Bush Wants to Squeeze Oil from Stone
Reacting to voter anger over $4-per-gallon gasoline and growing concerns about U.S. dependency on foreign oil, the Bush administration is floating the idea of extracting petroleum from oil-shale deposits in the Western United States that could eventually yield 800 billion barrels of oil, according to government estimates. At the current consumption rate of roughly 20 million barrels a day, 58 percent of it from outside the United States, 800 billion barrels is enough to satisfy America’s oil addiction for more than 100 years—without importing a single drop. In reality, of course, a new and ready supply of oil would virtually guarantee increased consumption. And any petroleum extracted from domestic oil shale would inevitably be combined with imported oil as well as domestic oil from other sources to meet the growing demand, further extending our dependence on oil.
President Bush has been previewing the notion of squeezing oil from stone in his energy speeches for the past couple of months, and today [July 22, 2008] the U.S. Interior Department is scheduled to propose regulations for a new program to sell leases that would allow oil companies to extract oil from shale on federal lands, primarily in the Green River Basin of Colorado, Wyoming and Utah.
The idea of mining oil shale for petroleum isn’t new, but there are three big problems with using oil shale as a source for petroleum. Namely, oil-shale extraction is:
- Expensive—Releasing petroleum from rock doesn’t come cheap. A government program in the 1980s that was set up to subsidize oil-shale development was shut down after it became clear that the cost of extracting the oil would be several times more than its market value. The price of oil today is higher than ever, but other costs have risen, too. Whether oil-shale extraction is now economically feasible remains to be seen.
- Energy-intensive--Extracting oil from shale doesn’t just produce energy, it consumes it. Basically, the oil-saturated rock has to be heated to temperatures between 500 and 1,000 degrees Fahrenheit so the oil trapped in the shale will liquefy. Steam is often used to heat the oil shale, which also requires great quantities of water as well as an energy source to generate the necessary heat. Various methods have been tried, including nuclear energy, and some companies are experimenting with microwave and radio frequency technology.
- Environmentally unsound—Despite oil company claims that new technology lowers the environmental risks of oil-shale extraction, most experts agree that the process still leads to significant air and water pollution, and leaves behind mountains of waste that have to be managed. Add to that another century or more of increasing greenhouse gas emissions, and we’re looking at a serious environmental threat.
Even if the Bush administration finds a way around the congressional roadblock, or even if Congress decides to embrace the idea of oil-shale development, the Interior Department estimates that commercial oil-shale development wouldn’t be under way until at least 2015. And given the high cost of extracting oil from rock, there is virtually no chance that oil-shale development would lower gas prices for consumers.
Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images
Comments
Your motives are revealed in your statement “In reality, of course, a new and ready supply of oil would virtually guarantee increased consumption.” That is why you and other environmental extremist’s want to block all forms of domestic drilling. Thanks at least for your candor. Thanks to you and your Democrat friends we are in our current difficulty. You like high gas prices no matter who it hurts (mainly the poor). Now the American people are waking up are waking up to the costs. The times they are a changing.
The point of the sentence you quoted, Theop, is that if we suddenly had access to 800 billion barrels of domestic oil, our consumption rate would be sure to increase from the 20 million barrels per day we use today. The population will increase in the years ahead, and even with some efforts being made to increase the use of renewable energy sources such as wind and solar, there simply wouldn’t be enough incentive in the short-term for the majority of Americans to make a concerted effort to start using less oil. Old habits die hard.
I just love it when people make sweeping assumptions about my beliefs, motives and political leanings, but I would be interested in hearing why you think Democrats are more responsible than Republicans (or anyone else) for high gas prices and other energy woes. I’m guessing you’re talking about Democrats blocking some efforts to increase domestic drilling, particularly in ANWR and along the Continental Shelf offshore.
It might be worth remembering that the executive order banning offshore drilling was signed by the first President Bush, while the law that accomplishes the same end was passed by a Democrat-controlled Congress. Meanwhile, oil companies already hold leases on millions of acres of federal land that they’re not using. And the Energy Information Association, among others, reminds us that any oil that remains in new offshore locations or in ANWR would take decades to locate, extract and refine–and once it was available it would do little or nothing to lower the price of gasoline at the pump. That’s simply not a solution to the problem of high gas prices.
Howdy. What is the problem with drilling for oil;using our OWN resources? Foreign countries are laughing at us,The US,for allowing liberals in Congress & environmentalists to restrict the use of OUR OWN resources. Once the charlatans & hypocrits like AlGore T. Kennedy,N.Pelosi,are pushed out of the way the US economy will continue to grow. Alternative energy may help at some far off future date but how long does anyone think it will take for them to replace oil use across this planet?It is the life blood of ALL economies. CO2 is good for plant growth, does not harm humans & comprizes only .04% of the atmosphere.Climate change is a natural planetary cycle. AlGore & his ilk just want to increase govt. control over the freedom of the people. It’s all about POWER, control over others. AlGore needs to limit his own energy use & agree to debate his position.-MrI.
-The advantage of extending our off-shore drilling and of developing oil shale is that it extends the period over which we can adapt our lifestyle to one of more conservation-minded activities. It buys time to change. If we don’t make that change, then new production only delays the point at which the oil inevitably gives out. Our economy is so vastly more robust than the rest of the world because we have cheaper energy. We need a “soft landing” so to speak and not an abrupt cessation to supply.
- The point about “energy intensive production” is well taken. 800 billion barrels won’t really last 100 years because so much extra energy will be required to extract it. Right now we use one gallon to pump 100. With oil shale that ratio falls to something like 10:1, so the new oil will only last a few decades- if other demands remain stable.
-With proper attention, we can develope these new fields without ruining the environment. Old strip mines now are commonly returned to something resembling a natural state. We just need to give it time in a frame longer than a single human lifetime. Patience.
Once again, the environmentalist/liberal/Democrat clique reveal–make that, BETRAY–their true elitist arrogance as they stand on their idiotic ideologies at the expense of the poor.
Instead of attempting to solve the problem that’s knocking us on the head, they’re busy criticising attempted solutions to our dependence on foreign oil.
I sincerely hope Americans understand these swine for what they really are: a bunch of smug, self-righteous hypocrites who can always counted on to find a problem for every solution.
Furthermore, I hope Americans remember this reality when they cast their ballots come election time.
I’m all for it. We’re smart and I know we can do it in an environmentally safe way. It’s sure sounds safer than supplying terrorist nations with a steady supply of money. Where’s the drill bit?