Rocky Mountain oil from shale?

[NewJeffCT]

I've heard this mentioned several times over the past week or two as the new solution to our oil problems here. This morning, a radio announcer feverishly pronounced that there were over 1 trillion barrels worth of oil there - more than all the Middle East, he proclaimed.

So, besides the pollution aspect of burning fossil fuels and oil-drilling equipment, shale extraction, and oil-from-shale conversion equipment marring the Rockies, what's the catch?

Edited to add: if the media is promoting it this vigorously, there must be some sort of catch to it that the corporate media isn't telling us...

[nxylas]

1. Isn't that enough?

Of a catch, I mean.

[dysfunctional press]

2. gasoline from coal...abcnews did a story on this yesterday...

the process is fairly cheap- according to the piece, south africa produces it for the equivalent of $25/bbl.

AND- it burns cleaner than regular gasoline. unfortunately- the refining process produces twice as much co2 as oil refining.

BUT- the u.s. has 250 years worth of coal.

increased global warming, but REALLY cheap gas- which way do you think american consumers will want to go on this one?

[endarkenment]

3. As long as you don't think this oil is CHEAP, no catch.

Of course you are also just dismissing the environmental concerns, which are simply huge, and the fact that shale oil extraction is energy intensive, meaning it is a rob peter, pay paul 'solution'. In other words: this is not a quick fix to the price of gas at the pump, it is no fix at all, and at best prolongs the misery while we put off actually doing something to transform our economic infrastructure to something that is actually sustainable.

[Leopolds Ghost]

13. I suggested the sort of solution that would benefit many Americans

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x3571419

And got a raft of criticism from the planners in the room. In fact,
ask any employed city planner and he or she will tell you why we
"can't" build transit, can't build houses without parking, can't do
this, can't do that, if only because the people taken as a
homogeneous whole wouldn't stand for it. This is like arguing we
can't save the 4th Amendment by the same logic, that doing so would
provoke a costly battle that we somehow can't afford to wage.

The most vocal experts are always against taking proactive action to
build mass transit because they view it as not worth the investment
given our existing debt obligations to pay for freeways they approved,

but somehow spending billions to strip-mine the Rockies is at least
worth looking into and nobody has a problem with "too much tunneling work"
involved in taking down a whole mountain...

[endarkenment]

14. We won't do anything real until we can't do anything else.

I accept that we will do nothing until our current system cracks up, which crack up might just be a lot sooner than many of us anticipate.

[Leopolds Ghost]

15. To quote Churchill: Americans can be relied upon always to do the right thing,

After every other option is tried.

[mainegreen]

4. Is there enough water to do this economically?

My understanding is that extracting that oil would require vast amounts of water.

[MadHound]

5. Other than turning the Rockies into a toxic waste site

The simple fact is that this oil extraction process isn't cheap. A fuel that isn't cheap, and destroys the environment in the process of extracting it isn't a good idea

[NewJeffCT]

7. since when have RWers begin concerned about

a little thing like toxic waste?

[Buzz Clik]

6. There is a lot of potential oil in shale in the US.

However, it is very expensive to extract. Our daily production would be relatively small, and tapping that resource would insure continued high prices.

[screembloodymurder]

8. If it's such a good idea, why aren't the oil companies

doing it on private land? No one is stopping them. The price of oil is where it is to put pressure on our legislators. It's political extortion.

[NewJeffCT]

9. well, if the oil was flowing

and in abundance, the oil companies would be much less profitable. Can't have that.

[NewJeffCT]

10. well, if the oil was flowing

and in abundance, the oil companies would be much less profitable. Can't have that.

[neverforget]

11. First they have to heat the ground where the oil shale is located to

650 degrees to liquefy the oil so it can be pumped out. Then they have to freeze the ground around the drill sites to protect ground water. Think of the massive amount of energy required for this part of the process and where it will come from. It also takes 3 barrels of water to produce 1 barrel of oil and this is in a dry part of the West so where is that water going to come from?

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/06/30/eveningnews/main4221747.shtml?source=search_story

[Robb]

17. The heat is the concern

You're basically warming up a lot of acreage, and that can't be good for plants and critters.

The water thing is scary, but the exploration companies have been securing a lot of water rights in CO over the past few years, so they're covering that base. :shrug:

The important bit is covered upthread: it's only happening because the price of oil makes this feasible. The price will not go down if this happens even on a large scale, it's too expensive a process.

[Leopolds Ghost]

12. If you think that's amazing, get this: Rocky Mountain oysters from sheep!

[ItNerd4life]

16. It's called the Bakken Shale, it's sweet crude, not shale

It's estimated to be 4.3 Billion barrels. Largest field ever discovered in the world. It's in North Dakota and Montana.

There is another exploration being done in the Rockies, it's not the shale. They are using new techniques that are finding this oil.

This could help us get through the tough times until alternatives become available and cost effective.