NO SHALE: Several nations mine oil shale for energy generation and other purposes. The U.S has the world's largest supply, but has only periodically considered tapping it when oil prices have been high. Green groups oppose oil shale extraction as even more environmentally destructive than oil itself and want President Obama to overturn George W. Bush's 2008 executive order to open up two million acres of land across Wyoming, Utah and Colorado for lease to oil shale extractors.
Image: Wikipedia
-
The Best Science Writing Online 2012
Showcasing more than fifty of the most provocative, original, and significant online essays from 2011, The Best Science Writing Online 2012 will change the way...
Read More »
Dear EarthTalk: Are the United States’ vast oil shale resources a potential source of energy?
-- Larry LeDoux, Honolulu, HI
Oil shale is a fine-grained sedimentary rock that contains significant amounts of kerogen, a solid mixture of organic chemical compounds that can be converted into synthetic liquid fuel similar to oil, or into shale gas similar to petroleum-derived natural gas. Geologists believe there is more oil shale out there in the rocks of the world—three trillion barrels worth of fuel—than there is oil in existing reserves globally.
Oil shale has been mined extensively in Brazil, China, Estonia, Germany, Israel and Russia, but up to two-thirds of the world’s supply lies in the Green River basin of the western United States, including parts of Wyoming, Utah and Colorado. To date, these American oil shale resources remain virtually untapped, but an 11th hour executive order by the Bush administration in 2008 put two million acres of Bureau of Land Management (BLM) land across Wyoming, Utah and Colorado up for lease to oil shale extractors.
Other nations with oil shale reserves have been mining them for decades for power generation and other uses, but American enthusiasm has run hot and cold, depending on oil prices. The U.S. was bullish on oil shale during the 1970’s oil shocks, but when gas prices fell again, so did the enthusiasm for oil shale.
American companies didn’t look into mining domestic oil shale again until 2003—again, thanks to spiking oil prices. George W. Bush’s Energy Policy Act of 2005 officially opened federal lands to oil shale extraction. But then once again lowered oil prices, along with environmental concerns and growing enthusiasm for renewable energy sources left oil shale’s future in the U.S. again uncertain.
For their part, environmental groups are unequivocally against oil shale extraction. For one, extracting operations destroy affected landscapes, forcing plants and animals out, with regeneration unlikely for decades. Another big issue with oil shale extraction is water usage. The process requires as much as five barrels of water—for dust control, cooling and other purposes—for every barrel of shale oil produced.
Oil shale extraction is also very energy-intensive, and as such is no solution to our global warming woes. Researchers have found that a gallon of shale oil can emit as much as 50 percent more carbon dioxide than a gallon of conventional oil would over its given lifecycle from extraction to tailpipe.
Due to these concerns and others, 13 environmental groups, including the Wilderness Society, Sierra Club and Natural Resources Defense Council, teamed up in January 2009 to file suit against the federal government for opening up all that western U.S. land to oil shale development. The suit contends that the BLM failed to properly consider air quality and endangered species impacts in the region. The groups also contend that the development would require the construction of 10 new coal-fired power plants in order to get at and process the oil shale, significantly upping the carbon footprint of the entire region.
Green groups hope that the Obama administration will overturn Bush’s decision to lease development rights on the land, which is near three national parks in one of the least developed parts of the U.S.
CONTACTS: Bureau of Land Management, www.blm.gov; Wilderness Society, www.wilderness.org; Sierra Club, www.sierraclub.org; Natural Resources Defense Council, www.nrdc.org.
EarthTalk is produced by E/The Environmental Magazine. SEND YOUR ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTIONS TO: EarthTalk, P.O. Box 5098, Westport, CT 06881; earthtalk@emagazine.com. Read past columns at: www.emagazine.com/earthtalk/archives.php. EarthTalk is now a book! Details and order information at: www.emagazine.com/earthtalkbook.
