To all people who think oil shale is the answer, please read this:?

Question

Disinterested observers are even less optimistic about oil shale. Geologist Dr. Walter Youngquist points out:

The average citizen . . . is led to believe that the United States really has no oil supply problem when oil shales hold "recoverable oil" equal to "more than 64 percent of the world's total proven crude oil reserves." Presumably the United States could tap into this great oil reserve at any time. This is not true at all. All attempts to get this "oil" out of shale have failed economically. Furthermore, the "oil" (and, it is not oil as is crude oil, but this is not stated) may be recoverable but the net energy recovered may not equal the energy used to recover it. If oil is "recovered" but at a net energy loss, the operation is a failure. Source

This means any attempt to replace conventional oil with oil shale will actually make our situation worse as the project will consume more energy than it will produce, regardless of how high the price goes. http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/

Answer 1

"but the net energy recovered may not equal the energy used to recover it."

Which only matters if you are burning oil to get that energy used to recover it (of course you'll have to pay for the energy you use, but that's an economic issue).

"If oil is "recovered" but at a net energy loss, the operation is a failure."

The point of oil is that it is a transportation fuel, if you have a plentiful fuel that can't be easily used in transportation (such as Uranium) then it could very well be worth it to use that energy source to get at what can be used for transportation.

I personally think that we should be moving away from oil dug out of the ground and towards synthetic fuels (hydrogen or synthetic hydrocarbons) or electricity for transportation but replacing conventional oil with oil shale is possible even if it turns out to take more energy to get at it then you can get from burning it.

Though oil shale won't solve the environmental problems with oil so it isn't really much of a solution.  In fact the problem with oil (and other fossil fuels) isn't that we are running out (as some people mistakenly believe) but that we're not running out (if we were running out we'd be doing what was necessary to switch to alternatives).

Answer 2

Sounds like a Al Gore report!

Answer 3

You are overlooking a few fundamental concepts.

You refer on one side of the equation to the energy used to recover the oil, and on the other to the oil itself. You neglect the fact that the oil recovered may have more intrinsic value than its energy content alone (as in crude petroleum, the use of which for fuel may be not the best use of that substance). Also, oil does not have to be burned to obtain the energy to obtain shale oil--think, for example, solar-powered onsite drilling rigs/pumps.

The last bit about "regardless of how high the price goes" shows breathtaking ignorance of economics. When the price of one good (crude oil) rises above the cost of a substitute good (shale oil), some producers will switch to producing that substitute good. Econ 101.

Answer 4

That's why I drive cars that run on natural gas. It's cheap, clean, plentiful in the USA, and here now; not some wish or dream. Check out my sources to see if this would work out for you as it has me!

Answer 5

Crude oil is the only energy source where its harvest makes it affordable!  EVERYTHING else costs more than oil!  Why aren't you explaining this to everyone, asker?  Sure, there's atomic NRG, but there are costs associated with its disposal that make it difficult to utilize.

Why aren't you explaining this about OTHER sources like Ethanol?  There are costs to THAT NRG source for which we will not be paying for YEARS to come!  We may not be bearing the costs yet, but give it a couple-of-decades.