First Name:
Last Name:
Email:
Zip Code:
All fields required.
Why do we want this?
We're asking for your zip code so we know what Congressional District you live in. We're trying to organize people in every district.
« Boone Blog: Media in New York City
Town Hall in Shreveport »

The Ins and Outs of Oil Shale With Senator Orrin Hatch

America has many different energy resources that have been overlooked and underutilized. To implement the Pickens Plan, Boone says we need to marshal every single one of them. You’ve been a big proponent of oil shale. Tell us more about this energy resource.
Oil shale is a resource that has been overlooked and underestimated by just about everybody, until recently. Let’s face it, the world is getting very close to coming up short in its oil supply. We are seeing a global economic slowdown at the moment. However, once the global economy heats up again, we will see higher and higher prices at the pump.

We were all concerned about the $700 billion economic package our government passed recently. But our citizens have been paying that amount to our foreign oil suppliers every year. At least the economic package funding will be spent in this country. As for the money going to foreign governments who are willing to develop their own oil resources, we will never see it again. By relying on foreign oil, we are literally draining our own economy permanently to fund the rise of our not-so-friendly international competitors.

Oil shale is one of the few resources that is available in such large quantities that it could actually address the gap between global supply and demand. By aggressively tapping into this resource, we could help to put our nation on a firmer footing to face our international competitors into the next two or three decades.

Has technology made oil shale a more feasible energy resource today?
In most cases doing something new and important doesn’t hinge on technology, it hinges on economics. If the economic fundamentals are in place, then technology tends to rise up to meet the challenge.

When President Jimmy Carter began the big oil shale push in the ’70s, he based his decision not on technology, but on the fact that oil prices were high and oil shale was economical. Technology was not a barrier. Then the Saudis flooded the oil market and dropped the price down below $10 a barrel. Well, even conventional oil wells weren’t economical at that price, so President Carter’s oil shale project failed, but it wasn’t due to a lack of technology.

Brazil has produced oil from oil shale for more than 30 years with a technology that is good on air quality and it is only getting better. Estonia has successfully produced oil shale on a large commercial scale for 80 years, and we were ready to do it in the ’70s until the economics went away. So, yes, we have a number of off-the-shelf technologies ready to go. The thing that makes it exciting is that all the companies focusing on oil shale in the U.S. that I know about are taking the technology to an entire new level. I’ve seen more than six different approaches being pursued and developed by various companies, and they are all very focused on air quality and the use of little or no water.

Some of the folks using the technology argument against oil shale are extreme environmental groups that don’t have the foggiest idea what is really going on with the technology. They’re not interested in the technology; they just want to stop oil shale development because they oppose fossil fuels.

How many barrels of foreign oil could oil shale possibly replace?
Oil shale is different from conventional oil because we basically know exactly where the oil shale is and how much is there. There is no real “exploration” involved with oil shale, so there’s one less step needed in its development. In Utah, Colorado and Wyoming there are about three trillion barrels of oil in place. How much is recoverable depends somewhat on economics, which drives technology.

The Department of Energy made a very conservative estimate of more than 800 billion barrels, and the price of oil was about $40 a barrel at the time. The estimators admitted to me that it was a conservative estimate. Most experts predict that there is somewhere between one and two trillion barrels of recoverable oil in the Intermountain West with most of it being in Colorado.

Considering that the total world proven reserves are at about 1.6 trillion barrels, oil shale has tremendous potential.

How long would it take to scale up oil shale exploration and production?
Normally economics would determine that. The fundamentals of supply and demand call for the quick development of oil shale. However, 73 percent of American oil shale is on federal lands, and policymakers continue to put up artificial barriers to its development. Lacking artificial barriers, it would still take a few years for the first companies to demonstrate their latest technologies and then scale them up to full scale commercial operations. After that, the market and environmental regulations would determine the speed that development could increase. Even though most oil shale is on federal lands, the current law, which I wrote, gives each governor and local officials a lot of control over the pace of development in their respective states.

What sort of job creation would oil shale mean to America?
Per barrel of oil, shale production would probably bring about the same amount of job creation that oil and gas development brings. After that,  it all depends on how fast the fundamentals of energy supply and demand will push oil shale development.

What would expanding the oil shale industry mean to American-based companies?
For one, it has already begun to stimulate a whole new industry focused strictly on oil shale development. There are a number of larger oil companies taking oil shale seriously, but the most aggressive players, by far, are the small-  to medium-sized companies going out and securing the investment and engineers necessary to be successful. Because 72 percent of the world’s oil shale resides in the United States, I have no doubt that our nation will lead the world in the most advanced technologies in this field.

