Things you didn't know about oil shale

[SUBMAN1]

Interesting things written by one of our Senators:

-S

Things you didn't know about oil shale

By Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah




Democrats control Congress, so Americans ought to be asking about their plan to lower gas prices. Let's hope their plan doesn't rest on solar, wind and geothermal, because planes, trains and automobiles don't run on electricity; they run on oil - mostly foreign oil. Or at least 97 percent of the time they run on oil, and the other 3 percent is mostly ethanol. Let's also hope the Democrats" plan doesn't rest on ethanol to break our dependence on foreign oil, because it can't. More on that later.


Americans ship about $700 billion annually to foreign oil traffickers, and Democrats respond by shutting down America's own energy supplies. Now at the mercy of foreign governments smart enough to produce their own energy, we are selling away our nation's place in the world and funding the rise of our most aggressive competitors and even our enemies.


Colorado, Wyoming and Utah have more oil in oil shale than OPEC. Everyone seems to know that by now, but here are six things you probably did not know about oil shale.


1) Did you know oil shale has a smaller carbon footprint than ethanol? When calculating the carbon emissions of the entire oil shale process, without the use of carbon capture technology, its total carbon footprint is about 7 percent larger than gasoline. But a peer-reviewed article in the February issue of Science calculates the entire carbon footprint of ethanol to be 93 percent larger than gasoline. The article reports that even switchgrass footprint is 50 percent larger than gasoline.


2) Did you know oil shale uses less water than ethanol and no more than gasoline? Increased ethanol production will require more irrigation. A September 2007 article in Southwest Hydrology states that irrigated corn requires more than 780 barrels of water for each barrel of ethanol. The Department of Energy reports that oil shale, for the entire process including land restoration, requires three barrels of water for every barrel of shale oil, about the same as gasoline.


3) Did you know oil shale uses much less land than either ethanol or gasoline? One acre of corn produces 10 barrels of ethanol. One acre in the oil patch produces about 10,000 barrels of oil. One acre of oil shale produces between 100,000 and one million-plus barrels of shale oil! No, that's not a typo.


Whether your concern is carbon emissions, water use or wildlife habitat, oil shale is a better answer than ethanol. And when it comes to transportation fuels, ethanol is the only alternative of any real significance.


4) Did you know oil shale has been commercially produced in Brazil for 30 years and in Estonia for 80 years? Technology is not a barrier.


5) Did you know that oil shale failed in 1982 due to the price dropping to $10 a barrel, not because of technology or scarcity of water? That was a quarter century ago, and a lot has changed since then. Time Magazine's Man of the Year in 1982 was the Computer. Today, we have better technology, better environmental regulations and OPEC can no longer flood the oil market.


6) Did you know current law gives each governor, before any commercial leases are granted, the right to set the pace of oil shale development? But Rep. Mark Udall has put a moratorium on commercial leasing regulations, effectively taking away that right for Utah's governor. The action produces no additional rights for Colorado, but destroys Utah's right to move forward at any pace.


Some have expressed concerns that the horse should not be put in front of the cart with regard to oil shale production. But the moratorium slaughters the horse and barricades the road. You protect against a bust by supporting an activity, not artificially starving it.


I've supported Colorado's right to choose its own pace. Utah deserves the same courtesy.

http://www.denverpost.com/headlines/ci_9973753

[Sailor Steve]

I've never been a fan of Orrin Hatch, but then who does like their own elected representatives, even though obviously somebody votes for them.

That said, I certainly agree with him here.

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

I've never been a fan of Orrin Hatch, but then who does like their own elected representatives, even though obviously somebody votes for them.

That said, I certainly agree with him here.

He is the guy in cahoots with the RIAA and MPAA, correct? Yeah, I don't like him either, but I also agree with him here.

-S

[Sailor Steve]

He's also the guy who got elected with the slogan "Don't you think twelve years is enough, senator?", and has now been in office thirty-one years.

On the other hand, when PBS did a documentary series on the Constitution, he was great speaking on the Second Amendment.

I still think he's a wienie, though.

[Platapus]

So I guess the idiot question is "what is holding up Oil Shale exploitation?

Government?

Oil Companies?

Environmentalists?

Technical?

[Platapus]

"because planes, trains and automobiles don't run on electricity; they run on oil - mostly foreign oil. Or at least 97 percent of the time they run on oil,.."

