read the link I posted? How about backing up what you say with links that refute the information I relayed because I nor anyone else have reason to even consider your statements partly true right now. Thanks Keyhole

dude its freshman year geology.

WIKIPEDIA:

Mining

With mining, the oil shale is/can be mined either by traditional underground mining or surface mining from the ground and then transported to a processing facility. At the facility, the shale is heated to 450–500 °C and enriched with hydrogen (via introduction of superheated steam). The resulting oil is then separated from the waste material.

More recent but less exhaustively tested technology may enable the shale to be processed at somewhat lower temperatures with the addition of catalyzing bitumen. Carbon rich waste material from the process may be burned in electric power plants. The lighter and more hydrogen rich fractions of the original shale kerogen are available for further refining in fairly standard oil refineries after the catalytic process is complete.

en.wikipedia.org...


Sounds very efficient

Originally posted by BitRaiser
Unfortunatly, all that oil is locked up in what's called Oil Shail. It's solid rock with trace amounts of petro-chemicals bound up in it.

As yet, no one has found a way of extracting the oil from the rock without expending more energy than you get out.

Shell Oil Company is looking into a promising way to extract oil from shale that will produce more energy than it takes to extract the oil. It is called the "Mahogany Research Project".

Source - Wikipedia

Shell is trying to heat the oil shale rock to a temperature of 700 degrees fahrenheit using heating elements that are carefully embedded down into the rock. The oil and natural gas is then baked out of the rock creating pools that can then be pumped to the surface. A fundamental problem of the process is that the oil soaks further down and away into the ground shortly after being turned into liquid. To compensate, Shell has buried refrigeration pipes in a ring around the heating site so that the edges of the extraction site will remain solid and hold the liquid oil in place. This process requires a great deal of energy but in the end produces more energy than it expends (approximately 3.5 times as much energy comes out as goes in). The Energy Return on Energy Invested (EROEI) is low compared to conventional crude oil extraction, however the heating process itself creates a byproduct of natural gas that can be used as the energy input, so heating energy cost should be insignificant compared to the value of the crude oil output.

The US Government has been allowing different oil companies to try different methods to extract this oil from the shale since the 1970's.

This project is an optimistic follow-up to the abandoned projects of other oil companies who received billions of dollars in funding during the Carter Administration in the 1970's only to fail. Private investments also failed and have made investors wary of oil shale projects. The most notorious of these projects undertaken by Exxon under the name of the Colony II Project in Garfield County, Colorado, where 2,000 people eventually lost their jobs when Exxon pulled out of the project in 1982. Shell's project has been a lot more cautious and in early 2005 produced its first successful extractions

Like I said, you are right in saying that it IS OIL. The amount you state is true also.

Not feasable

Originally posted by RubinLando

Not feasable

Just letting y'all see some another company that thinks that extracting oil from shale is feasible.

Oil Tech

It is not economically feasible to produce oil from shale because of the capital required . . . UNTRUE – early attempts by others required heavy capital expenditures on huge facilities based on the alleged benefits of economies of scale. The Oil-Tech process reverses that trend and uses smaller, easily replicated and fabricated modular units. These may be easily transported. Any operational/service problems do not disrupt production by more than a minimal percentage.

It is not economically feasible to produce oil from shale because of the energy required . . . UNTRUE – the Oil-Tech process has been validated to produce shale oil with a very low energy cost. The system can also be upgraded by utilizing cogeneration and a variety of BTU recovery technologies that virtually eliminate the need for external power for any site operations.

If it is not feasible at this moment, I'm sure it will be in the near future.

U.S. has largest untapped oil reserve in the world

the word 'untapped' gives one the notion that the oil reserve is Fluid...
i see the replies/ retorts are citing the fact that the 'oil' is locked in Shale Deposits

i would counter that the word 'untapped' could have been 'un-exploited reserves'...but thats a debate point at best

My point is more along this line of thinking:
that with the USA coveting & husbanding all these oil/gas/shale energy reserves, and doing so for well into the future, we (USA) must take preventive action to dissuade or repel any force or foe that want's to steal or fight for those oil reserves in the future.

With that thought in mind, it makes a bit more sense about President Bush's decision to renew/rebuild the nuclear warheads in the US arsenal.
Having smaller, efficient, tactical nukes replacing those older megaton bombs for the next 10+ years is a calculated strategy that we weren't appreciating! (as of yet)

Perhaps the neocons have in mind this scenario----> with the US being very frugal with the nation's natural resources...as a result, the US will have ample oil reserves as the rest of the world struggles with the 'Peak Oil' problem.
Then, when the US has vast resevoirs of petroeulm up in Alaska(wildlife reserve) and on the edge of the continental shelf (state coastlines of FL, SC, CA, OR, etc...)

