# Oil Shale - an economic alternative?



## sam76

Is this a cost effective alternative with oil at $100?

Are there any geo's/oil gurus who can elaborate?

I'm looking at a company that is developing a cheap extraction process, but i want to know if the stuff is actually any good.

with thanks


The various attempts to develop the world's oil shale deposits, over a period of over 150 years, have experienced successes when the cost of shale oil production in a given region was less than the price of crude oil or its other substitutes.[39] According to a survey conducted by the RAND Corporation, a surface retorting complex (comprising a mine, retorting plant, upgrading plant, supporting utilities, and spent shale reclamation) is unlikely to be profitable in the United States until crude oil prices range between US$70 to US$95 per barrel (in 2005 dollars).[25] 

Once commercial plants are in operation and experience-based learning takes place, costs are expected to decline in 12 years to US$35–US$48 per barrel. After production of 1,000 million barrels, costs are estimated to decline further to US$30 – US$40 per barrel.[34] Royal Dutch Shell has announced that its in-situ extraction technology in Colorado could be competitive at prices over US$30 per barrel, while other technologies at full-scale production assert profitability at oil prices even lower than US$20 per barrel.[40][41][42][43] To increase the efficiency of oil shale retorting, several co-pyrolysis processes have been proposed and tested.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_shale


----------



## numbercruncher

Abolutely is and this is a huge resource for the US, I expect they will have Oil independence within a decade. They reckon there is 3t recoverable barrels worldwide, 60pc of which is in the US. 

Can even turn Coal into diesel, and the US is the Saudia Arabia of coal 

Not to mention food = fuel (biodiesel/Ethanol), plenty of choice farmland in the West to grow fuel.

Only thing I wonder, is why arnt they doing it now ? All I can think is bleed the ME dry of Oil then they are toast ? Other option could be the US Gov didnt read any Peak Oil blogs 

I think Shell has done alot of work in this field, they like heat the shale under ground to a certain temperature then pump it out, Just the right temperature makes a nice Sweet crude I understand


----------



## grace

If you want local exposure to oil shale look at

GRV  Greenvale Mining

They are hiring something from the US in 2nd qtr I think to start the process.

Greenvale, together with Esperance Minerals hold the biggest oil shale deposit in Australia.  Market cap currently valued at something rediculous like 1c per barrel (don't quote me on that), but purely speculative at this stage.  Also oil shale could be used to reduce carbon emmissions on coal-fired power station - govt yet to throw money to Greenvale for that yet.

I hold.  Believe it or not, these are fairly tightly held - everyone just sitting on them until we turn grey!


----------



## Smurf1976

numbercruncher said:


> Abolutely is and this is a huge resource for the US, I expect they will have Oil independence within a decade. They reckon there is 3t recoverable barrels worldwide, 60pc of which is in the US.
> 
> Can even turn Coal into diesel, and the US is the Saudia Arabia of coal
> 
> Not to mention food = fuel (biodiesel/Ethanol), plenty of choice farmland in the West to grow fuel.
> 
> Only thing I wonder, is why arnt they doing it now ? All I can think is bleed the ME dry of Oil then they are toast ? Other option could be the US Gov didnt read any Peak Oil blogs
> 
> I think Shell has done alot of work in this field, they like heat the shale under ground to a certain temperature then pump it out, Just the right temperature makes a nice Sweet crude I understand



If only it were that easy in practice. 

Crude oil flows from the ground with virtually no effort. All the others require massive effort and expense. To say they are an alternative is like saying walking is an alternative to riding the train - technically correct but its utility is vastly lower and would at best be a very limited replacement.

IMO there's more chance of me landing on Mars than these heavy oil sources reaching output comparable to present day crude oil production at any point this side of 2050.

As for biofuels, I'll just say this. The energy you eat this week would, if converted with 100% efficiency, produce 2 litres of petrol. Not enough to even run the tractors, trucks etc to grow the stuff in the first place. And good luck with that 100% conversion efficiency...

That's not to say that someone won't make money out of shale. But they'll need some technology that works without the persistent fires, vapour leaks etc that have plagued attempts thus far. Either that or they get permission to absolutely trash the surrounding environment on a scale you wouldn't imagine possible.

Coal liquefaction works however. And should be profitable until such time as scarcity of coal squeezes the margins on the convrsion business - finding a company using low grade coal (brown coal etc) would be ideal. Proven technology there too.


----------



## Smurf1976

grace said:


> .  Also oil shale could be used to reduce carbon emmissions on coal-fired power station



Technically pretty simple. USSR used to have plants running decades ago. Fairly simple mine-mouth operation using conventional boilers, turbines etc. They might still be running but not sure what country they would now be in.


----------



## noirua

The oil shale boom started in 1980 and then followed the "the long drift downwards".  The once giant "Southern Pacific" went under finally in 2003.
Could be another Oil Shale boom again, but watch out for the bust, it's an expensive business.
"Shale Oil Dream leads to company's Collapse":  http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/12/02/1070351580970.html


----------



## numbercruncher

I think the big problem is water, like 2 barrels needed for every barrel of Oil produced.

The US I understand is getting the ball rolling, The US Bureau of Land management just today held informal meeting for Utah residents about enviromental studys etc I read.

There will be little choice, if the world is indeed running low on Liquid gold, alternatives must be sought. Maybe it will be a flop again, but there sure seems alot of interest, especially at 100 a barrel.

Australia has already produced some in the past. I think the refining tech has come along since too.



> There is no oil being extracted from oil shale in Australia. From 2000 to 2004, the Stage 1 demonstration-scale processing plant at the Stuart deposit near Gladstone in central Queensland produced more than 1.5 million barrels of oil using a rotary kiln retort. No oil has been produced since 2004 and the facility is in care and maintenance. However, while design efforts continue on Stage 2 of the development, the facility is maintained in operating condition to allow for any further production testing if required.




http://www.australianminesatlas.gov.au/info/aimr/shale_oil.jsp

1.5m Barrels at todays prices would be nice pay, might want to fire that fella up again !


----------



## noirua

Canada has the biggest reserves of oil shale and have talked for years about increasing the amount they produce and reducing the need for Canada and America to import oil. (Estonia produces 70% of the Worlds shale oil production.)
Talked about 30 years ago and not that much progress made yet. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_shale


----------



## Timmy

Might be off topic (good topic thanks Sam) ... is there an issue with CO2 emissions both in the production and the use of shale oil?


----------



## noirua

Timmy said:


> Might be off topic (good topic thanks Sam) ... is there an issue with CO2 emissions both in the production and the use of shale oil?




CO2 and waste are a big problem with shale oil and it requires carbon capture to be used properly. Australia's Stuart Oil Shale Project was put on hold in 2004 because of environmental concerns.


----------



## numbercruncher

noirua said:


> Canada has the biggest reserves of oil shale and have talked for years about increasing the amount they produce and reducing the need for Canada and America to import oil. (Estonia produces 70% of the Worlds shale oil production.)
> Talked about 30 years ago and not that much progress made yet. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_shale




I think you have your Oil shale and Tar sands mixed up Noirua.

Canada rules Tar sand world.

US rules Oil Shale world.


----------



## dragonball

i just read the article about oil sands...they said it's gonna be big in the future.

does oil sands = oil shale ???

and does anyone know any australian company start to explore this alternative oil resource ?


----------



## Tysonboss1

Timmy said:


> Might be off topic (good topic thanks Sam) ... is there an issue with CO2 emissions both in the production and the use of shale oil?




Yes,...

One of the big problems is that both Oil shale and Oil sands both use massive amounts of natural gas to extract and convert to Oil.

Now when there is already technology available that can turn natural gas into liquid deisel and unleaded substitutes I think using it to produce oil is not the answer


----------



## Tysonboss1

dragonball said:


> i just read the article about oil sands...they said it's gonna be big in the future.
> 
> does oil sands = oil shale ???
> 
> and does anyone know any australian company start to explore this alternative oil resource ?





No,

*Oil sand *is a oily tar type sand/mud compound, it is much closer to conventional oil than shale, If it is sludge enough it can in some cases e pumpd from the ground but mostly it is mined then processed into oil,.... offcourse because it needs to be mined and processed, it is more expensive, slower and more energy intensive thanconventional oil

*Oil shale* is a sedimentary rock compound, so it in a soild rock state. again needs to be mined how ever the process for turning it into liquid oil is even more expensive and energy intensive than oil sands.