See what we're tweeting about
22 Comments
Add CommentIts true that oil shale extraction requires lots of water and emits more carbon dioxide than conventional oil extraction would. Also, this is very bad in terms of environmental pollution. However, i have heard that its possibble to recover the used water and use it again like in a cicle. This would significantly reduce the water usage and environmental impact.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm gonna work in the field of renewable energies - more specific: solarthermal powerplants or solar energy systems in general - and i find it so tremendously necessary to reduce conventional energy consumption and increase significantly the energy supply of renewable source. However, the biggest part of todays energy supply comes from coal power plants which emit more CO2 than oil shale extraction does. In addition, times will come when oil is going to be extracted in regions, where it is located so deep that extracting actually makes no sense if you consider the energy balance. this means it takes more energy to extract than the combustion releases later. They will just do it because oil is a very good if not the best energy carrier.
there is one thing that seems to be a fact: oil and coal will be extracted as long as its economically lucrative and so is the shale oil. Im not saying its totally bad using fossil fuels. But we should use natural resources sparingly. As example we should use the heat of coal power plants and never heat with electricity.
There may well be a natural progression toward utilizing shale oil resources as other forms of engergy increase in price over time. There is plenty of oil in the world. However, most can't be extracted profitably until the price hits certain thresholds. Most likely by the time this shale resource becomes economical, the theory of global warming will have been discredited and Al Gore will be gone. Then only the local environmental concerns such as unsightliness & water use will remain as obstacles. The nations need for energy should vastly outweigh these concerns.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHello batan
Geothermal heatpumps (our home has been heated by one for over 30 years) is 4 to 5 times more efficient than electric resistance heat, which is probably the electric heat you are referring to.
Water is already in short supply in the western US. Recycling 100% might do it if you ignore the environment otherwise!
It is worth reading the National Geo. article on oil sands in Canada. Oil shale development will do similar damage to Colorado, Wyoming & Utah.
Solar, wind, geothermal and the "smart grid" can solve our long term problems. Natural gas can help fill the gap until biofuels are available for trucks, aviation and marine.
Think of the subject this way: Burning fuel in a 25% to 30% internal combustion engine vs. electric motors at 90% efficiency doesn't say a lot for our existing transportation logic.
C.V. Johnston, P.E.
Hello soccer dad
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI guess you also don't believe the world is running out of fresh water and food, not to mention many other commodities!
The scientist you don't believe now will bail us out in the future. Right?
Greed and money rules!!!
Lets not leave anything for our grandchildren!!!
Gotta hand it to Bush... he managed to squeeze every bad decision possible into his Presidency.... right up to the end.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBush also managed to sell oil and gas leases in Utah and the Obama admin has already reneged on them. So it's only a matter of time before this too is quashed. Got to hand it to Obama, he has managed to show incomptence on an unimagined scale in his short time as President. I wonder why so many Liberals that have only lived amongst a vast sea of concrete, where the only wild life is rodents and gang members, can proclaim to those living elsewhere that they are not allowed to develop their resources and land.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisShale grows 50% in size after processing and requires large amounts of coal or NG. Now add the not available water needs and it's clear RE is far cheaper
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMost everyone can make their own for less money by solar or wind making any fossil fuel costing more than $4/gal more costly and Re is dropping fast while fossil fuels are increasing. And as they say, money rules.
Vern while you are correct in EV motors and ICE eff, that's not including total energy to work making EV's 21-50% eff vs about 7-9% for gas and diesel. My EV's get 250 mpg cost equivalent for ny EV sportwagon and 600mpge for my 3wheel MC.
To RHD here is a post I recently wrote, are you a patriot or a traitor?
So Sarah wants to keep subsidizing oil, coal?
She wants to pollute our water supply so bad we can’t eat fish at all from mercury pollution from coal not to mention it’s land, water, air destruction of large areas of the US.
And keep us on oil so it’s price will go to $5/gal and put us back into recession in 2 yrs and give Iran, Russia, oil dictators and terrorists $T/yr? Or as the repubs did last Nov force another $10B tax cut/subsidy for big oil before they would let the energy pass?
Why is she against RE which will stabilize energy costs to under $4/gal, $.20/kwhr instead of going up with a bullet?
If all direct, indirect subsidies/costs are in oil, coal then their costs would double.
Now the plan Obama wants, not what’s in congress, is Cap and Tax to put these subsidies in oil, coal prices with the income going to tax cuts and help switching to stable RE costs.
That doesn't even include CO2/GW costs.
And not enriching/subsidizing big oil, coal, and worse Iran, Russia, oil dictators and terrorists which to me seems to be treason.
Or as Obama wants, make oil, coal pay their real, full costs, give tax cuts, help switching to more eff, lower cost tech creating millions of jobs building, installing and maintaining the RE equipment making a stable, prosperous economy?
