• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Why We Nneed Oil and Do Not Need Foreign Oil.

FreeMason

Member
Joined
Aug 31, 2005
Messages
70
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
This thread will carry the theme of "why we cannot transist at this time to a non-oil-based economy, and what we need to do about it". This thread is real politics, real issues, not fanciful imaginings of the dreamer.

"Time is a stringent limitation. The US has relatively few years to convert its transportation system to another energy source. But do we have the economic push to make the conversion? Major fuel substitution for transportation will begin in the US only when the substitution becomes economically advantageous. Once found, oil can be produced cheaply. We will continue to use already discovered natural oil because it is cheapest. As this is depleted the US will buy more and more imported oil, a move loaded with economic, political and military risks. [Emphasis added] Only as these risks are translated into costs will the price of oil in the US rise enough to provide the economic push. The comprehensive replacement of petroleum for transportation in the US and possibly the world just will not be accomplished in time to permit an orderly transition to non-petroluem fuels. Without an orderly replacement of petroleum fuels for transportation, US society will slide downhill, not abruptly perhaps, but definately. [Emphasis added] Conservation merely delays the agony slightly. This same problem is faced in the other specialized applications of natural oil.
"Oil from secondary sources may provide additional time to make the required adjustment [Emphasis added] (Smith, 1982). Only two secondary sources actually yield oil at prices nearly competitive with petroleum - oil shale and tar sands (Smith, 1982)." (Chong and Smith, 1984, pp 4-5).

These two paragraphs sum-up our current situation. Can we move from oil-based economies to non-oil-based economies? Yes. Can we do so economically? Not at this time.

Thus, to buy time, to ease economic hardship and to finish a transition from an oil economy to an alternative energy economy, we must do one thing, mine oil shale and tar sands.

How much Oil is there in the United States?

We are all aware that the Middle East has approximately 500 billion barrels of recoverable oil.

Their oil is in saturated Sediments, so we can drill it.

Our oil is in shale and sand, so we must mine it, it is located in Northern Utah, Western Colorado, and Southern Whyoming.

How much oil is in the United States?

1.5 to 1.8 Trillion Barrels of Oil> (Page 11 of 90[url])

All are economically recoverable, but to a price a bit above our current price for foreign oil. Thus, foreign oil is chosen as the economical prospect.

But this brings us political and military problems (war in Iraq).

The reason we do not currently mine oil shale is also because of resistance by environmental interest groups.

But for the most part, it is the lack of understanding of just how much oil the United States has.

The estimates are 5 times the amount of estimated oil recoverable in Saudi Arabia.

This is outrageous, that we have so much oil, but no will to recover it. Especially when we need the oil. We cannot tomorrow, or the next day, or in 10 years, switch from an oil economy to a non-oil-based economy. There is simply too many power-plants, too many cars, too many trains, too much of our infrastructure and that of the entire world, that relies on oil.

Whether we like it or not, oil is our burden for the fore-seeable future.

We need oil, and we can mine our own, and we can in the process transist from an oil-based economy to a non-oil-based economy. We can do this without wars in the middle east...but we need to remove the restrictions which bind our ability to access domestic oil.

Sources:

Mechanics of Oil Shale, Chong, Ken P. and Smith, John Ward, 1984: Elsevier Applied Science Publishers [url="http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?userid=gT4F0mICAH&isbn=0853342733&itm=1"](Buy it at Barnes and Noble)


Smith, J. W. (1982). Synfuels: oil shale and tar sands, in: <i>Perspectives on Energy</i>, 3rd edn, eds L. C. Ruedisili and M. W. Firebaugh, Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 225-49

Oil Shale Developments and Prospects in the United States Prospects and Policy Issues
 

Canuck

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 2, 2005
Messages
849
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
imaginings of the dreamer.
you left out the part about actual costs to extract it
cheap oil is abundant why kill the environment and pay alot more for oil
when you can import it
the troubles america has with oil hasn't got anything to do with oil shortages in the world. It is brought on by shortages in refineries and are there by design to allow oil to spike from time to time
paying for this oil is what has America in a bind
pay Arabs or pay fat cats in texas whats the difference
to the common man arab oil or texas oil amounts to the same thing he has to buy it
 
Last edited:

MiamiFlorida

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2005
Messages
434
Reaction score
1
Location
Miami
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
FreeMason said:
This thread will carry the theme of "why we cannot transist at this time to a non-oil-based economy, and what we need to do about it". This thread is real politics, real issues, not fanciful imaginings of the dreamer.