Conventional oil is actually made from oil shale that has been heated and kept under pressure in the earths crust for millions of years,.... Oil sand is sort of half way between shale and liquid oil.

As I said earlier my big problem with oil sand and oil shale are the environmental aspects,.... they create far more CO2 emmissions due to the extra proccessing and also leave scars on th earth from strip mining.


----------



## Smurf1976

The biggest problem is non-CO2 emissions. 

To make it work, you need to design something that does basically as follows. And it's anything but easy when you think about it. To be economic, it needs to be a continuous process rather than batch production.

1. Continuous feed in of a solid, flammable material.
2. Heat said material to above it's ignition point _without_ it catching fire.
3. Trap _all_ the vapours driven off by this heating.
4. Remove a volume of solid waste that is twice as large as the feed in material.

Now, think about how you'd design this. Conveyor belts and other conventional systems work fine to move the shale and waste around so no problem there. But how do you keep air out and the vapours contained when you've got a constant stream of solid material coming in and out and the whole thing is at hundreds of degrees?

Let the air in and you've got an explosion. Let the vapours out and you'll end up poisoning everything in the area, workers included, and literally oiling the landscape if the weather conditions are right. And of course that's your oil and profits literally blowing away in the wind too.

And in addition to all of that, you need to make the process reasonably energy efficient otherwise it's useless. At the very least, it needs to use less fuel than it produces, preferably a lot less.

If the engineering problems can be fixed then it's a goer. Otherwise it's limited to small scale batch production at very high costs - useful for lubricants, petrochemicals etc once the conventional oil is gone but uneconomic as a major energy source.


----------



## sam76

Did anyone watch the Oil Shale segment  on 60 minutes tonight?

Albian Sands (?) a BP subsidary eating up the Canadian forests 

I can't believe they need to move 4 tonnes of land for every barrel of oil they produce 

Sure there may be a lot of oil substitute down there but at what price?


----------



## rederob

sam76 said:


> Did anyone watch the Oil Shale segment  on 60 minutes tonight?
> 
> Albian Sands (?) a BP subsidary eating up the Canadian forests
> 
> I can't believe they need to move 4 tonnes of land for every barrel of oil they produce



Oil *SANDS*.
Not oil shale.
60 Minutes borrowed the theme from 2.5 years ago.
Wonder when people will see the damage from oil sands mining as too great a cost to bear.


----------



## sam76

The segment was actually about both.

But you're right my comments were meant to be about Sands


----------



## doogie_goes_off

The question was put "an economic alternative?" and the answer may be yes if we see $200/barrel for oil. Is CO2 a problem? Depends where you live. Is finding an energy source to extract oil from shale a problem? depends how clever your government is with incentives for new technology.

For my money it's a long term proposition, probably solved with a chemical solvent that will inevitably turn out to have more side effects than first realised killing the masses when they could have just done clean burning and produced CO2.

The world will turn another day without oil production from oil shales.


----------



## rederob

sam76 said:


> The segment was actually about both.
> 
> But you're right my comments were meant to be about Sands



Oil sands might produce 5 million barrels a day in 10 years time.
That will be about 4% of global demand.
Given that the "gap" between output and demand is almost upon us, it's unlikely their efforts will save America.
The oil shale issue is a no brainer.  The proponents have no brains.


----------



## snake100

Cost to produce is quite high per the channel 9 tv show tonight...anyone know estimated % per barrel?....vs offshore/onshore oil wells...


----------



## Smurf1976

snake100 said:


> Cost to produce is quite high per the channel 9 tv show tonight...anyone know estimated % per barrel?....vs offshore/onshore oil wells...



Well... The single largest cost of extracting oil from shale is energy itself. So the more oil costs, the more it costs to extract it from these sources. 

It was going to be viable at 30, 40, 50, 60, 80, 100 and now probably $200 per barrel. And yep, you guessed it, when prices do hit $200 it will need probably $250 or $300 to be viable. Hence many saying that "oil shale is the fuel of the future and always will be". It's always been "close" to viability and still is "close" despite a 10 fold rise in oil prices.


----------



## snake100

Thanks. They did speak about the energy involved and amount of pollution it causes to extract oil from the rock...interesting article from Channel 9.


----------



## Smurf1976

rederob said:


> Oil *SANDS*.
> Wonder when people will see the damage from oil sands mining as too great a cost to bear.



It's the same with most alternative energy sources.

Oil and gas are easy and low impact (unless it gets spilled). Drill a few holes and out it comes. Burn it and there's your energy. Not even any ash to dispose of and, with modern technology, no smoke either. Easy.

Consider these 3 power stations, all of which are about the same size. Newport (Vic, gas-fired), Northern (SA, coal-fired) and Gordon (Tas, hydro).

The first one is an industrial building about 6km from central Melbourne. Look at it and you see a big chimney stack and perhaps a bit of vapour being emitted. That's it. Half the people living in Melbourne probably don't even know what it is.

Second one is near Port Augusta. Twice as much CO2 as the gas-fired plant. Plus ash dumps, particle emissions and so on. Plus a huge hole in the ground where the coal came from. You wouldn't want it in suburban Adelaide that's for sure. On the plus side, there's a lot more coal than gas so it's an alternative in that sense. It somewhat dominates the local area.

Third one is in a remote part of Tas. Totally renewable and sustainable. Nothing goes into the air or even the water. It'll still be there long after oil and gas cease to be economic. But just one problem - 11 years and $185 million (in 60's and 70's $) to build makes for a rather large upfront investment. And of course this is the scheme which started the world's first Green political party. The scheme itself is clearly visible on any map of Tasmania, in satellite images and so on.

Oil and gas are easy. Everything else is a LOT harder economically, environmentally or politically - usually all 3.

Alternatives there are, but you have to accept some rather drastic "modification" to the natural environment if you want to use them. Coal mines, ash dumps, flooded valleys, wind turbines everywhere you look, the inherent hazard of nuclear materials and so on. 

Personally I'm fine with the wind turbines and dams simply because I'm all to well aware that they're at least reasonably sustainable if not aesthetically pleasing. The damage can be largely undone (though it would take a few decades).

But even I start to worry at the prospect of reactors in every country and ripping up entire US states (literally) for shale. At that point we're doing massive damage in return for something that has no lasting value - burn it and it's gone. And we'll NEVER undo all that damage. 

Worth noting that many of the biggest environmental battles have been about alternatives to oil and gas. Take out the debates about dams, wind farms, uranium, transmission lines and coal-fired power and that's most of the big environmental debates we've seen in Australia apart from forests (though even there I could point out that the amount burnt nationally each year for fuel is about the same as the amount chipped for pulp).


----------



## So_Cynical

Ive been reading (Googleing) a bit tonight and the "Stuart Oil Shale Project"
that fell over in 2004 was sposed to be profitable with oil at over $30 a barrel :dunno:

I found an ASX listed mob with a deposit in Tasmania...JORC indicated resource
of 59 million Barrels (equivalent)

59 million @ 130$ a Barrel = $7.670.000.000  did i add that up right?


----------



## doogie_goes_off

Smurf, that's a circular argument you have going although there's no guarantee it's not true whilst governments don't look to alternative sources of energy and consumers don't stop buying cars.

The devestation for mass extraction from oil shale would be considerable, but the question is "what's accepable?" or "sustainable?*"

This is where funding of science with a social angle should be done at a federal government level, not just think tanks or papers or just the CSIRO unless they get bigger and less wasteful... 

Find out what's viable longer term and promote/subsidise/encourage it, now!

*Using an arbitary time scale of the continuation of human existance in "an oil age" state of living


----------



## Smurf1976

doogie_goes_off said:


> Smurf, that's a circular argument you have going although there's no guarantee it's not true whilst governments don't look to alternative sources of energy and consumers don't stop buying cars.



I don't follow which part of the argument is circular. Most of the non-oil/gas energy sources produce more non-CO2 impact than oil/gas for the same level of energy supply. Therefore if you want to use these alternatives whilst maintaining the same volume of supply then you have to accept some of those impacts. 

If that makes the argument circular then so does saying that shares in XYZ have gone up therefore if you held them you should have made a profit.