This is misleading. I am not aware of any planes that run on oil. I still think that the vast majority of automobiles do not run on oil. I don't know of any trains that run on oil. All these modes of transportation run off of derivative products from oil, but not from oil itself. Planes using avgas or Jet Fuel; trains use diesel, and the majority of automobiles use MoGas.

Shale oil does not contain the full range of hydrocarbons used in modern gasoline production, and could only be used to produce middle-distillates such as kerosene, jet fuel, and diesel fuel. Source http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_shale

"The perception that oil shale serves as a crude oil substitute overlooks the
limited fungibility of the middle distillates that are extractable — they make poor
feedstock for gasoline production. That does not necessarily prevent oil-shale
distillates from being used as gasoline feedstock, but additional energy and hydrogen
are needed to crack them. The loss may be even greater considering the lower fuel
efficiency of spark-ignition engines that use gasoline, compared with compression
ignition engines that use diesel distillate fuels.

Source "Oil Shale: "History, Incentives, and Policy" http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL33359.pdf.

So while the use of Oil Shale may provide an alternate source of kerosene, jet fuel, and diesel fuel, it won't be a source of MoGas.

This is not to say that the United States should not explore the many uses of Oil Shale. From generating electric power to distilling the middle distillates Oil Shale seems to offer much. It would serve to diminish (to some extent) the demand for crude oil. Whether that would affect the price of Mogas is uncertain.

But if people are selling Oil Shale industries as a way of producing MoGas so we can remove our dependence on foreign crude oil industries, I don't think that will be a viable solution.

[August]

Originally Posted by Platapus

But if people are selling Oil Shale industries as a way of producing MoGas so we can remove our dependence on foreign crude oil industries, I don't think that will be a viable solution.

Perhaps not, but reducing our dependence is almost as good as removing it, no?

[Platapus]

That's what I said in my post.

[August]

Originally Posted by Platapus

That's what I said in my post.

It's the "viable solution" part i was referring to.

[Platapus]

If we still need X amount of gasoline than we will need to continue to import sufficient quantities of crude oil to distill X amount of gasoline.

Crude Oil produces a mixture type product as opposed to a specific product. We can't say that this tanker of Crude Oil is for Diesel and the other tanker of Crude Oil is for gasoline. Oil is oil. Getting the separate products (gasoline and Diesel for example, is dependent on the cracking or fractionating of the Crude Oil.

When Crude Oil is cracked, there specific ratios of petroleum products produced. While these can be manipulated a little with the processes, generally speaking they are set by chemistry. You can't take a barrel of Crude and decide, this barrel will only produce gasoline. About 40%* of Crude Oil will distill into Gasoline (not directly though there are precursor products and steps in between). The rest will be a mixture of the lighter gases, Medium distillates, and the Heavy products.

So if I need a 1,000 barrels of Gasoline, I will need to crack 2,500 barrels of oil.

Regardless of how much jet fuel or diesel I can get from Oil Shale, I will still need to obtain and crack 2,500 barrels of Crude Oil to get my needed 1,000 barrels of Gasoline.

I could get 100% of all my Jet fuel and diesel fuel needs met with Oil Shale and I will still have to obtain (import?) the same amount of Crude Oil in order to get my gasoline.

This is why I posted that using Shale Oil to obtain other fuels may not necessarily reduce our need to obtain (import) Crude Oil for our gasoline needs.

I think Shale Oil technology is great and needs to be investigated and invested in. However, it has not been demonstrated that Shale Oil will affect our oil needs (imports) concerning the production of gasoline.

Now if we ditched the gasoline engine and moved everything to diesel.....

* This is the base conversion. Using post processing techniques called "reforming" this ration can be upped to about 50%.

[August]

Originally Posted by Platapus

If we still need X amount of gasoline than we will need to continue to import sufficient quantities of crude oil to distill X amount of gasoline.

Crude Oil produces a mixture type product as opposed to a specific product. We can't say that this tanker of Crude Oil is for Diesel and the other tanker of Crude Oil is for gasoline. Oil is oil. Getting the separate products (gasoline and Diesel for example, is dependent on the cracking or fractionating of the Crude Oil.

When Crude Oil is cracked, there specific ratios of petroleum products produced. While these can be manipulated a little with the processes, generally speaking they are set by chemistry. You can't take a barrel of Crude and decide, this barrel will only produce gasoline. About 40% of Crude Oil will distill into Gasoline (not directly though there are precursor products and steps in between). The rest will be a mixture of the lighter gases, Medium distillates, and the Heavy products.