"Time is a stringent limitation. The US has relatively few years to convert its transportation system to another energy source. But do we have the economic push to make the conversion? Major fuel substitution for transportation will begin in the US only when the substitution becomes economically advantageous. Once found, oil can be produced cheaply. We will continue to use already discovered natural oil because it is cheapest. As this is depleted the US will buy more and more imported oil, a move loaded with economic, political and military risks. [Emphasis added] Only as these risks are translated into costs will the price of oil in the US rise enough to provide the economic push. The comprehensive replacement of petroleum for transportation in the US and possibly the world just will not be accomplished in time to permit an orderly transition to non-petroluem fuels. Without an orderly replacement of petroleum fuels for transportation, US society will slide downhill, not abruptly perhaps, but definately. [Emphasis added] Conservation merely delays the agony slightly. This same problem is faced in the other specialized applications of natural oil.
"Oil from secondary sources may provide additional time to make the required adjustment [Emphasis added] (Smith, 1982). Only two secondary sources actually yield oil at prices nearly competitive with petroleum - oil shale and tar sands (Smith, 1982)." (Chong and Smith, 1984, pp 4-5).

These two paragraphs sum-up our current situation. Can we move from oil-based economies to non-oil-based economies? Yes. Can we do so economically? Not at this time.

Thus, to buy time, to ease economic hardship and to finish a transition from an oil economy to an alternative energy economy, we must do one thing, mine oil shale and tar sands.

How much Oil is there in the United States?

We are all aware that the Middle East has approximately 500 billion barrels of recoverable oil.

Their oil is in saturated Sediments, so we can drill it.

Our oil is in shale and sand, so we must mine it, it is located in Northern Utah, Western Colorado, and Southern Whyoming.

How much oil is in the United States?

1.5 to 1.8 Trillion Barrels of Oil> (Page 11 of 90[url])

All are economically recoverable, but to a price a bit above our current price for foreign oil. Thus, foreign oil is chosen as the economical prospect.

But this brings us political and military problems (war in Iraq).

The reason we do not currently mine oil shale is also because of resistance by environmental interest groups.

But for the most part, it is the lack of understanding of just how much oil the United States has.

The estimates are 5 times the amount of estimated oil recoverable in Saudi Arabia.

This is outrageous, that we have so much oil, but no will to recover it. Especially when we need the oil. We cannot tomorrow, or the next day, or in 10 years, switch from an oil economy to a non-oil-based economy. There is simply too many power-plants, too many cars, too many trains, too much of our infrastructure and that of the entire world, that relies on oil.

Whether we like it or not, oil is our burden for the fore-seeable future.

We need oil, and we can mine our own, and we can in the process transist from an oil-based economy to a non-oil-based economy. We can do this without wars in the middle east...but we need to remove the restrictions which bind our ability to access domestic oil.

Sources:

Mechanics of Oil Shale, Chong, Ken P. and Smith, John Ward, 1984: Elsevier Applied Science Publishers [url="http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?userid=gT4F0mICAH&isbn=0853342733&itm=1"](Buy it at Barnes and Noble)


Smith, J. W. (1982). Synfuels: oil shale and tar sands, in: <i>Perspectives on Energy</i>, 3rd edn, eds L. C. Ruedisili and M. W. Firebaugh, Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 225-49

Oil Shale Developments and Prospects in the United States Prospects and Policy Issues

My brother Hiram, you neglected to mention the environmental impact of strip mining for this source of energy, which is, as you say, the most plentiful in the planet.

We know that shale oil can substitute what we now drill out of the ground. Nazi Germany had no oil....their entire industrial and military apparatus worked with shale oil.... with the technology of 65 years ago....but our case is a little different. How do you convince the people of Utah to let us destroy their environment so we can drive our SUV's?
 

FreeMason

Member
Joined
Aug 31, 2005
Messages
70
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
This oil recovery method does not involve strip mining and is less destructive to the environment than drilling for oil (which often involves a driller's mud to be pumped in, or water, in order to force out the last of the oil, resulting in a slurry that is toxic...not to mention burn-offs).

And the economic cost is little more than a barrel of oil today. Since it's domestic it would certainly eliminate the transportation costs (which account for millions in expenses for Oil Companies).

The bit about refineries is partially correct, we don't have as much gasoline as we would like because of a lack of refineries, but this doesn't effect the price of oil.
 

Canuck

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 2, 2005
Messages
849
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
your talking about a process that is similar to strip mining
tar sands
canda has tar sands an open pit of black tar like sand
that is steamed to remove the oil
its more expensive then foriegn oil is
to process and buy

some people believe that oil is a renewable resource
and that the Earth is constantly making oil
I do not

it is still more expensive then foreign oil

there are places in this world where gas costs .12 cents a gallon
refineries do make the price jump when ever shortages happen
the world presently has a glut of oil
but you may have noticed that in the past oil and gas has been rising because of the huricanes
so I cant say there is no correlation between gas hikes and a shortage of refineries
as it appears there is one.
 
Last edited:

FreeMason

Member
Joined
Aug 31, 2005
Messages
70
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Actually I'm not talking about a process similar to strip mining (as in the tar sands in Canada).

While that's a proposed method, it's impossible, most of this is covered in 1,000 feet of over-burden.