----------



## doogie_goes_off

Maybe this is going to be a circular solution for you then - choose an alternative energy source, accept the impact, use it to extract oil from oil shale, sell the oil for consumption, make money. Simple isn't it. The circular argument would be: choose oil to provide the energy to produce oil and the margin is always going to be marginal.. Well it is a possibility that people will go with solution 1 but disagree if you like. I suppose solution 2 is not that different to refining oil to make other products. My other points were - at what point would we say enoughs enough, stop trying to make oil and is it worth bothering to decide if it's "economic" now, some people think yes it is worth it, that's why they are pegging oil shales as assets.


----------



## Smurf1976

So_Cynical said:


> Ive been reading (Googleing) a bit tonight and the "Stuart Oil Shale Project"
> that fell over in 2004 was sposed to be profitable with oil at over $30 a barrel :dunno:
> 
> I found an ASX listed mob with a deposit in Tasmania...JORC indicated resource
> of 59 million Barrels (equivalent)
> 
> 59 million @ 130$ a Barrel = $7.670.000.000  did i add that up right?



It may have been profitable but there were so many ongoing technical problems that it just didn't stack up. The pilot plant caused rather a lot of environmental problems - a full scale plant running like that would have been an outright disaster.

As for oil shale in Tassie, there's lots of small deposits known all over the place. The most famous one would be on Bruny Island, a popular holiday spot not far from Hobart but there's lots of others places with a bit of shale. There was some mining of the shale historically (1920's - 30's). 

Much the same with coal - lots of small deposits (120 or so) but nothing really big (they total about 150 million tonnes of recoverable black coal). Only one coal mine operates today. Production is about 0.5 million tonnes per annum although that is largely due to lack of a use for it (it's low grade coal mostly used in the cement works, paper mills and a bit for boiler fuel in breweries, vegetable processing etc).


----------



## Smurf1976

doogie_goes_off said:


> Maybe this is going to be a circular solution for you then - choose an alternative energy source, accept the impact, use it to extract oil from oil shale, sell the oil for consumption, make money. Simple isn't it. The circular argument would be: choose oil to provide the energy to produce oil and the margin is always going to be marginal..



In that case you're basically turning one energy source (eg coal, gas) into another (oil). Like changing AUD100 into an equivalent volume of some other currency.

My point is basically EROEI - Energy Return On Energy Invested. If it takes 100 barrels, megawatts or whatever to produce 90 barrels etc then in energy terms it's a loss no matter what the actual resource being used. It might still be finanically profitable, but it doesn't solve much in terms of energy problems.

But if it takes 100 barrels to produce 110 barrels then at least it's profitable in terms of energy. The net gain of 10 does imply an awful lot of resources extracted and consequent environmental impact though. If you have to dig  up 2 cubic metres of rock to fill your car's tank and it produces 4 cubic metres of waste (oil shale expands when the oil is extracted) then that's a rather big impact environmentally.

I reckon we'll do it though. I seriously do think we'll mine, drill, react, dam, farm, collect and ferment everything we can to keep the game going as long as possible.


----------



## grace

I hold GRV which has a market cap of $10million with 11 billion barrels of oil in oil shale.  Trial mining was to start this quarter, but haven't heard anything yet.  I wait in hope.  The register is tightly held.


----------



## renim

the 'solvent' for oil shale will basically be lpg heated to 60 degrees C.
its new tech, new idea, but recyclable and a lot cheaper than retorts


----------



## ghotib

What do these companies say about the effect of a carbon price on their prospects?


----------



## So_Cynical

I found some info on a big American company that found an electronic 
way to separate the oil from the shale....all a bit hush hush.

Anyway i figured today that if u grind the shale down into a sand type 
consistency...then u have approximately what the Canadians are 
successfully mining...oil/bitumen sands.


----------



## nioka

So_Cynical said:


> I found some info on a big American company that found an electronic
> way to separate the oil from the shale....all a bit hush hush.
> 
> Anyway i figured today that if u grind the shale down into a sand type
> consistency...then u have approximately what the Canadians are
> successfully mining...oil/bitumen sands.



 I don't think that is correct. The Canadian product is a very heavy bitumous oil type. The Australian is a shale containing a very light crude. During the war I seem to remember a kerosene type product being produced from it.
 The electronic method is a microwave process I think.

 Can't guarantee that though, it's a long time ago and my memory plays tricks at times.


----------



## grace

nioka said:


> I don't think that is correct. The Canadian product is a very heavy bitumous oil type. The Australian is a shale containing a very light crude. During the war I seem to remember a kerosene type product being produced from it.
> The electronic method is a microwave process I think.
> 
> Can't guarantee that though, it's a long time ago and my memory plays tricks at times.




Nioka, your memory is pretty good!  They call it kerogen (now that's from my memory, and I only read that last night).  Might have to check how accurate I am!


----------



## Smurf1976

grace said:


> Nioka, your memory is pretty good!  They call it kerogen (now that's from my memory, and I only read that last night).  Might have to check how accurate I am!



It's kerogen in shale, as distinct from crude oil or bitumen.

In my opinion if we do end up using large amounts of shale then it will be by some means other than the conventional idea of mining, heating and recovering liquid fuel from it.

We could just burn it for boiler fuel in power stations. That's pretty simple technically and been done before.

Burn it in situ and recover CO gas from that. Then we put that through another process and turn it into something more useful.

Heat it in situ by some means, fracture it and do some drilling to recover oil. A questionable idea environmentally - depends on how much vapour ends up escaping.

Refine it using solvents rather than thermally.

Shale is pretty toxic stuff though so I'm somewhat wary environmetally. Simply mining it and dumping it as is causes enough environmental and human health problems at Leigh Creek (SA) without actually trying to extract oil from the stuff. 

We might do something with solvents etc and recover liquids that way.


----------



## nioka

grace said:


> Nioka, your memory is pretty good!  They call it kerogen (now that's from my memory, and I only read that last night).  Might have to check how accurate I am!




 My recollection goes back to the early war years when we did not have electricity and used kerosene lamps. I seem to recall some talk then about the shale oil kerosene that we used at home and a power kero that was used in tractors. Most of the tractors I remember from those days had steel wheels.
 I've started writing a book and all these things that prompt memory help a lot.


----------



## Smurf1976

nioka said:


> My recollection goes back to the early war years when we did not have electricity and used kerosene lamps. I seem to recall some talk then about the shale oil kerosene that we used at home and a power kero that was used in tractors. Most of the tractors I remember from those days had steel wheels.



"Lighting" kero for heaters and lamps, "power kerosene" for tractor engines.

There were quite a few sites of production from shale in that era. NSW & Tasmania were among them, not sure about elsewhere. In more recent times kero is simply another product of crude oil refining.

Last time I remember seeing a kero heater used inside a house as a normal means of heating would be roughly 1986. 

I think there's still one service station in Hobart that sells kero (from a bowser) and I saw one in Brisbane 3 years ago with the kero bowser oddly placed right next to the petrol and LPG pumps - you could end up filling the car with kero if you weren't paying attention.

Heating oil these days is often simply a 50/50 mix of kero and diesel. And there's still a few around using it (it's getting rather expensive though).


----------



## So_Cynical

Jet-A fuel is also pretty much kerosene....so its not like kero is outdated and unwanted.

From my reading last nite, the blacker and thicker oil is, the more processing it needs to 
get it to a usable state..so the lighter and browner oils sell for a higher price cos they 
cost less to process....so Aussie shale is good Shale.

For me its hard to believe that with oil above $120 a barrel, that these 50+ million barrel 
shale deposits will not get developed in some way shape or form.


----------



## ColB

Smurf hit the nail on the head in terms of the environmental impact that a shale oil plant has.  SPP/CCP who ran the Stuart Oil Shale project a few years ago were targeted by Greenpeace and put through the mill so to speak.  They abandoned the project for a number of reasons one of which was the cost associated with the process at the time but also due to meeting environmental guidelines.  However as someone else stated the cost per barrel was much lower back then and only time will tell before someone has another go.  Good luck Grace!  Hope you've found another LNC!


----------



## Tysonboss1

I read a funny story last night about a guy in the olden days building a house with a big stone fire place,... turned out the stone he chose to build the fire place out of was oil shale,.... needless to same soon after he lit the fire the whole fire place was burning and it burned down his new home,...


----------



## Salamander

ghotib said:


> What do these companies say about the effect of a carbon price on their prospects?




I haven't seen much at all from the ones I've looked at.

Apparently Innovest Strategic Value Advisors (www.innovestgroup.com) were commissioned by Greenpeace in 2001 to look at this as part of their campaign against the Stuart Oil Shale Project in Australia & found the cost would be a minimum of $38m (not sure if Aus or Can $) each year! at commercial production.