EMAIL INTERVIEW CONDUCTED, CONDENSED, AND EDITED BY ERIC O’KEEFE

This entry was posted on Friday, October 17th, 2008 at 10:23 am by Eric in Pickens Plan.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

Comments10 Responses to “The Ins and Outs of Oil Shale With Senator Orrin Hatch”

October 17th, 2008 at 12:09 pm

Steve Baker


I believe Mr. Pickens is on the right track, however, due to the shortened range of CNG autos, and the fact that there is not yet a decent network of filling stations I believe that E85, which is available now, and has a large number of autos on the road now would also have to be considered for the western US, due to the larger distances between urban areas. This E-85 does not have to come from corn, which is very inefficient, but should come from a variety of sources, ie, sugar beets which should be of importance to Sen. Hatch, as this was a rather large crop at one time in the Utah Idaho area, sugar cane (grown in the South), and even cellulosic material available anywhere there is trees, and or wood scrap. Using a combination of these, we can bring the cost of E85 down to a level that makes it attractive to the "ordinary Joe" while we develop the fuel cell vehicles. Combined with Wind power, and solar power, using CNG for urban areas, and E-85 for longer stretches, I believe we can, and certainly MUST achieve total energy independance even quicker than Mr. Pickens' plan calls for.

October 17th, 2008 at 7:05 pm

A. Ortiz


my concern is : with the oil shale we'll be at the same point sooner or later plus the global warming, will continue to increase, on the other hand Mr Baker is talking about E85 that I believe some countrys will produce it in masive quantities will dry out earth soon

October 18th, 2008 at 4:39 am

Pat Jack


I was under the impression that there might be just the tiniest bit of natural gas that could be recovered from the SHALER'S reserves. But of course I could be totally wrong. Perhaps Orin Hatch has a plan and Boone isn't listening. I mean, getting oil from shale would really solve all our problems. Yeah, to heck with the Wind Farms, we'll just listen to Orin, and his state can solve all our problems with their brazilian oil from Shale technology. Heck, why listen to Orin, looks like Brazil should be running the show. Hey, who is that guy Boone Pickens anyway, isn't he the nut that the President of iran was listening to 20 years ago. I hear the President of iran is converting his transportation industry to natural gas and will sell the United States of America iran's oil for $300 bucks a barell. Boone, why'd you have to open your big MOUTH! Now we're gonna have to use natural gas in our cars like the President of iran! I'm sure am glad we can get that oil from the shale. Orin's a smart old boy. Pat Jack Pickens Plan Ambassador

October 18th, 2008 at 6:47 am

scott


The interview left out one key point. It touched on it then quickly moved on---most of the shale is on federal lands and the government keeps putting up barriers to development. Why is that? I think the article left out any consideration of environmental impacts and those have to be factored into the equation. I agree with Boone that we have to approach our energy problem from every angle. But that approach has to be balanced and take all factors into account. And A. Ortiz has a great point...we are still talking oil here with all of the global climate change the burning of it brings.

October 18th, 2008 at 7:43 am

A. Ortiz


i would like Mr senator Orrin Hatch to have a look on : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/oil_shale#environmental_considerations

October 18th, 2008 at 11:49 am

Warner Working


We are at a crossroad down one road is the creation of truly renewable energy using natural gas as a bridge for heavy transportation until hydrogen comes on line. Down the other road is the continued use of oil with all of the problems we know so well, and a push for nuclear energy. Besides the obvious dangers is the continuation of the pitfalls of centralized energy. I strongly favor the Pickens Plan because it leaves the door open for the development of truly decentralized energy technologies. Natural gas can be in place as soon as the filling stations for the trucks are ready. If new trucks ran of natural gas at $1.40 a gallon all the trucking companies would be scrambling to refit there rigs just to stay competitive. This one thing would probably save our economy. By replacing the natural gas being used by the truckers with wind we would not only increase the amount of energy we produced but we would revitalize the economy of our country. The volt being made by GM will run for 40 miles on an overnight charge before having to burn a drop of gas. This is all most people need to get to work but to use something like this we need to redo the energy grid or we would all just brown out. Rebuilding the grid creates more jobs. With the new grid the door is wide open for solar power. If solar cells are ever really produced on a large scale, the price per watt will drop dramatically. We will soon be able to produce enough power to have the excess necessary for localized hydrogen production. With power freedom water and knowledge we can reach a new level of prosperity. We can save the earths oil supplies and all the other things it is good for our decedents.

