Squeezing Oil From A Stone

Shale In America's West Could Hold More Oil Than The Middle East - But How To Access It?

(CBS)  The desolate beauty of Northwest Colorado is breathtaking. But it's the area's potential to help quench America's thirst for oil that can really make you gasp.

And you can just see the shale in the mountains, CBS News correspondent Kelly Cobiella reports.

“Oh yes, that dark line there,” said Glenn Vawter, executive director of the National Oil Shale Association, said.

That dark line is oil shale. Heat it and out seeps black gold.

Geologists estimate the rocks hold over a trillion barrels of oil.

“That is more than all the reserves of the Middle East,” Vawter said.

But this mother-load is locked deep inside deposits across three states.

"Oh gosh, if you took just an acre, you are probably looking at 100,000 barrels of recoverable oil,” Vawter said.

“But that’s the key isn’t it? ‘Recoverable,” Cobiella asked.

In other parts of the world, giant mining and heating operations process oil shale. But producing vast amounts of oil from shale has been prohibitively expensive and messy. Until now.

Cobiella met Terry O’Connor of Shell Oil. She asked him: “how much oil did you pull from here?”

“We pulled 1,800 barrels of oil plus a substantial amount of natural gas, also,” he said.

All from a tiny 30-by-40 foot patch tucked inside a Shell Oil compound that was top secret.

When he saw the results, what did he think?

“We were really happy!” he laughed.

Shell's revolutionary approach involves dropping electric heaters deep underground to heat the shale to 650 degrees. At that magic temperature, oil and natural gas separate from the rock and can be pumped to the surface - all with minimal impact to the surrounding area.

“And with a modest amount of processing this is the final product we go, which can be used for jet fuel, diesel fuel and naphtha for gasoline,” O’Connor said.

Shell thinks it can produce hundreds of thousands of barrels a day from Colorado's oil shale. The trick now is trying to figure out a way to build an underground ring of ice around production sites to protect local ground water.

There are other hurdles. The technology requires a lot of electricity and a lot of water. Three barrels of water for every one barrl of oil that that comes out of the shale. And there’s a saying in Western Colorado: You talk over whiskey but you fight over water.

“There’s not any extra water to go around, so it’s going to be a real water crisis,” said Leslie Robinson, a resident of Rifle, Colo.

Robinson is among many of the skeptics in nearby Rifle, Colorado. She was around for the oil shale boom of the 1970's, when Exxon and others rushed in to open shale mines only to bolt when the price of oil collapsed.

Before that can happen, the U.S. government must write new regulations for the commercial development of oil shale. No one is sure when that will happen.

And even if everything goes right, Shell figures it will be 10 years before large scale production could begin.

But is it really going to happen?

“I truly believe it will,” O’Connor said.

If he's right - America's energy supply may have a rocky future.

[smilingez50]

it won''t finacially help the consumer. it will put more money into somebody''s pocket, but not the consumer. the american consumer will be shafted again.

[amazedd]

Shafted, quotha? As Shell in shale?

[pvperson]

It''s the 70''s all over again and will end up just the same as then.

[aerhed]

Hmm, 100K barrels/acre recoverable (at best?). U.S. consumption is something like what 24 million barrels a DAY. That would mean they would have to consume 240 acres a day not counting roads and support structures and resultant impacts. That means eating up a chunk the size of Yellowstone every 73 years. Is that right? I guess we could do that once or twice? That is if we don''t mind giving up half the Colorado watershed.

[noaanhc]

A trillion barrels of oil.Just imagine have gas prices again at 20 cents a gallon.

We could be so lucky.

[lewiston14]

It''s wont be 20 cents again. You forgot something. All the production will be put in the world market and the highest bidder gets it. It wont stay just in this country just like all the new oil they want to drill for

[james7017]

To produce that piddling 100,000 barrels of oil per day would consume ALL the electricity from the largest existing power plant in CO (see http://www.energybulletin.net/node/11707). And there are a few other problems... water quality, greenhouse gases from burning fossil fuel,...

We could be putting money into something that makes sense, like producing biodiesel from algae (which is close to carbon-neutral, since it consumes CO2 to produce the fuel), but no, that would be too logical.

[noaanhc]

lewiston14

Am well aware that we will never see 20 cent gasoline ever again,the days of cheap oil are gone forever,
however with a possible trillion barrels,if this prediction turns out to be true,there is no need for gas here to be over 4 dollars.We need to keep any oil we find for our own domestic consuption and stop importing oil once and for all.

[gttdaddy]

I have a better idea. Why don''t we have our dollars backed by something other than a printing press. The FED is the problem. Even my 4 and 6 year old son''s know that. I ask them why gas prices ar so high, and they say "because the dollar has lost it''s value caused by the FED." When our worthless dollar was actually backed by something other than a printing press, inflation was extremely low. In 1964, when our coins were 90% silver, and our money was still backed by gold, gas was $0.30 a gallon. So roughly a quarter would by a gallon of gas. A quarter was also roughly a 1/4 ounce of silver. Now silver is trading at about $17 an ounce. What is a 1/4 of that? Roughly $4-hence roughly $4 for a gallon of gas. So if our money was still backed by silver, there is relatively no inflation. It won''t be long before the Saudi''s refuse to take the dollar before it''s worthless. Our country will be crushed through its monetary and foreign policy, not by aggression. Here''s something else to ponder. My kids also know that the constitution is the supreme law of the land. Wouldn''t you think that studying the constitution would be a requirement for anyone obtaining a law license or making new laws. Ask any attorney if they studied the constitution as a requirement to pass the bar. I guarantee you they will say no. WAKE UP PEOPLE!!!!.

[k_gray_us]

Visit www.kennethgray.us for the real story on oil shale history and Big Oil abuse of this incredible resource. Books at the site are based on 33 years of research and experience.

[roach9703]

Shell seems to have a good idea. Why can''t the water be recycled and recovered from steam? Some of the reclaimed water could be frozen into ice. Hopefully our environmetal neurosis will not kill American innovation.

[dencal26]

Why no mention of the Democrat moratorium passed last year for Oil Shale? Tjis is a huge issue for election 2008 and not a word on who is blocking? Now you understand what is meant by " Left Wing Media" bias. This is a Clear example.

[downsteamjim]

Democrat energy rule one, we must get our oil from outside of the U.S. Remember, it''s okay to get oil in the 3rd world where no one cares about the environment. The net result is that there is more pollution else where but we are clean. That''s environmental colonialism.

[smurfcrusher]

Simple solution... pump compressed air down there, the tremendous heat (over 700 F at 1,000 PSI) will heat and liberate the oil, and it can be extracted.

Once the air is released, say from a periphery around the site, the soil freezes as the air expands.

Use windmills attached to compressors for much of the pressurization.

[acolton1]

You have to squeeze pretty hard to get the oil out of a stone.