Innovest's report doesn't seem to be available online, but see www.gasandoil.com/goc/news/nts11989.htm for more info.


----------



## Salamander

numbercruncher said:


> There is no oil being extracted from oil shale in Australia. From 2000 to 2004, the Stage 1 demonstration-scale processing plant at the Stuart deposit near Gladstone in central Queensland produced more than 1.5 million barrels of oil using a rotary kiln retort. No oil has been produced since 2004 and the facility is in care and maintenance. However, while design efforts continue on Stage 2 of the development, the facility is maintained in operating condition to allow for any further production testing if required.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.australianminesatlas.gov.au/info/aimr/shale_oil.jsp
> 
> 1.5m Barrels at todays prices would be nice pay, might want to fire that fella up again !
Click to expand...



Don't think that's possible as it seems the plant equipment has been sold - see sale brochure. 

One report said it was most likely to be sold off for scrap. Not great considering it apparently cost around $380m.


----------



## sam76

Shale oil all the rage as prices soar

PURE SPECULATION: Robin Bromby | July 07, 2008 

IF you haven't heard of the Bakken shale formation, then it's time to get a handle on the story. The US Geological Survey recently termed it the largest continuous oil accumulation it had ever assessed.

This is not just a matter of academic interest to us, because two Australian-listed juniors are right in the middle of the action. Both Samson Oil & Gas (SSN) and Sundance Energy (SEA) not only have acreage there but are about to drill. 

The Bakken formation stretches across 65,000sq km under Montana, North Dakota, Manitoba and Saskatchewan. The oil, contained within dolomite, was once difficult to extract, but the modern technology of horizontal drilling has made the oil's recovery not only possible but reasonably cheap by world standards. 

It's oil rush time in North Dakota, with 4000 active oil wells and, according to the Associated Press, there's a "drilling frenzy", with farmers becoming overnight millionaires as oil is discovered under their properties. 

The US Government was considering a full investigation of the Bakken area in the mid-1990s, but this was abandoned when crude fell below $US10 a barrel. But not only is there oil there, it is widely distributed. According to a Canadian Broadcasting Corp feature on the formation, 98 per cent of wells drilled at the Elm Coulee oilfield in Montana have yielded crude. In early June, Toronto-listed Reece Energy announced it had found oil in the first well it drilled into the Bakken section in Saskatchewan. 

In 1995, the US Geological Survey estimated the Bakken formation in North Dakota and Montana contained 151 million barrels of oil; in April that was raised to as much as 4.3 billion barrels of "undiscovered, technically recoverable oil". And that figure does not include discovered oil, or oil not recoverable with present technology, which could total (again according to the USGS) more than 400 billion barrels, several times the size of Saudi Arabia's Ghawar field. 

The USGS says the recoverable total for the Bakken is four times that of the next largest continuous oil accumulation, the well-drilled Austin Chalk of Louisiana and Texas. Not that this means that the Australians are going to come up trumps, but it is clearly one of the better places to be looking. 

So keep an eye on these two. Samson, which holds 1540ha at its North Harstad lease, is in a joint venture new well that will be drilled to a vertical depth of 3455m and then directed horizontally for a distance of 1463m into the Bakken formation. Samson said an independent study showed its lease area could hold 7.7 million barrels of recoverable oil, of which 3.2 million barrels would be its share. 

In May, Sundance announced it had acquired acreage in North Dakota within the Bakken formation. It has recently received a permit to drill its first well with spudding expected in August. 

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23978394-18261,00.html


----------



## rederob

If Bakken had the quantities of free flowing oil that speculators are hoping for, then the oil majors would have had it pegged in a flash.
Bakken is likely to continue to be for small fry, with small scale projects yielding small quantities of oil, albeit profitably for some.
The term "largest continuous oil accumulation" means what?
It means the oil finds will be largely dispersed, requiring substantial outlays on a regular basis over a long time.  Importantly, it won't do anything to ameiorate the US supply problem presently faced - not now, not soon, and not into the future.


----------



## So_Cynical

wikilink said:
			
		

> The United States has the largest known deposits of oil shale in the world, according to the Bureau of Land Management and holds an estimated *2,500 gigabarrels of potentially recoverable oil, enough to meet U.S. demand for oil at current rates for 110 years*. However, oil shale does not actually contain oil, but a waxy oil precursor known as kerogen.




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_reserves
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_shale_reserves

I believe that with oil above 100 a barrel....its a whole new ball game.

The historical oil experience has been with cheap oil, expensive oil has only been with us a year or so...our oil infrastructure and our economic dependence on oil isn't gona go away in a hurry, so shale oil as an alternative 
supply will surly get developed.

Like the Americans are just gona leave 2,500 gigabarrels in the ground.
Its a win win win situation for the Americans

The US developing a "shale oil" industry will.

Counter OPEC and the Arab producers, disempowering them somewhat.
Provide a substantial economic stimulus to domestic America, Jobs etc.
Strategically reduce Americas dependence on foreign oil.
Save the US Billions of dollars NOT importing as much oil.

All of the above is politically very easy to sell to the US people and Congress etc.


----------



## nioka

Salamander said:


> Don't think that's possible as it seems the plant equipment has been sold - see sale brochure.
> 
> One report said it was most likely to be sold off for scrap. Not great considering it apparently cost around $380m.



 I listened to an interview with someone from QER who are selling the plant. They are a private company that bought the plant after it was closed down. I gathered that the reason for the sale of that plant is that they are looking at newer technology which will be much more effecient and more enviromentally friendly. The project is far from dead. However it is a private company and the spokesperson indicated that they intended to stay that way. I think we will hear more about this in the near future. There are other listed companies though that have leases in that area and plans that are worth watching.


----------



## Smurf1976

So_Cynical said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_reserves
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_shale_reserves
> 
> I believe that with oil above 100 a barrel....its a whole new ball game.
> 
> The historical oil experience has been with cheap oil, expensive oil has only been with us a year or so...our oil infrastructure and our economic dependence on oil isn't gona go away in a hurry, so shale oil as an alternative
> supply will surly get developed.
> 
> Like the Americans are just gona leave 2,500 gigabarrels in the ground.



Some serious questions:

1. How much of that is net recoverable oil? That is, oil that can be taken from the ground and which is left after powering the production process (including desalination if used)? I'd guess it will be a lot less than 2,500 Gb.

2. Where will the waste be dumped? We're talking some pretty massive amounts of expanded rock here.


----------



## grace

nioka said:


> I listened to an interview with someone from QER who are selling the plant. They are a private company that bought the plant after it was closed down. I gathered that the reason for the sale of that plant is that they are looking at newer technology which will be much more effecient and more enviromentally friendly. The project is far from dead. However it is a private company and the spokesperson indicated that they intended to stay that way. I think we will hear more about this in the near future. There are other listed companies though that have leases in that area and plans that are worth watching.




Yes, I did read that somewhere, newer technology to be used....still alive.

nioka, what was the oil shale industry news here during the past week?  I missed it I think.


----------



## rederob

So_Cynical said:


> The US developing a "shale oil" industry will.
> 
> Counter OPEC and the Arab producers, disempowering them somewhat.
> Provide a substantial economic stimulus to domestic America, Jobs etc.
> Strategically reduce Americas dependence on foreign oil.
> Save the US Billions of dollars NOT importing as much oil.
> 
> All of the above is politically very easy to sell to the US people and Congress etc.




Oil shale proponents are just pissing in the wind.
There will be better ways of generating energy in the future than squeezing oil out of rocks.
One of the baseline studies on oil shale is from RAND, and this is part of their summary:


> *Development Timeline*. Currently, no organization with the management, technical, and financial wherewithal to develop oil shale resources has announced its intent to build commercial-scale production facilities. A firm decision to commit funds to such a venture is at least six years away because that is the minimum length of time for scale-up and process confirmation work needed to obtain the technical and environmental data required for the design and permitting of a first-of-a-kind
> commercial operation. At least an additional six to eight years will be required to permit, design, construct, shake down, and confirm performance of that initial commercial operation. Consequently, at least 12 and possibly more years will elapse before oil shale development will reach the production growth phase. Under high growth assumptions, an oil shale production level of 1 million barrels per day is probably more than 20 years in the future, and 3 million barrels per day is probably more than 30 years into the future.



