Talk:Oil shale economics
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Economics
Are the dollar figures noted in this section US dollars, or other; and at what time? This [1] seems to say US$30/bbl in 2005 is the floor for economic production rather than the $40/bbl stated in the article. --69.157.100.206 16:58, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
- It probably depends upon details of each study. It doesn't matter much. OPEC does not have to follow market forces and can drop the price at any time so as to drive a price-sensitive competitor out of business. (SEWilco 18:37, 2 October 2005 (UTC))
-
- Not nowadays it can't. The Saudis and other OPEC countries are already producing about as much oil as they can. —wwoods 18:46, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
-
-
- In what way is the price set by OPEC related to the upper limit of their production rate? Couldn't they cut their production rate to one barrel a day and sell it for $20 if they so desired? (SEWilco 19:22, 1 November 2005 (UTC))
-
-
-
-
- Sure, but then whoever they sold their oil to could turn around and resell it at the market price, which is the price at which overall production and overall consumption are ~equal. By cutting production, OPEC could raise the price of oil. (Which maybe would push the world into a depression, which would lower the demand for oil and hence lower the price...)
- —wwoods 21:56, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Yes, I know how market forces work. However, the point here is that it is not right to be using OPEC-driven market prices as a guide for when a competitor to OPEC becomes competitive. There is a flaw in that logic, as OPEC can choose to undercut the price of a competitor and force the competitor into an unprofitable situation. (SEWilco 22:07, 1 November 2005 (UTC))
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- With the discovery of the 2 trillion barrel deposit below Colorado, the stakes in the "Shale Oil Recovery" game just went through the roof. Shale oil is now the single biggest fossil fuel resource on earth and the US has possibly as much as 72% of the total. Historically, when prosented with a potentially huge profit, US producers have found a way to exploit the resource. Even with conventional methods, the production of the Colorado reserves would be more profitible than Gold Mining per ton of material. Having followed my Grandfather into the petroleum industry, I feel comfortable in predicting that the shale oil deposits in the Rocky Mountains will yeild in excess of 20 billion dollars (US) per annum by 2010. -VeeRay-
-
-
-
-
Getting Oil Shale to Relieve Looming Oil Shortage. Under the assumptions a) oil shale can be extracted economically at $30-$40 per barrel; b) US shale reserves about equal to estimated world oil reserves; c) the US government could guarantee a large scale purchase of oil from oil shale at $40/ barrel to be put either into reserve or sold on the market with say a 10 billion per year to support commercial production could we bring stability to the oil maket price? This would effectively cap the long term price of oil at some deliverable level. --WalterSchneiderPittsburgh 13:11, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[[2]]
[edit] Biased economics
This section is incredibly biased towards the Oil Tech process and appears to be written by a promoter. No credible comparative economic study I've seen has come to this conclusion--one can only reach a defendable conclusion by using and disclosing a consistent set of economic assumptions. For example, there is no mention of the 1990 NRC report "Fuels to Drive our Future", which tried to compare different oil shale processes with other sources of synthetic fuels using consistent economic assumptions. That is not to say that the Oil Tech process should be dismissed out of hand, but there is no objective basis for making these claims in an encyclopedia.
The Oil Tech process is merely one of hundreds that have been tried, and there is no technical basis for its prominence in a general article on oil shale. It would be far better to present a systematic classification table based on heat source, heat transfer method, above or below ground, and then give multiple examples of the various types.
The same problem is true for the statement that the Oil Tech process would be environmentally safe. Even if it were true, there is no independent study I've seen, and certainly none referenced here, to substantiate that claim. It is certainly true that open-pit mining is cheaper than room and pillar mining and is necessary if aboveground shale oil production is to be a significant player in our energy needs, but is it universally accepted that digging up large fractions of the Uinta and Piceance Basin and returning it as a different material is environmentally safe? This conclusion is somewhere between unsubstantiated and subjective. Akburnham 00:17, 29 October 2006 (UTC)A. K. Burnham
[edit] Efficiency
Efficency? Nowhere in the article, energy efficiency is mentioned. How much energy do I have to invest to harvest 1 calory in shale oil? Or one could also ask the question in a diffenerent way: How much is the total CO2 output if I want to get 1 MJ of energy from shale oil compared to conventional oil? If some of the processes need months of electrical (!!) heating before extraction, this sounds ridiculous. The processes might be economically viable because liquid fuels yield extremely high prices these days compared to, let's say, coal or even natural gas but might result in a net reduction of fossile fuel resources. Does anybody have data to answer these crucial questions?
- Shell reported the EROEI of their In-situ Conversion Process to be 3:1 or even 3.5:1.Beagel 19:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
- Information about the EROEI of oil shale is added.Beagel 08:09, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Canada
Anom user added an information that Canada re-started production in 2003-4. I reverted this as no available sources confirm this. However, if there is current commercial production of oil shale in Canada, please provide information where and by whom it was re-started.Beagel 18:27, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