Isn't Alaska where a major bay and island is about to disappear because of the glacier melting, GW? Soon Alaska will be known as the mud state as the permafrost melts longer each yr.
We know which one Sarah, Repubs want, corporate welfare, high costs, treason and run the country into the ground as in the last 8 yrs.
Which do you want?
hi Vern,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisyeah, i was referring to electric resistance heaters which are tremendously wasting energy. It's nice to hear that you're heating with a geothermal pump. I love this technology. it reliably provides heat all over the year no matter what the weather outside is like. the only disadventag is that efficency of geothermal pumps strongly depends on the temperature the heated water is use at. if you use floor heating at 40�C the efficiency is way higher than a convection heater which operates at 55-60�C.
however, you need to consider the total energy balance to derive a meaningful comparision. geothermal pumps are driven as you said with electrical power which, in general, is produced with a efficiency factor of about 30-40%. your geothermal heater may have a performance number of 5. since 5 times 40% = 200%, this is like if you used the heat of the coal twice. thats good!
On the other hand, a solar collector is able to provide hot water all over the year in many regions all over the world. in germany, you can set up a solar thermal heater so that it provides hot water for heating also in winter. and germany is much more in the north than the capital of canada. its true that you need to install additional heating for warm water in winter which is used for showering and stuff. what makes solar collectors so interesting is that once they are installed, they never consume any more power.
Soccerdad, I can never quite convince myself that you actually believe the things you say because they are so shocking.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThen I remember that people like Sarah Palin actually exist.
Mr. Johnston,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGo back to the doom & gloom of the 1970's and revisit some of the predictions that were made back then about running out of energy, water, food and other commodities like metals. They also were predicting the onset of another ice age by the way. I believe there were about 4 billion people in the world back in the 1970's. Maybe more, but in any case, a lot fewer than there are now. And "scientists" were saying that the world could not support any more than that. Now, we're going on 7 billion or so and the only real starvation in the world is due to corrupt and malevolent governments.
The world is not running out of fresh water. This is a myth. Now, if you happen to locate in an arid region, there may well be issues. But, if as you say the world is running out of fresh water, where is it going? Answer - nowhere. It's right in the same lakes and streams where it has always been.
As to our grandchildren, I would like to leave them a rational country where unfounded fears do not rule the day. If it makes economic sense to extract oil from shale, it is good for our grandchildren to do just that.
As for you, galaxy_man, if you are shocked by the truth then so be it. I pledge to you that everything I write on these pages is not only believed by me but is the truth.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat is shocking about saying that the benefits of extracting energy can outweigh the downside of creating some ugliness and using some water? Every form of energy creates some ugliness, yet I'm willing to bet you still use it. The natural environment where your home or apartment once stood has been ruined for your benefit.
What is shocking is that some denounce so vociferously exploitation of our natural resources yet utilize them for their own personal gain. Then, I remember that people like Barak Obama actually exist.
Nobody has the right to state that they speak the truth unequivocally. We are not omniscient. And it is one thing to recognize that the system we live under has harmful consequences; it's quite another to continue embracing the worst of our practices with nothing more than an 'Oh well' attitude, rather than search for ways to mitigate those effects in the interest of NOT leaving a steaming pile of ash everywhere we set a foot down. But since that's too much work and expenditure for venturesome consumption gurus such as yourself, we probably won't see that happen.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDespite all of that, some of us continue to do what we can to prevent the worst. You address our efforts as though we were perpetuating some sort of disease on your perfect industrial world. I call them the last stand.
galaxy_man,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think we can agree that we should try to mitigate the effects of our endevours on the environment. What I object to is the "just say no" attitude of environmentalists on coal, nuclear, tar sands, oil shale, ANWAR etc. They are even objecting to solar panels in the desert and offshore wind projects. I don't consider myself a "consumption guru". I just don't see why we should, of our own volition, condemn ourselves to higher energy prices and a lower standard of living because we worry about how something looks in a remote area of the country. If one advocates spending more on energy in order to embrace solar or wind (which cost 1.5 to 3 times more in an unsubsidized world) they should be prepared to state what should be given up to compensate. Health care? Educational opportunities? Also, they should be transparent about the cost so people can see the effect and decide for themselves whether it's worth it. People are all for GHG reductions as long as they think industry will be responsible for fixing the problem. Just make those smokestack owners pay more and make the car companies produce vehicles that meet some arbitrary MPG standard. Well, those actions have costs that will ultimately be borne by the consumer, thereby forcing them to reduce spending on other goods and services. This is what the proponents of restricting conventional energy development and capping GHG emissions won't admit. Instead they want to accomplish it by subsidizing, at taxpayer expense, inefficient technologies like wind and solar and ethanol. Or they want indirect taxes through their cap and trade scheme. I want them to honestly admit the tradeoffs of their plans so we can have a real debate about costs vs. benefits instead of good vs. evil.