Let's be generous and assume the "go ahead" is given tomorrow and commercial production of 1 million barrels a day is achieved in 10 years.
Frankly, it's too little, too late.
RAND had some other interesting points.  In 2005 dollars an above ground shale oil retort facility might be commercially viable if actual per barrel prices of oil were never less than $70. Although we might never again see oil as low as $70 again, we have yet to see a commercially viable oil shale plant
Shell have a trial concept of in-situ  retorting that they suggest could extract oil at a cost of  $20/barrel.  I reckon the difference between theory and practice is so great that it won't see the light of day.


----------



## So_Cynical

Oil Shale Development in the United States: Prospects and Policy Issues

Is an interesting read...i liked this bit.



> *In-Situ Retorting*. In-situ retorting entails heating oil shale in place, extracting
> the liquid from the ground, and transporting it to an upgrading or refining facility.
> Because in-situ retorting does not involve mining or aboveground spent shale disposal,
> it offers an alternative that does not permanently modify land surface topography
> and that may be significantly less damaging to the environment.
> Shell Oil Company has successfully conducted small-scale field tests of an insitu
> process based on slow underground heating via thermal conduction. Larger-scale
> operations are required to establish technical viability, especially with regard to
> avoiding adverse impacts on groundwater quality. Shell anticipates that, in contrast
> to the cost estimates for mining and surface retorting, the petroleum products produced
> by their thermally conductive in-situ method will be competitive at crude oil
> prices in the mid-$20s per barrel. The company is still developing the process, however,
> and cost estimates could easily increase as more information is obtained and
> more detailed designs become available.




Also liked this bit RE: my earlier comments about US strategic interests and benefits to the domestic economy, jobs etc.



> *The Strategic Significance of Oil Shale*
> If the development of oil shale resources results in a domestic industry capable of
> profitably producing a crude oil substitute, the United States would benefit from the
> economic profits and jobs created by that industry. Additionally, oil shale production
> will likely benefit consumers by reducing world oil prices, and that price reduction
> will likely have some national security benefits for the United States.


----------



## rederob

It's hard to envisage any thinking person reckoning oil shale can make a meaningful contribution to "oil prices" within 10 years.
Canada's oil sands have been going for several decades as commercially viable operations and presently contribute a meagre percentage of oil to the global pot.

On the $20 oil matter, I am a geographer by trade, and I think it will snow in hell before in-situ retorting gets a commercial jersey.  The environmental risks and mitigation costs are massive. 
In any event, the more important sentence to highlight was "The company is still developing the process, however, and cost estimates could easily *increase *as more information is obtained and more detailed designs become available."


----------



## So_Cynical

rederob said:


> It's hard to envisage any thinking person reckoning oil shale can make a meaningful contribution to "oil prices" within 10 years.



Agreed...So Rob what would make a meaningful contribution to reducing fuels prices over the next Decade??? :dunno:

Some more questions to consider.

1.What will bring the US out off the Recession its now in?

2. How will the US address the Trade imbalance?

3. How will the US stimulate the domestic economy and create, blue collar (middle America) jobs? 

Developing a shale oil industry help do all the above...in fact its the only initiative that 
would make a substantial contribution to all 3...a win win win solution.

I just cant see how the US wouldn't throw money at this, what would the average american 
want...if given the choice between, giving the Saudis or Iranians 150+ dollars a barrel or keeping 
that money at home....what other industrial, middle America jobs are there on the horizon? :dunno:


----------



## rederob

My blue with you:


So_Cynical said:


> Agreed...So Rob what would make a meaningful contribution to reducing fuels prices over the next Decade??? :dunno:
> Answer: In the short term we need higher higher prices that stimulate demand destruction and a flight to alternative energy that could be cheaper, but at least will be sustainable.
> 
> Some more questions to consider.
> 
> 1.What will bring the US out off the Recession its now in?
> Answer: Time - to work through the debt burden and return the population to a "savings" mentality rather than a credit mentality.
> 
> 2. How will the US address the Trade imbalance?
> Answer: In regard to oil debts, it will be a slave to oil purchases for many years to come until its energy paradigm shifts elsewhere.
> 3. How will the US stimulate the domestic economy and create, blue collar (middle America) jobs?
> Answer: I really don't know!
> 
> Developing a shale oil industry help do all the above...in fact its the only initiative that would make a substantial contribution to all 3...a win win win solution.
> If you believe that a commercially unproven, risky, dirty technology that could supply 5% of US demand - but not for 20 years - is the answer, then far be it for me to convince you otherwise.
> 
> I just cant see how the US wouldn't throw money at this, what would the average american want...if given the choice between, giving the Saudis or Iranians 150+ dollars a barrel or keeping that money at home....what other industrial, middle America jobs are there on the horizon? :dunno:
> A recent CSIRO study has suggested that before the US could get an operational retort into production the price of petrol could reach $35 per gallon. Building nuclear power plants and converting as much transport over to fully electric models would be less costly, quicker, and produce a viable outcome that Americans might swallow.


----------



## Salamander

sam76 said:


> Shale oil all the rage as prices soar
> 
> PURE SPECULATION: Robin Bromby | July 07, 2008
> 
> IF you haven't heard of the Bakken shale formation, then it's time to get a handle on the story. The US Geological Survey recently termed it the largest continuous oil accumulation it had ever assessed.
> 
> This is not just a matter of academic interest to us, because two Australian-listed juniors are right in the middle of the action. Both Samson Oil & Gas (SSN) and Sundance Energy (SEA) not only have acreage there but are about to drill.
> 
> The Bakken formation stretches across 65,000sq km under Montana, North Dakota, Manitoba and Saskatchewan. The oil, contained within dolomite, was once difficult to extract, but the modern technology of horizontal drilling has made the oil's recovery not only possible but reasonably cheap by world standards.
> 
> It's oil rush time in North Dakota, with 4000 active oil wells and, according to the Associated Press, there's a "drilling frenzy", with farmers becoming overnight millionaires as oil is discovered under their properties.
> 
> The US Government was considering a full investigation of the Bakken area in the mid-1990s, but this was abandoned when crude fell below $US10 a barrel. But not only is there oil there, it is widely distributed. According to a Canadian Broadcasting Corp feature on the formation, 98 per cent of wells drilled at the Elm Coulee oilfield in Montana have yielded crude. In early June, Toronto-listed Reece Energy announced it had found oil in the first well it drilled into the Bakken section in Saskatchewan.
> 
> In 1995, the US Geological Survey estimated the Bakken formation in North Dakota and Montana contained 151 million barrels of oil; in April that was raised to as much as 4.3 billion barrels of "undiscovered, technically recoverable oil". And that figure does not include discovered oil, or oil not recoverable with present technology, which could total (again according to the USGS) more than 400 billion barrels, several times the size of Saudi Arabia's Ghawar field.
> 
> The USGS says the recoverable total for the Bakken is four times that of the next largest continuous oil accumulation, the well-drilled Austin Chalk of Louisiana and Texas. Not that this means that the Australians are going to come up trumps, but it is clearly one of the better places to be looking.
> 
> So keep an eye on these two. Samson, which holds 1540ha at its North Harstad lease, is in a joint venture new well that will be drilled to a vertical depth of 3455m and then directed horizontally for a distance of 1463m into the Bakken formation. Samson said an independent study showed its lease area could hold 7.7 million barrels of recoverable oil, of which 3.2 million barrels would be its share.
> 
> In May, Sundance announced it had acquired acreage in North Dakota within the Bakken formation. It has recently received a permit to drill its first well with spudding expected in August.
> 
> http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23978394-18261,00.html




The headline of this article is wrong - the Bakken shale formation is not oil shale, but just contains conventional oil beneath a layer of 'normal' (not oil) shale although it requires an unconventional horizontal drilling technique to reach it.

Some in the US media have also incorrectly called it oil shale - I think they see the words oil & shale & automatically assume that it's oil shale.


----------



## Salamander

The Queensland Sunday Mail newspaper (Sunday version of the Courier Mail) has come out opposing shale oil in an editorial last weekend - see the last paragraph below

Sunday Mail
July 20, 2008
Editorial

Our greenhouse must be in order with energy sources

THE discovery of what could be one of the world's largest geothermal sites in northwest Queensland is exciting news.

Free of greenhouse gas emissions, geothermal – or hot rocks technology – is set to become one of the country's most important energy sources as the search for alternatives to fossil fuels intensifies in the race to beat climate change.

