Thread: Congress on oil, the facts.

It doesn't look like anything different from other mining operations. Here's one in Colorado: http://www.energyfrontiers.org/EFI/f...0visit%201.jpg

Here's another: http://content.answers.com/main/cont...pit_mining.jpg

Originally Posted by Quick Orange

It doesn't look like anything different from other mining operations. Here's one in Colorado: http://www.energyfrontiers.org/EFI/f...0visit%201.jpg

Here's another: http://content.answers.com/main/cont...pit_mining.jpg

They have a large operation in Canada and a really larger one there but those are oil sands which are different but the damage is the same. The shale contains very small amounts of oil so enormous amounts of rock has to be removed and processed the same way coal is strip mined just that this operation has to remove many times the amount of material. What you are left with are just huge holes in the ground extending miles and miles.

Thanks for the pics.
So we've established that it's nasty...which I believe is also the reason for not tapping into our own [regular]oil resources to a large degree, also.
Why then, is it OK to purchase oil from the middle east, effective supporting their particular economies at the cost of our own, when it is essentially subsidizing exactly the same hit on the environment, (however big they imagine it will be) only in someone else's country. That country can then hold it over our and other nations' heads and charge whatever they wish.
Perhaps if all Americans lived in climes where temperatures never dropped below freezing, or never climbed into the scorching, things would be simpler. It would also be simpler if everyone could afford to live in cities and walk everywhere as proposed by some, but it simply is not going to happen, the country is much to far spread for that.
Personally, I think we should be heavily using nuclear power, but instead of giving it up and then sending the fuel off still extremely radioactive, after the first use, I feel we should take a page from France's playbook, and recycle the fuel until little active material is actually left. It makes waste much easier to get rid of, and to boot, a ton of nuclear fuel will outlast the same amount of coal or oil or natural gas exponentially. I think the technology is much much safer than some believe, if we would simply use it. The Navy has ships that need refueling only once every 15 or 20 years, whilst conventional ships (even smaller ones) have to be refueled many many many times in that time frame.
Anyway. I think nuclear would take a lot of strain off of petroleum etc. and make it more affordable/responsible for those who can, to own electric vehicles and the like, as the electricity would be much cheaper to produce as well as no fossil fuels being burned.
I'm rambling.
Perhaps someone can make sense of it , anyway.
John P.

+1 John. Nuclear is the way to go. If it's good enough to run all our ships, it's good enough for everything else.

there is no oil in oil shale
they are researching ways to complete the heating process and pump the oil without mining

go read that link I posted


nuclear is great

nuclear power + electric cars


higher prices WILL force innovation

I just hope WE get the patent on whatever innovation it is

I cant remember where the article I read was and if I can find it again I will be sure to post it. I read not too long ago that they had come up with a new process for mining oil shale. It was about twice as expensive but it did not have any of the devastating effects of strip mining. Essentially what happened is they did underground borings to create massive pockets where they could introduce large amounts of chemicals, heat, and water into the ground to harvest the products out of the oil shale which they would then pump out in a similar manner to how we currently get oil. This new process was developed by Shell Oil Company and the article said that they were hopeful to be able to use this in America since there is apparently more oil shale in this country than anywhere else in the world. Now if any of this is true I can not believe that anyone in our government would not be trying to exploit this to bring in the kind of money to this country that oil producing nations currently are experiencing. Ill look for the article again but has anyone else heard of such a thing?

I'm pretty sure I've heard somewhere the Air Force already has an operation similar to this already working, just as a proof of concept. Not sure if it's true, but worth a look.

John P.

Oil shale, may be one of the answers, But I fail to see where it is all congresses fault on the oil companies not producing more oil.
I did some research, and I found out through the Dept of Energy that the Oil companies have

over 60 million acres of Leased lands that includes off shore leases as well.

Over 6000 permits that are not being used.

So with all the land that is leased, and all those permits that our government has given them to drill or get oil....All I see is congress telling them no more leases or permits. Which to me makes sense...How many more leases and permits do they need before they decide to start using what they have?
It is not like the permits on on lands that aren't oil rich, because the Oil companies got to pick the lands they leased and applied for permits to drill on land that has oil under it.

