No Refuge for Oil
|
|
Chance Abattoir
Future Rockin' Resmod
Join date: 3 Apr 2004
Posts: 3,898
|
12-06-2005 12:12
Did anyone read the article in Wired about the state of oil and alternative energy?
One part really pissed me off. REALLY pissed me off. I mean, I was already pissed off about all this jockeying to set a precedent for allowing "gentle giants" to rape our national parks, but then I read the part about oil shale. If Shell Oil has just completed successful tests on technology that can extract crude oil from oil shale, and we have 3 states with OVER 200 GD YEARS worth of crude oil (at our current consumption rate) that can be extracted from it, more than the Arab states have in raw crude, then WHAT THE F- !?!?!? Why are we still trying to put ANWR on the dinner table for a pittance of oil? WTF!?!?
_____________________
"The mob requires regular doses of scandal, paranoia and dilemma to alleviate the boredom of a meaningless existence."
-Insane Ramblings, Anton LaVey
|
|
Lianne Marten
Cheese Baron
Join date: 6 May 2004
Posts: 2,192
|
12-06-2005 12:14
There are also Oil Sands that make Canada the most oil-rich country in the world.
|
|
Ananda Sandgrain
+0-
Join date: 16 May 2003
Posts: 1,951
|
12-06-2005 12:19
Can you post a link on the oil shale technique? Previous extraction methods I've heard of are far more environmentally destructive than drilling for regular oil is. It involves strip-mining a solid substance, chemically processing it and ending up with a pile of tailings that is larger in volume than the original hole.
Getting rid of dependence on foreign countries for our energy needs would be a good argument for it, but it's not a more environmentally sound practice.
|
|
Chance Abattoir
Future Rockin' Resmod
Join date: 3 Apr 2004
Posts: 3,898
|
12-06-2005 12:29
From: Ananda Sandgrain Can you post a link on the oil shale technique? Previous extraction methods I've heard of are far more environmentally destructive than drilling for regular oil is. It involves strip-mining a solid substance, chemically processing it and ending up with a pile of tailings that is larger in volume than the original hole.
From: http://www.energybulletin.net/2680.html October Unlike PARAHO - one of the above-ground technologies - the Shell technology is far from commercially ready. Abandoning the traditional process in which shale is mined, crushed and then heated in giant ovens called retorts to extract the oil, Shell is trying a new process to reduce the surface footprint.
This new, patented technique involves drilling holes and inserting heaters in target underground zones to slowly heat the shale layers.
Once the shale is sufficiently heated, a chemical reaction starts and releases the lighter hydrocarbons, which rise. The heavier hydrocarbons remain within the formation. The lighter hydrocarbons, almost a gasoline-type product, are subsequently pumped out of the ground through conventional means.
The advantage of this new process is that it eliminates the problem of waste disposal, said Shell's Terry O'Cannon, who works on the Mahogany project. That's because the heavy hydrocarbons are left in their original form in the underground shale. Also, the process requires much less water.
In contrast, the old retort method requires a lot of water to cool the heated rock. Also, once the oil is extracted from shale, the greasy residue - which almost doubles in volume because of heat expansion - has to be disposed of.
"There were a number of environmental issues surrounding the retort method," O'Cannon said, adding that it pushed up costs, too. "But things have come a long way from that."
The article in Wired said that the test run (which happened after this article on the net) was successful and produced between 1-2 thousand barrels. I think the actual article said something about a cooling ring that trapped rising gases too, but I don't have the magazine at hand to verify at the moment. It seems much more responsible than the previous technology.
_____________________
"The mob requires regular doses of scandal, paranoia and dilemma to alleviate the boredom of a meaningless existence."