According to a CSIRO assessment, Queensland is blessed with such alternatives: geothermal, solar and wind. Each could provide enough electricity to meet all of the state's current power consumption.

Less exciting is the seemingly ho-hum response to date of Mines and Energy Minister Geoff Wilson. Climate-change campaigners are justified in feeling disappointed at the lack of progress in coming up with a strategy and directing investment into developing these solutions to global warming.

There are worrying signs that the same sluggishness and lack of vision which for years marked the Government's approach to roads, transport, other infrastructure and other vital services such as health may also be afflicting its response to the greatest challenge facing us all.

There's no time to waste, particularly in Queensland. While Mr Wilson prefers to spruik that our rate of emissions is improving faster than any other state, that spin cycle does not remove the dirty fact that Queensland is the country's biggest greenhouse gas polluter.

The Government's current strategy of putting the vast majority, if not quite all, of its eggs in the one basket of clean-coal technology is risky indeed.

Coal is vital to the economy, and clean coal undoubtedly must be part of the overall suite of solutions, but the opportunities presented by investing in renewable energy sources must not be overlooked.

The renewables "gold rush" is under way around the globe and the shift away from fossil fuels to sustainable alternatives will only accelerate. In that new world, proposals like that for a shale oil mine and processing operation in the ecological jewel of the Whitsundays are an anachronism and should be ruled out as quickly as possible.

www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,24046422-13360,00.html


----------



## So_Cynical

Salamander said:


> The Queensland Sunday Mail newspaper (Sunday version of the Courier Mail) has come out opposing shale oil in an editorial last weekend - see the last paragraph below
> 
> The renewables "gold rush" is under way around the globe and the shift away from fossil fuels to sustainable alternatives will only accelerate. In that new world, proposals like that for a shale oil mine and processing operation in the ecological jewel of the Whitsundays are an anachronism and should be ruled out as quickly as possible.




Agreed...Renewables are the future...the distant future, along with hover cars and travel 
to mars etc....Geothermal has been studied for a while and will have its place in the energy 
mix along with wind farms etc.

However..Govt and industry do whats easy and politically palatable, the worlds multi trillion 
dollar oil infrastructure IS NOT GOING ANYWHERE IN A HURRY.

A Shale oil industry will be developed, according to this guy (Dr. Harold J. Vinegar) and his 
employer Royal Dutch Shell....apparently Dr Vinegar is a genius.  



			
				cnnmoney story said:
			
		

> Shell is convinced that oil shale is no myth and that after
> years of secret research, it is close to achieving this oil-based alchemy. Shell is not alone in
> this assessment. "Harold has broken the code," says oil shale expert Anton Dammer, director
> of the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves.
> 
> Vinegar has developed a cutting-edge technology that, according to Shell, will produce large quantities of high-quality oil without ravaging the local environment - and be profitable with
> prices around $30 a barrel.
> 
> now the veil of secrecy has lifted. With some 200 Shell (Charts) oil shale patents already filed
> and approvals needed from Colorado and the U.S. Department of the Interior to proceed with commercial production, Shell knows it has to make the public case for developing the country's
> oil shale potential.
> 
> So after months of negotiations, Shell and Vinegar agreed to give FORTUNE an exclusive look
> at a new technology - inelegantly dubbed the In Situ Conversion Process, or ICP - that could vindicate Shell's 28-year, $200 million (at least) bet on oil shale research.




Read the whole story: http://money.cnn.com/2007/10/30/magazines/fortune/Oil_from_stone.fortune/index.htm


----------



## Tysonboss1

USA Oil shale production of 5million Barrels / day by 2040 is not really anything to boast about.


----------



## rederob

Tysonboss1 said:


> USA Oil shale production of 5million Barrels / day by 2040 is not really anything to boast about.



True.
Furthermore, the "secret" process is energy intensive.
It's quite amusing that proponents of these wondrous schemes keep forgetting that the cost of energy inputs has market impact on margins.  More simply put, the more expensive oil gets, the more expensive it will be to get anything - including shale oil - out of the ground.


----------



## Tysonboss1

rederob said:


> True.
> 
> More simply put, the more expensive oil gets, the more expensive it will be to get anything - including shale oil - out of the ground.




800 Billion Barrels of shale reserves doesn't seem so amazing when you have to burn a barrel of oil in the process of getting 1 barrel to market, and at top speed you can only get 5M barrels / day in 30years time, I think conventional oil reserves would have declined by a much greater rate than 5M barrels / day by then.

Longterm we just have to burn less oil, through a combination of more efficent vechicles, switching to different energy sources and increasing renewable sources.

Longterm I think we need to switch the bulk of road transport away from oil and save the Oil (both conventional and alternative oil supplies) for the aviation and petrochemical industries.


----------



## nioka

Tysonboss1 said:


> 800 Billion Barrels of shale reserves doesn't seem so amazing when you have to burn a barrel of oil in the process of getting 1 barrel to market, and at top speed you can only get 5M barrels / day in 30years time, I think conventional oil reserves would have declined by a much greater rate than 5M barrels / day by then.
> 
> Longterm we just have to burn less oil, through a combination of more efficent vechicles, switching to different energy sources and increasing renewable sources.
> 
> Longterm I think we need to switch the bulk of road transport away from oil and save the Oil (both conventional and alternative oil supplies) for the aviation and petrochemical industries.




With new technology I would expect the efficiency of extracting oil from shale ( particularly the type of oil shale here in Aus) to improve to a point where it is economically sound and enviromentally acceptable. This could happen in the short term. I'm holding some shale oil shares because of that belief.

Travel by air will be priced up to make more fuel efficient means of transport more attractive. It would be better all round for fast trains, electrically powered to travel between many centres. Sydney to Canberra as an example. Many of the products produced by the petrochemical industries can be produced from renewable resources.


----------



## Tysonboss1

nioka said:


> It would be better all round for fast trains, electrically powered to travel between many centres. .




Sydney - LA on a train,... HA HA.

Can we launch satelites by train yet, 

I think it's best to focus on getting the daily commute powered by the grid and alternatives to crude such as gas than hoping that people will swap aviation for surface transport some time in the future.


----------



## nioka

Tysonboss1 said:


> Sydney - LA on a train,... HA HA.




Sydney to Canberra not HA HA. By the time you get to Mascot then wait to check in, get to Canberra then wait for baggage you could have been there by a fast train.

 Sydney to Melb. If air fares get increased and there is an alternative train at a reasonable price it will mean more train travel and less air travel. 

 I find it more convenient myself to travel overnight by train than to fly and need overnight accomodation at a motel. I actually prefer to sleep overnight in a train than in a hotel or motel. Improved train service would take a lot away from the fuel guzzling, high polluting, overrated airlines. Not everyone is in a gut busting hurry. Not everyone is going to LA.

Of course if the airlines are the choice then the Aussie shale oil is the best way to be sure there will be enough aviation fuel. It is the right type of oil shale for that purpose.


----------



## rederob

nioka said:


> With new technology I would expect the efficiency of extracting oil from shale ( particularly the type of oil shale here in Aus) to improve to a point where it is economically sound and enviromentally acceptable. This could happen in the short term. I'm holding some shale oil shares because of that belief.




Given that we don't have a commercial shale oil facility anywhere in the world today, and the scientists have worked on this matter for decades, the chance of anything soon is pie in the sky.

On the "environmental" front, shale oil extraction looks more dodgy by the year: The amount of water required, let alone production plant toxicity issues, immediately  puts such projects in Australia on shaky ground.

On train travel I agree: But electrify the rail systems and run them all on a "rewnewables" grid.


----------



## Salamander

So_Cynical said:


> Ive been reading (Googleing) a bit tonight and the "Stuart Oil Shale Project"
> that fell over in 2004 was sposed to be profitable with oil at over $30 a barrel :dunno:






Smurf1976 said:


> It may have been profitable but there were so many ongoing technical problems that it just didn't stack up.




Apparently it was more than $130m over-budget when it shut down & had never even broken even, let alone been profitable, despite receiving a Government subsidy of nearly $55 for ever barrel it produced!


----------



## Salamander

nioka said:


> I listened to an interview with someone from QER who are selling the plant. They are a private company that bought the plant after it was closed down. I gathered that the reason for the sale of that plant is that they are looking at newer technology which will be much more effecient and more enviromentally friendly.






nioka said:


> With new technology I would expect the efficiency of extracting oil from shale ( particularly the type of oil shale here in Aus) to improve to a point where it is economically sound and enviromentally acceptable.




