more on good note djf Oil Independence? - If this is independence, we're addicted!

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: Ethan Ackerman <eackerma () u washington edu>
Date: September 13, 2005 1:30:41 AM EDT
To: dave () farber net
Subject: RE: [IP] Oil Independence? - If this is independence, we're  
addicted!
Reply-To: eackerma () u washington edu


-----Original Message-----
From: David Farber [mailto:dave () farber net]
Sent: Monday, September 12, 2005 8:02 PM
To: Ip Ip
Subject: [IP] Oil Independence?
[...]
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/news_columnists/article/ 
0,1299,DRMN_86
_4051709,00.html
What do IP skeptics say?
[...]


Call me skeptical.
More than anything this conjures the image of a desperate junkie  
scraping
residue out of the bowl of a pipe in hopes of collecting enough for  
one last
fix.

There are two main flaws with oil shale extraction, regardless of the
flavor: economics and environmental impacts.  I've tried to cover a  
bit of
both below with some links to better coverage and resources.

But first, an aside. I am probably one of the younger IP list  
readers, born
right before the last oil crisis, and was an untimely displaced  
resident of
Grand Junction, Colo. (the largest city closest to the oil shale bust  
of the
early 80s,) but even as a young 5-year-old I could grasp that burning a
barrel of oil to get 3, or 2, or 1.5 barrels, was a good way to get more
smoke than anything else.  I (and apparently others in the links below)
remember hearing the cynical slogan of shale boom survivors: "Oil  
shale has
a fantastic future - it always has and it always will."

Aside from the emotion, hard fact also counsels against oil shale
extraction...

First, the environmental concerns:
1980s-style oil extraction from shale was one of the most  
environmentally
destructive industrial processes known to man, and that was before the
extracted oil was even burned.  2005-style in-situ extraction looks  
to be
more of a difference in degree, not kind. Terry O'Connor, the Shell VP
quoted in the news article, even concedes in this informative Casper  
Tribune
article:
http://www.casperstartribune.net/articles/2005/08/09/news/regional/ 
03e14b4eb
94bfd7f8725705700826a2b.txt
 that in situ extraction is comparable to mountain strip mining in  
terms of
total physical surface destruction.  This is the oil shale industry
"advocate!"

So we've got near total surface disturbance (from collection,  
drilling pads,
cooling wells, or transport and access,) and now with in situ, we've got
subsurface disturbance as well.  Thermal expansion or contraction from
heating and/or freezing has real impacts, including erosion, subsidence,
aquifer collapse or alteration. We're not talking about a few cracks or
slumps, the extraction of oil from oil shale can result in a 30%  
structural
expansion in the shale as it releases oil!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_shale

Also, if there is one thing more important than oil in the intermountain
west, it is water.
Boiling off any groundwater (that's what happens when you heat  
underground
water as high as 600F, well above its boiling point) has dramatic  
impacts on
water levels and surface flows, even if that boiled-off water is somehow
recovered and decontaminated.  I mention decontaminated because this  
is a
very polluting activity, oil shale is rife with carcinogens, oil  
shale slag
is itself a known carcinogen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ 
Carcinogen) and
subsurface water can also release nasty heavy metal contaminants when  
it is
brought to the surface with its different pressures, pHs and exposure to
oxygen.

As if that weren't enough, the extraction and cracking process of  
refining
oil shale requires considerable hydrogen to form a high value  
hydrocarbon,
and this hydrogen comes from water.  Now water isn't exactly  
plentiful in
the largely desert intermountain west, the Green River formation  
included.

Explain to Colorado River-dependent communities downstream in  
California,
Utah and Arizona (LA, Vegas, Phoenix, among others...) that their  
water has
been either appropriated to hydrogenate oil shale, or contaminated by
bringing contaminants to the surface where their water is, and you  
have a
large scale interstate water war.

I've saved possibly the largest environmental impact for last - huge  
energy
expenditure and concurrent greenhouse gas and pollutant emissions  
necessary
to heat, cool, transport and distill this shale.  Burning a barrel of  
oil to
extract optimistically around 3 barrels that will then be burned  
somewhere
else nets at least a 30% increase in combustion emissions over  
straight oil
extraction.  Unfortunately, oil shale oil is also "dirty oil" (
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/conf/pdf/dammer.pdf p23) with Sulfur and
Nitrogen content over 4.5% - not as bad as over 6% of oil sands oil, but
almost twice as bad as "high sulfur" oils from Kuwait, and at least two
orders of magnitude higher than the levels allowed in gasoline.  So we
increase sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides, and carbon dioxide emissions  
by at
least a third (oil shale is not magically free of these pollutants) -  
this
is decreasing acid rain, smog, pollution and greenhouse gas issues how?

Economics:
The economics side is telling - perhaps it is not coincidental that  
Enron
was an energy, oil and gas company, because some of the accounting  
claiming
that oil shale is productive looks absolutely - well - cooked.  This  
process
requires add ional energy inputs!! IF considerable amounts of additional
natural gas or coal are burned to heat the shale, and to generate the
electricity needed for cooling the perimeter, AND to move the water  
around,
convert it to steam for hydrogenating, cracking, etc, then it does
ultimately look like it is technically possible to say that less  
"oil" was
used than is created. Less oil used than extracted, maybe, but  
definitely
NOT less fossil fuel, or less energy extracted than consumed.  Why  
not put
the gas or coal to productive use outright?  This is like pumping  
water from
sea level to a mountain lake and then saying, 'lets build a  
hydropower dam,
free electricity!'

The Wilderness Society's Senate testimony on this perverse calculus is
insightful.  I find it interesting that exploiting similar Canadian tar
sands threaten to actually cause a net DECREASE in Canada's energy  
exports
to the US.
http://www.wilderness.org/Library/Documents/upload/Testimony-Smith- 
OilShaleD
evelopment-20050412.pdf

(as an aside, this testimony and the Casper Tribune article  also  
highlight
some of the industry-favorable leasing arrangements and permitting
relaxations related to oil shale that made it into the 2005 Energy  
bill.)

-Ethan



-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as lists-ip () insecure org
To manage your subscription, go to
 http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/