Talked to an oil guy the other day and he said that airlines with new cost structures in place will be big winners. If US Airways can stay a float there's new oil on the way and it will be available at $45 a barrel. It’s in Western Colorado and eastern Utah in shale deposits. Oil shale contains petroleum or asphalt, formerly supposed to be derived from myriads of tiny animals buried in the clay when it was laid down. In Scotland, paraffin and olefin oils have been extracted from shale since 1862. Deposits in New South Wales, Australia, yield 100 gallons per ton. In western Colorado and eastern Utah there are mountains of oil shale. A process for extracting the oil is being developed and the resulting price should be around $45 a barrel he said and those colossal deposits will be able to supply the U.S. with petroleum for 500 years.
$45 A Barrel Oil On The Way....
- Thread starter gso-crew
- Start date
- Thread Starter
- #2
New oil and gas company launched
A group of executives from Westport Resources Corp., sold last year to Kerr-McGee Corp. of Oklahoma for $3.4 billion, announced Tuesday they have formed a new company -- Slate River Resources LLC --to pursue oil and gas opportunities in western Colorado and eastern Utah.
http://www.bizjournals.com/denver/stories/...07/daily32.html
A group of executives from Westport Resources Corp., sold last year to Kerr-McGee Corp. of Oklahoma for $3.4 billion, announced Tuesday they have formed a new company -- Slate River Resources LLC --to pursue oil and gas opportunities in western Colorado and eastern Utah.
http://www.bizjournals.com/denver/stories/...07/daily32.html
Of course, most of us will be dead by the time that 10m bpd of oil shale is actually produced, which is what it would take to replace current oil imports.
Didn't a fellow called Jimmy Carter tell us about this solution once before?
Didn't a fellow called Jimmy Carter tell us about this solution once before?
- Thread Starter
- #4
Don't remember it, but it's nice to know he was right about something .... lol lol! I guess it didn't make sence back then with $20 a barrel oil flooding the maket. They say those days are gone for good. Could this oil be the reason Parker said US is set to make money at $50.00 a barrel.
The guy I spoke with indicated that this supply was not that far off.
The guy I spoke with indicated that this supply was not that far off.
delldude
Veteran
5-10 years at best i'd bet.....gso-crew said:
and then there$ that $ticky thing about refinery capacity.
Seatacus
Veteran
Don't worry, some environmentalist will find some endangered gopher that lives in the deposits and shut the whole thing down.gso-crew said:
Dont call me Shirley
Veteran
TechBoy said:
That, and a number of other steps to reduce oil imports and consumption. This country has a way of dealing with politicians who speak the ugly truth instead of what people want to hear.
BTW Remember hat he had solar panels installed on the White House roof? And Reagan had them removed?
jimcfs
Veteran
Seatacus said:Don't worry, some environmentalist will find some endangered gopher that lives in the deposits and shut the whole thing down.
[post="293253"][/post]
Crap like that has happened in my neck of the woods. Some developer was told he couldn't develop southwest of the BLF area in Virginia because of some endangered mussels live there. Yes, my geography/biology is correct... this is in Western Virginia, about 90 min from KY/TN and some rare fresh water mussel.
Some treehugger will find something to keep the oil from flowing out of those rocks. :down:
The Canadian Government has been a big supporter of the oil sands projects there. I think China has already contracted for a large portion of the future output.
Yes, much better to just blast away at everything in sight until there is nothing left to get those last few drops of oil, instead of thinking about real sustainable solutions to our oil addiction.jimcfs said:
If there were a way to make oil shale recovery profitable and worth doing, the major oil companies would be doing it. They all tried for years to find a way because oil shale deposits are quite extensive in the U.S. and Canada. However, it's all been money down a rat hole so far.
There's always someone with more money than sense announcing that he/she has a business plan for making money on oil shales/the airlines/what have you.
Look at how many new airlines start up over a 10 year period and how many are left after 10 years. A friend of mine went to work for one in Tulsa--I forget the name--in 2003. They had planes, ground staff and pilots. He was hired as a flight attendant. They declared Ch. 7 bankruptcy before they ever flew the first flight.
There's always someone with more money than sense announcing that he/she has a business plan for making money on oil shales/the airlines/what have you.
Look at how many new airlines start up over a 10 year period and how many are left after 10 years. A friend of mine went to work for one in Tulsa--I forget the name--in 2003. They had planes, ground staff and pilots. He was hired as a flight attendant. They declared Ch. 7 bankruptcy before they ever flew the first flight.
Bear96 said:
Well then, what is the solution from the left? Oh yeah, I forgot, everybody gets a prius to drive one way back to a cave. Oh but then we'd burn wood, so one way back to the cave to freeze to death.....
The locations of the shale is quite frankly some of the ugliest land in the states. It is already dotted with oil wells and pipelines. But some of our enlightened brother from new england, who are all for "progress unless it means THEY have to view windmills while vactioning on the "Vinyard", will now protest the "spoiling of the land by gready capitalist". So the short answer is unless we start requiring all fuel used in private jets to be from Shale, the "intellectually consistant" "I have 7 homes, a Private jet and a fleet SUV's but I drive my Hybrid to the FBO to board my GV for a transcon" crowd will undoubtedly use every legal manuver possible to stop you from having lower fuel prices.
In any case, a little bit on Shale.
Progress was made until the Saudi's got a little worried and led an OPEC effort to cut the target price of crude in half....coincidently, the new price was just a little less than the estimated loing term economically viable price for Shale oil.
Those companies doing the work "got burned". All the up front costs were lost.
Understandably, the large oil companies will be VERY slow to go back. It will take ONE big oil company making a go at it, then ALL of them will be there.
Unfortunately, the oil price collapse of the late 90's (briliant political move we are now paying for....) led to most of the smaller, more aggressive, energy exploration firms going BK.
There is more Shale Oil in Co, UT and WY than ALL the known and estimated reserves in the middle east.
To extract "oil" from Shale (actually not oil, but close), you heat it to about 900 degrees, and it "pops like popcorn". One ton of rock yields one Barrel of "oil"
letover "rock" can then be blasted with air in a "fluidized bed" reactor, which will burn the remaining carbon to yield enough heat to heat the next round of rock to 900 degrees. The leftovers are then suitable for use in agriculture. the last part (the FBR) is a recent developement. This method WOULD require "traditional" mining methods.
Other new technologies include heating rock underground with microwaves to extract the "oil" and pumping very hot steam into the ground.
Is Shale "economically viable" If the producers klnew with certainty that oil would stay at current levels, absolutely. However, it gets a little more complicated when the "big picture" is factored into the model.
A more detailed article about oil shale is available at:
http://www.fe.doe.gov/programs/reserves/pu...R/40010-373.pdf
http://www.fe.doe.gov/programs/reserves/pu...R/40010-373.pdf