Sorry if this duplicates an earlier post, I had a computer issue and I'm not sure if the first one posted.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisgalaxy_man,
I think we can agree that we should try to mitigate the effects of our endevours on the environment. What I object to is the "just say no" attitude of environmentalists on coal, nuclear, tar sands, oil shale, ANWAR etc. They are even objecting to solar panels in the desert and offshore wind projects. I don't consider myself a "consumption guru". I just don't see why we should, of our own volition, condemn ourselves to higher energy prices and a lower standard of living because we worry about how something looks in a remote area of the country. If one advocates spending more on energy in order to embrace solar or wind (which cost 1.5 to 3 times more in an unsubsidized world) they should be prepared to state what should be given up to compensate. Health care? Educational opportunities? Also, they should be transparent about the cost so people can see the effect and decide for themselves whether it's worth it. People are all for GHG reductions as long as they think industry will be responsible for fixing the problem. Just make those smokestack owners pay more and make the car companies produce vehicles that meet some arbitrary MPG standard. Well, those actions have costs that will ultimately be borne by the consumer, thereby forcing them to reduce spending on other goods and services. This is what the proponents of restricting conventional energy development and capping GHG emissions won't admit. Instead they want to accomplish it by subsidizing, at taxpayer expense, inefficient technologies like wind and solar and ethanol. Or they want indirect taxes through their cap and trade scheme. I want them to honestly admit the tradeoffs of their plans so we can have a real debate about costs vs. benefits instead of good vs. evil. (Good = complete opposition to proposed project on environmental grounds. Bad = Support of project)
We just invented to hottest laser in California lab, why can't we use the latest technology to extract the fuel source fro shale deposits?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe just invented the hottest laser ever in our California lab. I think we can use the laser technology to extract shale oil or gas using the laser to melt the rocks.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe just invented the hottest laser ever in our Calif lab. Why can't we use the laser technology to mine those shale rocks. First we use explosives to open the mines, then use the laser to melt the rocks. Presto we have fuel that would flow right into the tankers waiting. Price of oil should not be the reason for trying to be oil dependent. We are sending our dollar to OPEC. Remember 911. All 15 hijackers are from SAUDI, That includes Osama. I an inderect way we are helping terrorists
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLook at what smart "oil men" do. Check out T. Boone Pickens. He's been investing in wind turbines a long time, and you are unlikely to read something he's written or said. Talk is cheap and good ideas are rarely broadcast. Those with simple minds have a harder time looking past the "debate" because of foggy hot air. Those with good ideas put their effort and money where their imagination and knowledge leads.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAren't Shell getting a patent to change the method of extraction from shale? They want to sink heat bars into the soil and heat the ground up to high temperature over three or four years. This will accelerate the process and the oil will flow to wells. There will be no extraction of shale as such (retorting it increases the volume of the residue so it can't fit back in the hole it came out from), and the area will be sealed off by freezing the perimeter as they have done for tunneling. They estimate that they can get 1 million barrels per acre in Colorado, and the deposits cover thousands of sq miles. Literally, the US could be the largest oil supplier in the world.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSoccardad's response is logical in a restricted time frame. I understand that most of Titanic's passengers were feeling secure an hour after the collision.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRegarding Soccardad's viewpoint- That position is logical in a restricted timeframe. I understand that most of Titanic's passengers were feeling secure an hour after the collision.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA lot of people still seem to believe that the earth's reserves are infinite. Whether it be in decades or at most a couple of centuries, we are going to run out rapidly. Mankind has survived some 250,000 years, but his future will not be assured until we adapt to new constraints. This requires abandoning some of our old ways which no longer represent survival value.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEnvironmental experts are saying it is time to listen seriously if we hope to avoid a planetary disaster.