All the future US Administrations, will have available to their policy makers,
a means of leveraging or protecting the Domestic oil reserves with all those newer tactical/low yield nuclear deterrents- - (after the middle east oil fields are tapped out & the world is clamoring for gas+petroleum to keep their economies going)

I'm not certain the thinktanks & this Bush regime are thinking along these lines
but it just may well play out that way??? who knows

Simple, build a nuke plant to produce the energy required to extract the oil from the shale. Then you have an electrical source AND the added bonus of distilling the fossil fuel. Two birds with one stone.

What the neocons may have in mind is control of the land, the FEDERAL lands, where the shale is found. Once that is accomplished, when Cronnies and Funnel, Inc. have their greedy fingers in the pie, (all the stock bought up to their 'tax-free' advantage) and the public is so war weary they'll fall for anything, we might see some headway to using this source of energy.

It makes a good reason to keep the turbine engine around for another couple generations without going thru the expense of retooling the transportation industry to a cleaner, environmentally friendly source of energy.

While the rich get richer... all this was probably on Cheney's Energy Panel agenda.

Originally posted by psyopswatcher
Simple, build a nuke plant to produce the energy required to extract the oil from the shale.

I like your way of thinking!!

Thanks Keyhole. It's a bittersweet realization.

It just sickens me to know that TPTB will never allow good to be derived from Earth's bounty UNTIL they have devised and put into place the machinations of maximum profitabilty for themselves first. The rest of us later.

Even going so far as to use our own environmental fears of development for the purpose of stalling innovation that can make life easier all around.

With the worst part by far, using war as a means to their ends. Destroying other peoples lives so it doesn't have to be fought 'over here'.

Originally posted by BitRaiser
Unfortunatly, all that oil is locked up in what's called Oil Shail. It's solid rock with trace amounts of petro-chemicals bound up in it.

As yet, no one has found a way of extracting the oil from the rock without expending more energy than you get out.

It's a total non-starter until someone can come up with a way to get the oil out at a much reduced energy cost... and even then, it's likely to case some very nasty enviromental damage.

Wrong, they already invented a method to extract, in-situ conversion, costs about $30 a barrel when running.

Originally posted by Stratrf_Rus

Originally posted by BitRaiser
Unfortunatly, all that oil is locked up in what's called Oil Shail. It's solid rock with trace amounts of petro-chemicals bound up in it.

As yet, no one has found a way of extracting the oil from the rock without expending more energy than you get out.

It's a total non-starter until someone can come up with a way to get the oil out at a much reduced energy cost... and even then, it's likely to case some very nasty enviromental damage.

Wrong, they already invented a method to extract, in-situ conversion, costs about $30 a barrel when running.

Link please.
Just because you state something doesn't make it true.
If you have some information that precludes mine, please share.

If you are refering to the Mahogany Research Project, I have found nothing that indicates that the oil-energy recovered is greater than that which is expended in it's recovery.

As for the idea of building a nuclear powerplant to provide the energy needed for extraction, you're still overlooking the basic principle: It still takes more energy to extract the oil than you get by burning the oil you have extracted.
All you would be doing is converting nuclear energy into oil energy... and suffering a loss in the conversion. Yes, it would provide oil, but the net result is that you've lost energy.
Wouldn't it be wiser to harness that nuclear energy in a better form?
Like maybe Hydrogen or straight electrical storage?

[edit on 6-9-2006 by BitRaiser]

Stop wasting my time and read the Rand Corp. report. I'm tired of repeating myself.

Originally posted by Stratrf_Rus
Stop wasting my time and read the Rand Corp. report. I'm tired of repeating myself.

What a fine contribution the discussion.

Where's the link?

Edit: I found the report (Here)and at initial skimming found it to be less than convincing that they have found a way to produce oil form oil shale without expending more energy than is returned via the oil produced.

It does suggest that cheap electrical energy could be converted into oil for aproximatly $30 a barrel as opposed to $20 a barrel through standard production. It calls this "competitive". I personally don't consider a 150% cost to be "competitive", but whatever.

The point remains, this is in-efficent. The formula remains simple:
Energy used in production > Oil energy returned.

Yes, it could help as a band-aid solution when the big crunch comes down, but it's not a problem solver.

I'll spend some more time with this report, but I suggest you need to do the same.

[edit on 7-9-2006 by BitRaiser]