I would fully expect QER to say that the technology they are planning to use is much more efficient & more environmentally friendly than SPP's technology. 

However, there seems to be very little information available about QER's technology, so it's impossible to judge whether it will be better than SPP's or not.  

One of the major problems with oil shale is that the characteristics of the oil shale itself (eg its high carbon content which means high CO2 emissions) means there will be pretty major environmental impacts irrespective of the technology used. So I doubt whether there is such a thing as an environmentally acceptable oil shale plant/industry.


----------



## Salamander

So_Cynical said:


> Agreed...Renewables are the future...the distant future, along with hover cars and travel
> to mars etc....




And the likelihood of renewables remaining in the distant future is high if we continue pumping millions/billions of dollars into fossil fuels, especially if we're opening up major new resources like oil shale.

Nearly $400m was spent on the Stuart Project, which as I said above never broke even despite a Government subsidy of $55 for every barrel of oil it produced. 

QER say their proposed oil shale mine & plant near Proserpine on the edge of the Whitsundays (!) would cost $14b.

Investing the money that has been/is proposed to be spent on oil shale on renewables instead would significantly increase the amount of renewable energy installed in Australia & help bring down the cost of renewables, as well as reducing greenhouse emissions. Where those renewables are small-scale building-integrated technologies, they would also reduce people's energy bills.

It's our choice as a society which future we choose & while I'm not pretending that it's either easy or simple, it is possible for us to choose another future than an oil shale one.


----------



## Salamander

So_Cynical said:


> A Shale oil industry will be developed, according to this guy (Dr. Harold J. Vinegar) and his
> employer Royal Dutch Shell




Shell's process requires a 1000ft layer of shale to be continually heated to 650-750 ° F for a period of around 3 years while a freezewall is maintained around it to prevent groundwater intrusion.

Having apparently originally said the energy return was 6:1, Shell now say it is 3.5:1, although this is based on using power from a gas combined cycle power station. The energy return declines to 2:1 if the power is from a coal-fired power station, which is more economic in the areas around Shell's deposits.

However, there is some scepticism about these figures, for example they are believed not to include the energy cost of the freezewall, & it is thought the real energy return may only be 1:1 or possibly even less.

Water's an issue as well - water resources are apparently already stretched in that part of the US & Shell reportedly say their process takes 3.5-4 barrels of water for every barrel of shale oil produced.

The RAND report mentioned earlier by someone else estimates that Shell would require a 1.2 GW power plant (which is apparently large enough to meet the needs of a city of 500,000 in the US) to produce 100,000 barrels of shale oil per day. A coal-fired power station of this size would apparently cost US$3b & Shell's annual electricity bill would reportedly be US$500m!

Needless to say there are greenhouse implications, with independent analysis apparently showing that lifecycle greenhouse emissions from shale oil using Shell's process are 21-47% than conventional oil, which are already too high if we are going to reduce greenhouse emissions by the 60%+ that the CSIRO & most other scientists say is needed.


----------



## Smurf1976

Salamander said:


> The RAND report mentioned earlier by someone else estimates that Shell would require a 1.2 GW power plant (which is apparently large enough to meet the needs of a city of 500,000 in the US) to produce 100,000 barrels of shale oil per day.



Assuming that 1.2 GW is a constant 24/7/365 load (typically is constant for heavy industrial processes) it's about 5% of all the electricity presently used in Australia. So we'd need in the order of 40% more electricity to meet Australia's present oil consumption this way.

In energy terms, we'd need to burn about 42,000 barrels of oil per day to generate the electricity to run the process to extract 100,000 barrels. So we're directly burning 42% of what is extracted, not including energy use other than fuel in the power station (trucks, direct fuel use, energy to build the infrastructure). So overall it's a case of extract 2 barrels, sell 1 and burn the other to run the process.


----------



## Smurf1976

Tysonboss1 said:


> 800 Billion Barrels of shale reserves doesn't seem so amazing when you have to burn a barrel of oil in the process of getting 1 barrel to market, and at top speed you can only get 5M barrels / day in 30years time, I think conventional oil reserves would have declined by a much greater rate than 5M barrels / day by then.
> 
> Longterm we just have to burn less oil, through a combination of more efficent vechicles, switching to different energy sources and increasing renewable sources.
> 
> Longterm I think we need to switch the bulk of road transport away from oil and save the Oil (both conventional and alternative oil supplies) for the aviation and petrochemical industries.



Totally agreed.

800 billion barrels but burn half to run the process. So 400 billion barrels - roughly what the world uses in 13 years but it will take at least 50 years to get it out of the ground. At best it's a help any maybe profitable but a long term solution to the oil problem it is not.


----------



## Smurf1976

Salamander said:


> Investing the money that has been/is proposed to be spent on oil shale on renewables instead would significantly increase the amount of renewable energy installed in Australia & help bring down the cost of renewables, as well as reducing greenhouse emissions. *Where those renewables are small-scale building-integrated technologies, they would also reduce people's energy bills.*



Agreed with what you're saying - renewables etc.

But if you want to kill the renewables industry then there's one sure fire way to do it. Small scale, decentralised generation. A nice sounding idea that guarantees a safe future for fossil fuels because it simply can not achieve economy of scale to power the major users. And if we're only going to run houses, which aren't the major energy users, then we're stuck with rising fossil fuel consumption. 

If you look at countries (and one Australian state) that actually have a large portion of renewable energy then there is one consistent feature. They had large scale development to the point that, in general, it became not simply a source of power but a dominant political, social and economic force above all others. 

Tasmania is a local example (about 45% of total energy is renewable). New Zealand, Canada and parts of South America are other examples.

If we want to go predominantly renewable in Australia then think geothermal for baseload, solar thermal and wind to supplement it and pumped storage to balance the system to make it all work. A very serious threat to coal.


----------



## So_Cynical

Anyone heard of Rentech?...they make Synthetic Fuels.

"The Rentech Process is a patented and proprietary technology that converts synthesis gas from carbon-bearing resources into hydrocarbons that can be processed and upgraded into ultra clean synthetic jet and diesel fuels."

http://www.rentechinc.com/ 

I cant help but think that the lowset cost "carbon-bearing resources" on earth would be Shale oil.

Rentech Successfully Produces Ultra Clean Synthetic Fuels at Colorado Facility.
http://www.rentechinc.com/pdfs/FINAL++PDU+First+Production+Press+Release+8.7.08.pdf


----------



## Salamander

Smurf1976 said:


> Agreed with what you're saying - renewables etc.
> 
> But if you want to kill the renewables industry then there's one sure fire way to do it. Small scale, decentralised generation. A nice sounding idea that guarantees a safe future for fossil fuels because it simply can not achieve economy of scale to power the major users. And if we're only going to run houses, which aren't the major energy users, then we're stuck with rising fossil fuel consumption.
> 
> If you look at countries (and one Australian state) that actually have a large portion of renewable energy then there is one consistent feature. They had large scale development to the point that, in general, it became not simply a source of power but a dominant political, social and economic force above all others.
> 
> Tasmania is a local example (about 45% of total energy is renewable). New Zealand, Canada and parts of South America are other examples.
> 
> If we want to go predominantly renewable in Australia then think geothermal for baseload, solar thermal and wind to supplement it and pumped storage to balance the system to make it all work. A very serious threat to coal.




Agree that large-scale renewables are required - I think it's a question of utilising both large-scale & small-scale building-integrated renewables as appropriate


----------



## sam76

*Bligh puts environment above $14bn project*
August 24, 2008 02:18pm

QUEENSLAND premier Anna Bligh today killed off a controversial $14 billion shale oil project in north Queensland.

Ms Bligh cited the need to put the environment first as she quashed plans to start bulk sampling and exploration of the McFarlane deposit, 15km south of Proserpine. 

The decision sparked a war of words between the mining lobby and Greenpeace, who campaigned against the development. 

Ms Bligh said she would not allow the environment to be put at risk while the technology for extraction of the resource was still not proven. 

"Our environment must come first,'' the Premier said. 

"That's why we are putting a 20-year moratorium on all mining activities, bulk sampling and exploration over the McFarlane deposit in the Whitsunday region.'' 

Conservationists feared the project could affect tourism in the Whitsundays region, pollute the Great Barrier Reef and Goorganga wetlands, pose risks to health and disrupt local farming operations. 

