Whoever eventually figures this out is going to be loaded........

Saturday, December 22, 2007 2:05 AM MST

Federal land managers have proposed setting aside about 1 million acres in Wyoming for potential commercial oil shale development.
But because of geological differences, it's likely development will first take place in Utah and Colorado, experts say.
A draft plan released Thursday by the Bureau of Land Management is meant to provide a framework for developing the region's large reserves of oil shale and tar sands. Except for experimental projects, there is no current program for commercial oil shale development on federal land.
Most of the nation's oil shale reserves are in western Colorado, southwestern Wyoming and eastern Utah. The draft plan also covers development of the tar sands in Utah.
The development scenario recommended by the BLM would make 359,798 acres of federal land in Colorado available; 630,971 acres in Utah; and about 1 million acres in Wyoming.
The Wyoming acreage is located in the Green River Basin and the Washakie Basin.
A provision in an omnibus spending bill passed this week by Congress prohibits the BLM from issuing final regulations for commercial oil shale development and offering any commercial leases in the 2008 budget year.
BLM spokeswoman Heather Feeney in Washington said the agency will comply with the provision. She said the environmental impact statement under way doesn't involve writing regulations.
The BLM will take public comments on the draft plan for the next 90 days and release a final plan later.
BLM officials have said more thorough analyses will be done as specific projects are proposed.
Federal officials and industry experts estimate that up to 1.8 trillion barrels of oil is trapped in the region's oil shale, or three times the proven reserves of Saudi Arabia. Of that, roughly 800 billion barrels is considered recoverable.
"The potential of America's oil shale resources to meet future U.S. demand for fuel is significant," said BLM Director Jim Caswell.
The catch is extracting the oil from the rock, something that's been tried on and off for nearly a century. The shale, or kerogen, is a petroleum precursor that wasn't buried deeply enough or naturally processed long enough to complete the transformation to oil.
Turning the shale to oil requires heating it: above ground after mining or in the ground, a process called in situ -- "in place."
Companies working on oil-shale technology have said commercial development is likely years off. Shell Frontier Oil & Gas has been researching ways to tap oil shale for more than a quarter century, and has been running tests since 1996 on private land in northwestern Colorado.
The BLM has awarded 160-acre leases for research and development projects to Shell, Chevron USA and Midland, Texas-based EGL Resources Inc. in Colorado. Alabama-based Oil Shale Exploration Co. received one of the 10-year leases on federal land in Utah.
The research leases could lead to larger ones for commercial production.
In Wyoming, Anadarko Petroleum Corp. had submitted a lease proposal, but it was rejected as incomplete in 2006. The company is no longer pursuing oil shale development, spokesman John Christiansen said.
"All forms of energy play an important role in America's future and security, and we are pleased that this process is moving forward," he said. "Because of our acreage and land grant position in southwest Wyoming,
Anadarko has substantial oil shale potential. However, our current activities are focused on tight gas, coal-bed methane and enhanced oil recovery."
Wyoming State Geologist Ron Surdam said the reason there's not much interest expressed in developing oil shale in Wyoming is that the resource is less consolidated here.
In Colorado, a company can target 50-foot-thick intervals that might average 50 gallons of syn-fuel per ton, Surdam said, whereas in Wyoming a producer might have trouble putting together 15-foot intervals that would produce 15 gallons of syn-fuel per ton.
"Colorado's oil shale is much richer and much thicker," Surdam said. "If oil shale develops, the industry will probably start in Colorado, and sometime Utah will come online. Wyoming will probably trail because of the quality of the resource."
In western Colorado, some elected officials and residents are urging the federal government to move cautiously on oil shale. The last major push to develop oil shale collapsed in 1982 when Exxon closed its $5 billion project near Parachute amid plummeting oil prices and government subsidies. About 2,200 people lost their jobs on what's still referred to in the area as "Black Sunday."

[LINK POSTED BY MEMBER] Only Members Can View This Truck Forum Link.

If you look into the current energy bill that the DEMOCRATS passed you'll find that they dealt oil shale a severe blow. Don't go investing in it much just yet.

Once again the DIMS say one thing and do another, continuing to tie the US to foreign oil.



http://omnibusting.heritage.org/category/policy-riders/

__________________

I've only seen one small snippet on oil shale. Looks like they heat it up and extract oil. Is it deep mined or shallow like Wy coal in Powder Basin? Article I saw said it could be cost effective when crude prices are over about $80. a barrel.

You might look a little further and find that the Republicans were responsible for the no drilling policies in the Gulf.

does everything have to revolve around oil? There is nothing wrong with Solar, Wind or geothermal. All these other things means mining and destroying the land and mountains. But, wind and solar doesn' destroy anything. And, once it's purchased, the only cost is the upkeep.
But CRAP, isn't this country smart enough to see this?
Who cares what powers your lights, computers and water heaters. Just as long as it works.

Let's not forget coal here either.

Coal produces power and fly ash as a byproduct.

Fly ash pays me just about as much per load as cement does. It's all part of the concrete making process.

That to me equals more revenue and thus more money for the company and me.

__________________
Big Red



Freedom wasn't won with a registered gun.

You are right, there is nothing wrong with solar, wind, geothermal or nuclear. However, those technologies hardly power much more than 10% of our needs, and I have yet to see a wind-powered freight carrier (in THIS century), although, they DID use "Prairie Schooners" in the past, but they were inefficient compared to pure oxen-power.

__________________

I'm not going to get into this debate with you. Cause you obviously don't understand how the Free Market isn't beneficial to the USA when it comes to Oil and Gas. And how even our own American Companies like Exxon, is screwing everyone.
Your going to take Exxons side, big governments side. Your going to support $3.50 per gallon until it breaks you. As long as you can buy gasoline or deisel (without any thought to the other things you could buy) there will no convinsing you of just how wrong you are.
This is a black n white arguement. And no matter what Color it is, your going to claim it's the opposite of what color I say it is.

Hardman,

Your truck is back from the shop........