It is like this ANWR thing. Everyone wants to give the OK to drill in ANWR. Not the whole place, but what is Federally owned.
the estimate total recoverable Oil on that Part of ANWR is 7.7 Billion barrels of oil. Thats the easy to get oil, and the heavy not so good stuff oil as well.
It would take at least 10 years to get ANWR up and running. In 2002 they estimated it would be operational by 2012 if they started in 2002.
Currently we are using 20 millions barrels of oil per day in this country.
if we some how managed to extract all the oil from that part of ANWR 7+ billion barrels, it would be gone on a year if we used only that oil to run our country.

If it were added to our supply to offset what we import from OPEC. say 2 million barrels per day, that is 10% of what we import. how much cheaper would our gas be? if we got it for nothing I would guess it would be 10% cheaper, but I don't see the Oil companies selling the oil to the USA for less than the Global rate. It wouldn't matter too much because if they get approval to drill in 2009, it would still take about 10 years to get it operational. So we wouldn't even see any relief for another decade.

Here is an interesting thing. In Alaska, there is a Oil reserve called Prudhoe Bay Field, and another one called the Former Naval Petrolieum reserve.
Here is a Proven Oil field, with about 25 billion barrels of oil which they believe they can recover about 15 billion barrels or so.
the have already drilled 25 wells, all of them will produce oil, all of them have been Capped off, and nothing is flowing from them.
The question is WHY?
Why are we talking about others places the oil companies need to secure.
Other Permits they need to have.
When they are sitting on an established, Drilled, Capped oil reserve Worth about 15 billion Barrels of oil?
Still sitting on some 60 million acres of leased land with know oil reserves.
and 6000 permits granted by the US government.. Saying go ahead and get the oil.
And yet they act like their hands are tied.

Very interesting post.
I think an interesting thing to ask would be why were those particular wells capped? There are other things at work than simply whether a company has a government lease or if there is or is not oil underneath, be it political restrictions/treaties, environmental laws/restrictions, court orders, or perhaps even bankruptcies. If one company owns the lease to a certain piece of land then goes under, for instance, I am pretty sure that the others do not in turn automatically get to drill there.
I could be wrong on this, of course, but even sinister oil companies are not ones to turn off the profit-faucett, unless they are no longer US owned, and are looking after their own nations' interests instead....
Also, the 10 year number keeps being thrown around, and to be honest, I've never once heard it quantified. My best guess is that it, too, is a guess. Like 84.2% of all such numbers, it was pulled from thin air and then repeated.
Regardless, even if 10 years is true, in 10 years time we will be in the position of having done A) nothing, claiming it will take 10 years to benefit or B) 10 years from now fuel might be a little bit more affordable. It may never again be "cheap" but it sure would be nice to break the choke hold on the prices that some at OPEC etc. currently have.


John P.

John.. Interesting take.
Who owns the leases there.. Exxon.
Is the lease still valid Yes
Is the permit still valid. Yes

The 10 year number is a in the middle number most use.
DOE uses a range I believe is 7-12 years.
They get their numbers from Energy Boards with people who operate Oil Companies.
So the number is is valid as it can be.

Why Cap off the wells, and hold on to it? I am not sure of their reason. I can guess, and it would be the same why do I hang on to my precious metals? Because the value continues to go up.
Oil is a Precious commodity that has been going up, both from OPEC moving the price up, and also through the futures market. Also if you have Billions of dollars of unused oil at your disposal, it increases your net worth, you can borrow against it, it increase the value of your company, which makes you more attractive to share holders. I think we forget the Oil comapnies are under no obligation to suck oil out of the earth just because we want it. They certainly are not hurting financially, there profits are high, the CEO saleries are huge, so whats the rush?
It is not a sinister thing in play here, it is business.
If Oil starts flowing from Alaska from these places, what do you think the response will be from OPEC?

I know the answer,it will be to reduce the flow of oil from their countries by the same rate it is being offset by our country. They already stated as much, and they also gave Bush basically the same reason for not increasing their production of oil...They will only increase the supply as the demand increases, not before.
So Oil coming from ANWR, or anywhere else in Alaska for that matter is not going to offset the price by very much, not when it is still a private commodity traded on a world market.