October 18th, 2008 at 11:56 am

Warner Working


....We are at a crossroad down one road is the creation of truly renewable energy using natural gas as a bridge for heavy transportation until hydrogen comes on line. ....Down the other road is the continued use of oil with all of the problems we know so well, and a push for nuclear energy. Besides the obvious dangers is the continuation of the pitfalls of centralized energy. ....I strongly favor the Pickens Plan because it leaves the door open for the development of truly decentralized energy technologies. ....Natural gas can be in place as soon as the filling stations for the trucks are ready. If new trucks ran of natural gas at $1.40 a gallon all the trucking companies would be scrambling to refit there rigs just to stay competitive. This one thing would probably save our economy. ....By replacing the natural gas being used by the truckers with wind we would not only increase the amount of energy we produced but we would revitalize the economy of our country. ....The volt being made by GM will run for 40 miles on an overnight charge before having to burn a drop of gas. This is all most people need to get to work but to use something like this we need to redo the energy grid or we would all just brown out. Rebuilding the grid creates more jobs. ....With the new grid the door is wide open for solar power. If solar cells are ever really produced on a large scale, the price per watt will drop dramatically. We will soon be able to produce enough power to have the excess necessary for localized hydrogen production. ....With power freedom water and knowledge we can reach a new level of prosperity. ....We can save the earths oil supplies and all the other things it is good for our decedents. ....How the @#$#@ do you put paragraphs in these things

October 19th, 2008 at 7:25 am

Donald Mayfield


Well said, Warner. I'd like to point to a comment about the $700 billion figure I made on my page. I mean the expenditure for foreign energy sources, not the bailout figure, which is an investment. See the comment I made on Oct. 19, 2008 on my page.

October 19th, 2008 at 5:29 pm

Keith Britton


I was involved with oil shale in the '70s and '80s, primarily in situ recovery (for anyone who wants details, see U.S. Patent 4,175,490). Oil shale could theoretically replace all U.S. oil usage at present rates for something like 200 years. With technology - and approaches - of the Synfuels Corp era, recovery from good grades would have been around 35%, considerably less than that accounting for losses in pillars and barriers. Worse, most of the oil, in low grade oil shale, would have been rendered inaccessible by highgrading of the better material. At that time, all proposed processing approaches would have cracked the calcium carbonate of the Western Shales, releasing much carbon dioxide beyond that involved in process losses. The major advance since that period is that the Shell in situ scheme has demonstrated that good oil can be produced at temperatures which would not destroy the calcite. That datum needs time to apply more widely, but the older technologies were at the point where 500K bbl/day was feasible within a year or so of when Ronald Reagan shut everything down. That noted, because of infrastructure, oil refinery changes, environmental, water and other problems, the consensus view of insiders was that it would take about 20 years to build an industry capable of replacing all imported oil. That's still probably true today, but we could probably cut the time to energy independence to ten years or so if: we accept some environmental damage until we can improve technology; we reduce imports by improving efficiency; we reduce imports by initiatives like the Pickens Plan; and, we apply the technology we developed 20 years ago in an integrated national effort rather than by piecemeal private enterprise. Orrin Hatch's reply regarding jobs was grossly misleading, because he only considered jobs directly related to oil shale. if the money presently leaving the nation to buy oil instead circulated within it, the number of jobs THAT would create would far exceed the oil industry ones. Pat Jack: There's an embarrassing amount of methane in oil shale. A BuMines shaft had it coming in at about 300 psi. A welder was puzzled because his flame got larger as he increased the oxygen. Didn't blow himself up because the methane was above the exp0losive limit. Later, "to increase mining production", they use non-permissible explosive. That did light off the gas, and they had to flood the shaft to put out the fire. Scott: One reason is industy's habit of obtaining posession then sitting on it while the value increases and others solve the problems. Another is need to protect the public from the careless or greedy. A. Ortiz: Orrin Hatch knew more about oil shale issues 20 years back than most do today. Still, it was a good link to post. Amongst issues missing from the Wikipedia article is the fire hazard. I noted BuMines experience above. In a particularly witless industry episode, Occidental used an energetic explosive in apparently happy ignorance of the fact that it did its work largely by producing hydrogen. They left an ignition source active - fireballs out of their shafts and adits - nearly lost their mine to the resulting fire. (not the only time) In an oil shale mine, the environment burns... I passed by the waste pile of the Kvarntorp oil shale mine in Swedenmore than a decade since production ceased. It was still burning and stank more than a mile away... An oil shale industry in Colorado and Utah is too dangerous to trust to a mob. It needs a national control like that for atomic energy.

October 20th, 2008 at 11:36 am

PickensPlan


Thank you for all your comments.

Leave a Reply

Sign Up