So if I need a 1,000 barrels of Gasoline, I will need to crack 2,500 barrels of oil.

Regardless of how much jet fuel or diesel I can get from Oil Shale, I will still need to obtain and crack 2,500 barrels of Crude Oil to get my needed 1,000 barrels of Gasoline.

I could get 100% of all my Jet fuel and diesel fuel needs met with Oil Shale and I will still have to obtain (import?) the same amount of Crude Oil in order to get my gasoline.

This is why I posted that using Shale Oil to obtain other fuels may not necessarily reduce our need to obtain (import) Crude Oil for our gasoline needs.

I think Shale Oil technology is great and needs to be investigated and invested in. However, it has not been demonstrated that Shale Oil will affect our oil needs (imports) concerning the production of gasoline.

Now if we ditched the gasoline engine and moved everything to diesel.....

Ah I see.

[UnderseaLcpl]

I find it ridiculous that this is even being discussed in the Senate.

Actually I would find this whole oil situation pretty damn funny if it wasn't costing me so much money.

When I was in school I was repeatedly subjected to various forms of instruction on environmental awareness. Back then we all thought it was a great idea to reduce our usage of fossil fuels. Nuclear Power was evil, and our nation's wildlife was to valuable to risk letting big, evil oil companies drill offshore and in Alaska. Biofuels were considered a great source of energy that politicians and big business spent millions hiding from the mainstream public.
As the sole voice of dissent amongst my peers at the time it brings me great joy to see the same people who once championed all those wonderful planet-saving ideas completely reverse their views because ethanol and limited domestic oil production are hitting them in the pocketbook. Not that they will ever admit it.
Now the hue and cry is; "Speculators! It's their fault. They ruined everything. Somebody should regulate them!"
I can't wait to see how that works out.

Here's a thought; why not just let the market do its' work? We have already seen what radical steps people have taken to curb fuel expenses with gas at $4 a gallon.
If gas becomes too expensive, people will find alternatives or drastically reduce consumption. Certainly our leaders' initiatives to provide for our energy needs whilst simultaneously saving the environment and keeping fuel costs low have not worked.

Which would you trust more; the ability of consumers to regulate energy policy by voting with their pocketbooks, or the ability of elected representatives to regulate energy policy by fiat with the primary concern of being re-elected?

Of course, this has all been done before. Many of you probably remember the effectiveness of federal energy policy in the 70's. For those who weren't there, price controls, by allowing demand to operate independently of supply, ensured that no one had any gas.
And it will all be done again. I lack the clairvoyance to say when but I would bank on it being 30-40 years after we solve the current problem in the same way we solved the last one; by leaving it alone and letting the market do its work. That should be more than enough time to totally forget everything we learned.

Thanks for enduring another one of my rants,

-the Lance

[Fish]

Originally Posted by Platapus

So I guess the idiot question is "what is holding up Oil Shale exploitation?

Government?

Oil Companies?

Environmentalists?

Technical?

Money?

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by UnderseaLcpl

If gas becomes too expensive.....

That is a difficult concept to define. In a capitalistic society, "too expensive" means when the customers (note plural) refuse to pay it.

Does the fact that, due to our choice (as a society) to become, for all practical purposes, addicted to gasoline affect this equation?

Is gas selling at $4.50 per gallon "too expensive"? Too expensive for whom? Who decides? Can there be such a thing as "too expensive" in a free market economy?

Is gas too expensive for me? Hell yeah it is! I want gas down to $1.00 per gallon. Does my opinion matter?

If someone is not willing to pay $4.50 per gallon, there will be someone (perhaps not from this country) right behind them who is willing (whether they like it or not). Being that there will be a buyer eventually, can gas be "too expensive"?

A most interesting concept this "too expensive" is. :hmm:

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by August

Ah I see.

I don't. In fact there's a logic there that I don't understand at all.

Originally Posted by Platapus

Regardless of how much jet fuel or diesel I can get from Oil Shale, I will still need to obtain and crack 2,500 barrels of Crude Oil to get my needed 1,000 barrels of Gasoline.

I could get 100% of all my Jet fuel and diesel fuel needs met with Oil Shale and I will still have to obtain (import?) the same amount of Crude Oil in order to get my gasoline.

But isn't that still 2500 barrels now not going to make those other products? I see what you mean when you say that cargoes are not designated for one or the other, but with shale producing the one couldn't the normal crude refineries be devoted to the other? I'm confused.