-Insane Ramblings, Anton LaVey
|
|
Ananda Sandgrain
+0-
Join date: 16 May 2003
Posts: 1,951
|
12-06-2005 12:50
That sounds like an interesting variation. I gather it is mostly about separating out other materials from the shale beds? It would be quite a trick to control things if you heated the entire deposit up to 4,500 degrees! I hope they don't try it in the same area near Rifle, CO where a previous test was tried - in the '60's an underground nuclear explosion was set off to increase natural gas outflow from a similar deposit. It worked great - except all the gas was radioactive.  The rest of the article was pretty interesting too. When I was growing up I got to hear quite a few of the tangential political tidbits from my father. He was working on synthetic fuels, and got laid off from that career when that all went bust back in the early '80's. |
|
Desmond Shang
Guvnah of Caledon
Join date: 14 Mar 2005
Posts: 5,250
|
12-06-2005 13:04
Fossil fuels are a rather double-edged sword.
Presuming we extract said fuels from abundant coal, oil shale &c, the ultimate problem remains: combustive byproducts.
Megatons of extracted carbon now go into the atmosphere, on top of all the usual natural mechanisms (forest fires and such).
Oddly, eliminating oil doesn't necessarily help - it's *how* we choose to eliminate it.
Oil burns relatively completely and efficiently - wood and waste burning in the third world is even *worse* when it comes to dumping carbon in the atmosphere.
Of course, there's always uranium, plutonium and thorium to play with.
Because six billion people have their needs, you see.
Maybe birth control is the only good energy policy.
_____________________
 Steampunk Victorian, Well-Mannered Caledon!
|
|
Lianne Marten
Cheese Baron
Join date: 6 May 2004
Posts: 2,192
|
12-06-2005 13:08
Actually most of that energy goes towards about 1 billion people...
What will be interesting is when the other 5 start asking for their fair share.
|
|
Chance Abattoir
Future Rockin' Resmod
Join date: 3 Apr 2004
Posts: 3,898
|
12-06-2005 17:53
From: Ananda Sandgrain That sounds like an interesting variation. I gather it is mostly about separating out other materials from the shale beds? It would be quite a trick to control things if you heated the entire deposit up to 4,500 degrees! I hope they don't try it in the same area near Rifle, CO where a previous test was tried - in the '60's an underground nuclear explosion was set off to increase natural gas outflow from a similar deposit. It worked great - except all the gas was radioactive. The rest of the article was pretty interesting too. When I was growing up I got to hear quite a few of the tangential political tidbits from my father. He was working on synthetic fuels, and got laid off from that career when that all went bust back in the early '80's. Haha. I read about the nuclear tests flash heating everything. Doesn't sound like a very bright idea. According to Wired (and my selective memory), the new technology heats up the shale deep down, very slowly, until it is 700F. They seemed to indicate that it is pretty well controlled, vastly so over old technology. I'll post something other than hearsay if I have time later tonight.
_____________________
"The mob requires regular doses of scandal, paranoia and dilemma to alleviate the boredom of a meaningless existence."
-Insane Ramblings, Anton LaVey
|
|
Chance Abattoir
Future Rockin' Resmod
Join date: 3 Apr 2004
Posts: 3,898
|
12-06-2005 18:00
From: Desmond Shang Fossil fuels are a rather double-edged sword.
Presuming we extract said fuels from abundant coal, oil shale &c, the ultimate problem remains: combustive byproducts.
Whether or not it pollutes is another matter (a very important one, but beside the point). The main point is that it's retarded to even begin thinking about setting new precedents for environmental butt rape when we've got a couple of centuries worth of resources still sitting in Shell's grasp. Additionally, I wonder... If we subsidized the crap out of that new tech, could we be off foreign oil by the end of the decade? Not that we really should give oil companies more of our money, but I still wonder...
_____________________
"The mob requires regular doses of scandal, paranoia and dilemma to alleviate the boredom of a meaningless existence."
-Insane Ramblings, Anton LaVey
|
|
Michael Seraph
Second Life Resident
Join date: 9 Nov 2004
Posts: 849
|
12-06-2005 18:17
From: Lianne Marten There are also Oil Sands that make Canada the most oil-rich country in the world. According to this week's Economist Magazine, Canada only ranks second with the Oil Sands, after Saudi Arabia. We better invade Canada and bring them Democracy before they use their WMD on us! |