Alternative Fuel Sources - Part Five - Oil Shale

by Darren

Today, in our fifth installment in the Alternative Fuel Sources series, we take a look at oil shale. People get excited when they talk about this potential alternative fuel source, because it’s one natural resource that the world (and in particular, America) has a lot of. But you don’t have to look for long to find plenty of critics of oil shale. As usual, we’ll attempt to examine the issue by looking at both sides of the equation.

Oil shale is a pet project of several Western U.S. states because they have vast reserves of the substance. But many energy experts say oil shale is a marketing strategy and can never be an efficient energy source.

Oil Shale is a hotly debated alternative fuel source topic

Oil Shales - Oil shale is a fine-grained sedimentary rock containing significant amounts of kerogen (a solid mixture of organic chemical compounds), from which liquid hydrocarbons can be extracted. The first bit of controversy concerning oil shales comes into play when you consider the name “oil shale”. Some have said the name is used simply to facilitate marketing of the product.

“Bankers won’t invest a dime in ‘organic marlstone,’ the shale’s proper name, but ‘oil shale’ is another matter,” according to Geologist Walter Youngquist.

The State of Colorado is vigorously exploring exploitation of their vast reserves of oil shales. Even the Federal government seems pleased with the development of oil shales, because most of the nation’s oil shale reserves fall squarely under their control. In a sense, since the government is always looking for a way to strengthen its’ global position and reduce the nation’s foreign dependency on oil, this would be a way to accomplish it. That is, if there was a clean, energy efficient way to convert oil shale into usable fuel for existing vehicles. As usual, the argument is largely an economic one.

“The technical groundwork may be in place for a fundamental shift in oil shale economics,” said the Rand Corporation. “Advances in thermally conductive in-situ conversion may enable shale-derived oil to be competitive with crude oil at prices below $40 per barrel. If this becomes the case, oil shale development may soon occupy a very prominent position in the national energy agenda.”

Of course, with crude over $130 a barrel, the argument becomes even more convincing. In Colorado, the oil shale project is being run by Shell. They are using some heavy duty technology to try and overcome the traditional problems of oil shale production. If they can do it cheaply enough, the product they produce will be consumed by American motorists relatively quickly, and it would help put oil shale on the map as a legitimate alternative energy.

Disadvantages of Oil Shale

“An “oil shale” contains neither oil nor shale; it is an ordinary petroleum source rock that has never been buried into the oil window [converted to oil]…The rock has to be mined, crushed and heated in closed containers. The leftovers after the oil is recovered fluff up to more than their original volume; the hole where the rock was mined isn’t big enough to hold the waste.”

– Kenneth Deffeyes

1. Strip mining. In order to get at the energy, a lot of mining needs to be done. Increased mining is generally bad for an area. - Note: the Shell project (In-situ Conversion Process) does not require mining.
2. Oil shale production take high heat and a ton of water and is not particularly environmentally friendly
3. Mining oil shale requires a ton of electricity
4. Without major technological improvements, oil shale production can only replace a small part of domestic gas consumption

Advantages of Oil Shale

1. The U.S. controls vast deposits of oil shale
2. Domestic oil shale production would not only reduce dependence on foreign oil, but would also potentially be vast enough that the U.S. could become a net exporter of energy again.
3. Fuel derived from oil shale could potentially cost much less than petroleum.

Right now, the jury is out on Oil Shale. The critics are vociferous in their opposition.

“Oil shale is such a marginal long shot that we ought to let oil companies spend their own money on it,” he said. “Leaving it to the private sector brings a discipline to oil-shale investments that we did not see back in the ’70s and ’80s when we had a lot of federal price supports for shale, ” said energy expert Randy Udall.

And oil companies have tried before. Exxon Mobil invested over $5 billion into an oil shale project that failed in 1982. It’s really up to the Shell Mahogany Project to see if success is possible.

“On only a 30 x 40 foot testing area, Shell successfully recovered 1,700 barrels of high quality light oil plus associated gas from shallower, less-concentrated oil shale layers. Our research to date has demonstrated that our In situ Conversion Process (ICP) works technically on a small scale - what remains is to prove it can work commercially,” says Shell.

Now the only question is on what scale can it be done. As many experts predict that oil is running out, a lot depends on these questions being answered reasonably soon.

Continued from: Alternative Fuel Sources - Part Four - E85. Continued in Alternative Fuel Sources - Part Six - Coal to Liquid.