On Friday local state MP, Member for Whitsunday Jan Jarratt, publicly opposed the development. 
Mining would not have occurred for several years, if approved. 

Shale oil is extracted from sedimentary rocks that contain solid combustible organic matter called kerogen. Under a heating process, the kerogen can be decomposed to release hydrocarbons that can be captured to produce synthetic crude oil and combustible gas. 

Ms Bligh said the government would devote the next two years to researching whether shale oil deposits can be used in an environmentally acceptable way. 

In the meantime no new shale oil mines will be permitted anywhere in the state. 

Queensland has approximately 90 per cent of Australia's known shale oil reserves and the vast bulk are located between Bundaberg and Proserpine. 

Shale oil is mined using open cut technology with high energy and water needs as well as potentially significant impacts on local habitats and ecosystems through emissions and waste water, the state government said. 

There is an existing lease to mine shale oil in Gladstone in central Queensland. Those rights would remain in effect, said Mines and Energy Minister Geoff Wilson. 

The Premier said the decision was effective immediately and would be legislated in the coming months. 

Queensland Resources Council Chief Executive, Michael Roche, said the decision would further erode Queensland's standing as a destination for exploration investment following the 2007 prohibition on the mining and export of uranium. 

"The government's oft-promoted support for the industries generating Queensland's wealth seems to have become hostage to the guerrilla tactics of fringe groups like Greenpeace,'' Mr Roche said. 

"What next Greenpeace resource sector target will have the Queensland government folding under a tiny bit of pressure?'' 

Greenpeace welcomed the decision. 

"This proposal should never have been given serious consideration,'' Greenpeace climate campaigner John Hepburn said. 


"Ms Bligh has made the right decision to prevent any new shale oil projects from taking place in the state, but it is an easy decision - the next step is to announce a stop the expansion of the coal industry in Queensland,'' Mr Hepburn said. 

"Queensland Energy Resource's proposal came at a time when the world's scientists are warning that we have as little as 10 years to radically reduce greenhouse pollution if we are to have any chance of avoiding catastrophic climate change.'' 

"I don't envy Ms Bligh, given the economic power of the Greenhouse Mafia, but sometime soon she is going to have to make the tough decision to put the future of the state ahead of the vested interests of the coal lobby.''

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,24232873-421,00.html


----------



## nioka

Greenvale Mining have respopnded to the moratorium on oil shale mining. They have now been advised by the mines dept that exploration and R&D cen go ahead. The companies evaluation of commercially and enviromentally friendly technologies will continue unabated. 

"The company is convinced that Global Resources technology will meet government requirements. It does not need water.Global won the inventor of the year by time magazine in 2007.

Their deposits are 60 km from the coast in one instance and in central Qld with the Alpha deposit.

If the objectives of commercial and enviromental acceptance can be met Queensland could eventually become a major producer of non conventional oil to help meet national and international demand."

 With GRV and ESMCA shares affected by the news that oil shale mining in Qld would not be allowed, this news may breathe new hope and value for those of us still holding.


----------



## Salamander

nioka said:


> The companies evaluation of commercially and enviromentally friendly technologies will continue unabated.




As I said above one of the major problems with oil shale is that the characteristics of the oil shale itself (eg its high carbon content which means high CO2 emissions) means there will be pretty major environmental impacts irrespective of the technology used. So I doubt whether there is such a thing as an environmentally acceptable oil shale plant/industry.


----------



## UBIQUITOUS

Time to revive this thread I think. Condog has put some excellent links on the AUT thread. US Oil shale plays have been going gangbusters over the past 6 months

AUT, SSN, SEA, TXN, AZZ spring to mind. 

I hold most of these but am more weighted to SEA now due to having more net acreage than the others, the lowest market cap and also being in Bakken and Niobrara.

Any stocks I've missed?


----------



## grants

OBL?


----------



## UBIQUITOUS

grants said:


> OBL?




Thanks, I briefly looked at OBL but they are too speculative for my liking. With no revenue and speculative prospects, all I can see is capital raising after capital raising.

OBL's market cap is sub $20m. I'd much rather take SSN,  or SEA which has a market cap of about $90m, have about $25m in cash and 140k acres in some of the best land around such as the Bakken and Niobrara.

Would I'd rather buy a company producing 1000 bopd and has acreage in places such as the Bakken where 99 out of 100 wells hit commercially viable amounts of oil, or would I take a speculative long term punt on OBL? 

Another factor is the charts and broker coverage. SEA has 2 broker valuations of 48c and 52c. The current price is 39.5c.

Then there is SSN, which has just sold some land for $80m in cash and a market cap of $130m, with land in the same area as SEA.

Cash is king. It opens up opportunities. If a company does not have cash, it can be long time before the stock starts moving.


----------



## So_Cynical

UBIQUITOUS said:


> Time to revive this thread I think. Condog has put some excellent links on the AUT thread. US Oil shale plays have been going gangbusters over the past 6 months
> 
> AUT, SSN, SEA, TXN, AZZ spring to mind.




Begs the question...why haven't the Aussie oil shale stocks received any attention? Aust has one of the largest oil shale reserves in the world, when will these reserves get fraced and tested for gas?


----------



## UBIQUITOUS

So_Cynical said:


> Begs the question...why haven't the Aussie oil shale stocks received any attention? Aust has one of the largest oil shale reserves in the world, when will these reserves get fraced and tested for gas?




That's a question which I have considered. Horizontal drilling is a relatively new technique which quite a few US majors have been successful at. Maybe we don't have the expertise here. 

For example, in the US the Aussie juniors SEA and SSN have farmed out to megabillion dollar companies such as Noble, EOG and Hess. And now Chesapeake are getting in on the act by paying SSN $75m for some acreage, and CHK are well known as serial drillers.

Another factor is the domestic supply deficit in the US. Do we really have the same deficit here?

As an investor, I would much rather invest in an Australian stock with ops focused in the US (with the currency risks), due to the vast sums of capital that is willing to be thrown at 'what is hot'. SSN is dual listed and SEA is available through pink sheets. In Aus its a case of too many stocks and not enough investment capital to chase them - hence undervalued companies which can take much longer to be priced correctly.


----------



## Smurf1976

UBIQUITOUS said:


> Another factor is the domestic supply deficit in the US. Do we really have the same deficit here?



Australia is post-peak in terms of oil production and relies increasingly heavily on imports to meet domestic demand. We were never a significant oil net  exporter, but did achieve production rates close to consumption for some years. 

The well known Bass Strait field peaked in 1985 and is all but gone now, with production a fraction of what it once was. Nationally, production peaked around 2000.

Gas on the other hand is a far less depleted resource in Australia and production is still rising. Depending on what estimates you use, somewhere around 85% of it is still in the ground. That said, Cooper Basin (SA) reserves are substantially depleted and production in decline. Bass Strait reserves have also been significantly consumed although production is not presently constrained by the size of remaining reserves. 

Most of Australia's gas reserves are in WA, NT and coal seam gas in Qld and NSW. Tasmania is the only state with no local gas production industry, although the Yolla field is half way between Vic and Tas (production is piped to Vic) and it is probable that small amouts of coal seam gas could be recovered. Every other state has at least some gas industry either conventional or coal seam (although gas production in NSW is relatively trivial, most supply to that state coming from SA and Vic).

So in short, it always makes sense to look for and extract oil since there is a market locally and internationally. But in Australia, it only makes sense to develop more gas if you're planning to export it (which needs to be large scale to be economic) or, on a very small scale, supply nearby towns or a mine that otherwise don't have access to gas. Australian domestic gas prices are low by international standards due to the local supply situation and the relatively high cost of liquefaction for export.


----------



## burglar

Smurf1976 said:


> Australia is post-peak in terms of oil production and relies increasingly heavily on imports to meet domestic demand.  ... .




Lifting of Moratorium on Oil Shale Exploitation on Greenvale (ASX:GRV) Projects

http://www.asx.com.au/asx/statistics/displayAnnouncement.do?display=pdf&idsId=01382640


----------



## greggles

Higher oil prices and increasing demand as economies start to return to normal after COVID-19 is bringing US production of shale oil back into the spotlight.









						The Dawn Of A New Era For U.S. Shale | OilPrice.com
					

With the perfect combination of high oil prices and more conservative capital expenditure, U.S. shale firms are on track to see record profits in 2021




					oilprice.com


----------

