I hate to burst your bubble, Senator Hatch...
Ah yes, another story in the paper about energy that doesn't touch on the nitty-gritty scientific realities of energy.
There was a story in this morning's Standard-Examiner about Orrin Hatch wanting to "wean the U.S. from dependency on foreign oil" by producing oil from Utah's shale and tar sands.
So why hasn't this already happened? It's simple economics.
I quote from Wikipedia:
"A critical measure of the viability of oil shale is the ratio of energy used to produce the oil, compared to the energy returned (Energy Returned on Energy Invested - EROEI). Oil shale typically has a very low EROEI: Royal Dutch Shell reported a figure of about 3:1. That is, energy equivalent to one barrel of oil was used for every three gained, on its recent in-situ development (which uses electric heating of the shale up to 500 degrees fahrenheit while it is still in the ground, while also creating a frost shield around the mining site), Mahogany Research Project. This compares to a figure of typically 5:1 for conventional oil extraction."
On LATOC, Matt Savinar also explains why tar sands and oil shale being the energy savior is mostly a pipe dream. According to Savinar, we currently need about 83.5 million barrels of oil per day, but "the most optimistic reports anticipate 4 million barrels per day of oil coming from the tar sands by 2020."
This is all like the insane belief that if we just drilled in ANWR, all of our energy problems would be solved and we could reduce our dependence on foreign oil.
If only our leaders would stop with the hype about alternative energy and admit the unpleasant realities.
There was a story in this morning's Standard-Examiner about Orrin Hatch wanting to "wean the U.S. from dependency on foreign oil" by producing oil from Utah's shale and tar sands.
So why hasn't this already happened? It's simple economics.
I quote from Wikipedia:
"A critical measure of the viability of oil shale is the ratio of energy used to produce the oil, compared to the energy returned (Energy Returned on Energy Invested - EROEI). Oil shale typically has a very low EROEI: Royal Dutch Shell reported a figure of about 3:1. That is, energy equivalent to one barrel of oil was used for every three gained, on its recent in-situ development (which uses electric heating of the shale up to 500 degrees fahrenheit while it is still in the ground, while also creating a frost shield around the mining site), Mahogany Research Project. This compares to a figure of typically 5:1 for conventional oil extraction."
On LATOC, Matt Savinar also explains why tar sands and oil shale being the energy savior is mostly a pipe dream. According to Savinar, we currently need about 83.5 million barrels of oil per day, but "the most optimistic reports anticipate 4 million barrels per day of oil coming from the tar sands by 2020."
This is all like the insane belief that if we just drilled in ANWR, all of our energy problems would be solved and we could reduce our dependence on foreign oil.
If only our leaders would stop with the hype about alternative energy and admit the unpleasant realities.
posted by Utah Peaknik at 9:11 AM
1 Comments:
An actual quote from Orrin Hatch, which you can find in a press release from his website.
"We should take note that our major oil companies, including Chevron and ExxonMobil, are beginning to state publicly that we may be reaching peak oil."
Unfortunately, the statement was made in the context of a speech promoting an unworkable supply-side solution to preserve our consumption habits at all costs.
How do you get a billion dollars worth of oil from Utah shale? Easy, you spend two billion.
Post a Comment
<< Home