Either room and pillar method is used, or insitu conversion, which is my favorite of the theories, developed by the Shell Oil Company. They have developed the most effective method and it can be viewed on Pages 39 to 43
 

SouthernDemocrat

Pragmatist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
25,187
Reaction score
16,141
Location
KC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Of the oil reserves which are at all practical to recover, OPEC has around 70% of the world’s oil reserves compared to our less than 5%. Moreover, we hit peak production in America about 30 years ago. However we are by far the world’s largest consumer of oil. Therefore, we cannot drill our way to energy independence.

But what about those vast deposits of oil shale you might ask? That seems to be the solution to all of our energy woes according the author of this thread. I don’t know whether this thread’s author is misinformed, or just trying to mislead. I am going to assume he is just misinformed though. At any rate, he left out a very important point in terms of the economics of oil shale.

The energy returned for energy invested, otherwise the EROEI, for conventional oil deposits is 30 to 1. Otherwise for every one unit of energy put into extracting oil from conventional reserves, we get approximately 30 units in return. This varies a little depending on the deposits, but generally, it’s the rule. On the other hand, the EROEI for oil shale is at best, 1.5 to 1.

Otherwise, his or her contention is a total pipe dream. If you want cheaper gas and less dependence on foreign oil, then conservation and alternative energy is really the only permanent solution.
 

FreeMason

Member
Joined
Aug 31, 2005
Messages
70
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I don't know why everyone keeps calling me misinformed, then presumes to prove me wrong with unfounded, inaccurate information.

Previous Poster:

1) Provide evidence that the energy return to investment is 30 to 1 for regular oil drilling. (I would expect it to be high but not that high, please include estimates for shipping which is important because there's more to energy than leaving it where you drilled it).

2) The energy return for investment for the Shell Oil method is 5 to 1, no where near as bad as your proposed 1.5 to 1 (I don't know where you got that figure from).

My figure comes from somewhere in pages 39 to 43, I believe page 42 of the Rand Corporation report.

Either way, the economics of it are worth it, especially since it's in-country.

The findings and estimates on price per barrel in US 2005 Dollars also are economically useful, since they won't be for long the out-rageous price of $70 a barrel but around $20 to 30$ per barrel, I can't remember if I've posted this already as I've been having this debate on several forums.
 

Canuck

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 2, 2005
Messages
849
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
FREE Mason

explain this new process to us

how does it get out of the ground
I for one am leary of gas companies they are so few of them and they take so much money from us
and only serve to give their owners the fat cats of america all that money
infact america ought to send the marines and take control of all the american oil companies and liberate the americans from their filthy clutches
that will help free americans
mabe we get 12 cent a gal gas like venesuala then
 
Last edited:

FreeMason

Member
Joined
Aug 31, 2005
Messages
70
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I think the best method is in-situ conversion which is better discussed in the Rand Corp. report from pages 39 to 43.

In summary, drill wells are heated to cook the oil, liquifying it then it migrates to collection wells drilled, where it is then pumped out.
 

SouthernDemocrat

Pragmatist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
25,187
Reaction score
16,141
Location
KC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
FreeMason said:
I don't know why everyone keeps calling me misinformed, then presumes to prove me wrong with unfounded, inaccurate information.

Previous Poster:

1) Provide evidence that the energy return to investment is 30 to 1 for regular oil drilling. (I would expect it to be high but not that high, please include estimates for shipping which is important because there's more to energy than leaving it where you drilled it).

2) The energy return for investment for the Shell Oil method is 5 to 1, no where near as bad as your proposed 1.5 to 1 (I don't know where you got that figure from).

My figure comes from somewhere in pages 39 to 43, I believe page 42 of the Rand Corporation report.

Either way, the economics of it are worth it, especially since it's in-country.

The findings and estimates on price per barrel in US 2005 Dollars also are economically useful, since they won't be for long the out-rageous price of $70 a barrel but around $20 to 30$ per barrel, I can't remember if I've posted this already as I've been having this debate on several forums.

This is where I got my figures, amoung other sources:

[[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]quote]Whereas conventional oil has enjoyed a rate of [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"energy return on energy invested"[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] (EROEI) of about 30 to 1, the oil sands rate of return hovers around 1.5 to 1.
[/FONT] [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]This means that we would have to spend 20 times as much money to generate the same amount of oil from the oil sands as we do from conventional sources of oil.[/quote]

http://lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/SecondPage.html

However, even if we assume an EROEI of 5 to 1 for Oil Shale. Do you realize the massive increase in the cost of oil to make that economically feasable?

[/FONT]
 

FreeMason

Member
Joined
Aug 31, 2005
Messages
70
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I see, you were talking about Oil Sands, and a this time...the link does not work.

Whether or not they are more or less energy efficient, the costs is not that affected, Canada still produces their oil at less than the global price per barrel.

The estimates only when fully developed, for our oil shale, is $20 to $30 dollars (within the Rand Report it's cited) per barrel.

Initial costs are higher I would assume because we are spending more than we are producing, in order to build the infrastructure.

Again, this option is not an alternative to energy, but to buy us cheap time to develop a real alternative.

Is it cheap enough? It's estimated to be cheap enough to produce, but it's estimated to still be slightly too costly to develop.
 
Top Bottom