RV Fuel Issues & Prices - Post 'Em Here!

vikrv wrote:
There is actually no oil in the oil shales of Colorado. What is there is kerogen embedded in marlstone, a precursor to oil. The kerogen must be heated to more than 750 degrees F to convert it into oil because it was never buried deeply enough to have the heat and pressure to convert the kerogen into oil in the first place.

You can read and learn all about it from the Colorado Geological Survey here.

750 degrees good grief who would give a care about it? Not this governemnt, not in the future of America. We will see more technologys in the next few years in energy then in the last several that were stagnated by the lack of leadership in the green world.

There is actually no oil in the oil shales of Colorado. What is there is kerogen embedded in marlstone, a precursor to oil. The kerogen must be heated to more than 750 degrees F to convert it into oil because it was never buried deeply enough to have the heat and pressure to convert the kerogen into oil in the first place.

You can read and learn all about it from the Colorado Geological Survey here.

Mass transit is a joke and impossible in most of the US. It works on in vertical cities. The cost of obtaining gas and oil has dropped drastically due to new technologies. It is getting cheaper to obtain except for the massive new permitting processes. The cost of natural gas has dropped 70% since fracking and horizontal drilling have been perfected.

This oil shale under Colorado does not have any liquid oil

If this is true, then why did they even bother to make it off limits? Shell Oil has developed an experimental steam method to obtain shale oil that has a breakeven point of $70/bbl. High pressure fracking can also obtain with droplets over about 10 microns due to high pressures found at that levels. (The steam method is for near surface deposits.) Remember, this isn't about the science, but about making fossil fuels so expensive even the most inefficient alternatives can compete. If they were regally interested in the grouse, they wouldn't allow wind and solar as they hurt the environment more. Even the dipstick can grasp that.

vikrv wrote:
This 1.6 million acres mentioned is over oil shale deposits, not shale oil deposits and there is a big difference. Shale oil like in the Bakken formation under Montana and North Dakota has liquid oil in the shale, and is freed by fracking. This oil shale under Colorado does not have any liquid oil, rather, the oil in the oil shale can only be freed by cooking the oil shale that is deep underground and there is currently no demonstrated process for doing that. The Interior Department has reserved the best deposits for exploration companies but will not free up more until they have demonstrated a viable process for freeing the oil from the oil shale.

Thanks some of us aren't dipsticks. It is important to join the curve for either hybrids or the most energy efficient cars as the cost of the old fossil fuel is going no where but up. I think better infrastructure and mass transit are going to be players in the next market cycle. Green will be a priority for the next several years.

Lindsay

I have no doubt that the US wants to make China dependent on as many oil sources as possible that we can if need be cut off. The environmental angle is just an excuse.

It's geo-politics and control

This 1.6 million acres mentioned is over oil shale deposits, not shale oil deposits and there is a big difference. Shale oil like in the Bakken formation under Montana and North Dakota has liquid oil in the shale, and is freed by fracking. This oil shale under Colorado does not have any liquid oil, rather, the oil in the oil shale can only be freed by cooking the oil shale that is deep underground and there is currently no demonstrated process for doing that. The Interior Department has reserved the best deposits for exploration companies but will not free up more until they have demonstrated a viable process for freeing the oil from the oil shale.

As i said earlier we will not get any of that oil China will. So what is the point?

We are not exporting any shale oil. Why would we send it to China and then have to reimport it's replacement from another country? Environmentalist just repeat talking points without giving them any thought. Alternatives are presently a pipe dream and will not supply anything substantial for decades. Less than 4% now and the US will be utilizing fossil fuels throughout our lifetimes.

DelCamper wrote:
There is just way too much of it out there. I'm not saying they won't be trying. Too many corks are required.

I suspect for several reasons there is going to be issues State verses Federal. The courts are going to be real busy.

As i said earlier we will not get any of that oil China will. So what is the point?

We will work to find other sourses of fuel and let oil die off as the main drug of this country.

There is just way too much of it out there. I'm not saying they won't be trying. Too many corks are required.

I suspect for several reasons there is going to be issues State verses Federal. The courts are going to be real busy.

That is over 2,000 sq miles and it is directly over the shale oil formation. I sure hope you are right. They have sure put the cork in the ANWR bottle for decades which has over 10 BILLION bbls of oil. Every time we find a new bottle, they keep finding new corks. I did see some pheasants out in that area, but have never seen a P. grouse.