The fuel woes we face here are being felt around the world, but often at far higher levels.
Being in a relatively better position is little consolation, however. Yet we could take heart in knowing that Utah could one day be a key player in solving the oil dilemma.
It sounds far-fetched, and maybe it will be until technology catches up. But there's hope on the horizon.
The notion that oil shale deposits where Utah, Colorado and Wyoming meet could rival the Persian Gulf is no idle exaggeration. In fact, the potential is there for this area to become the oil capital of the world.
The much-coveted and long-lasting oil reserves of Saudi Arabia are only one-third the size of the estimated 800 billion barrels of oil locked inside rock formations to the south, east and north of Vernal. These deposits even rival OPEC's total 900 billion barrels.
What's more, oil shale deposits throughout the United States are estimated at 1.5 trillion barrels, potentially far eclipsing OPEC. Such unconventional hydrocarbon sources as oil shale and tar sands are predominantly found in the Western Hemisphere, and their development could one day shift the balance of oil power away from the Middle East and other less stable regions. An emerging dominance of oil production back to the United States, Canada and Latin America could even usher in a new era of energy security.
What may not be common knowledge is that half of current U.S. oil imports already come from Canada and Latin America, with Persian Gulf states supplying only about one-quarter of the total.
Furthermore, while conventional oil exploration involves costly and even risky efforts to find new reserves, most of America's oil shale deposits are already located, mapped and quantified. All that's needed is to exploit them. Yet that has always been the challenge.
Oil production of shale deposits appeared to be America's saving grace during the energy crisis of the 1970s. Extensive efforts, in fact, were made to extract the oil from shale, but most attempts were abandoned by 1982. And essentially due to a single reason: cost.
Recovering oil from tar sands and oil shale isn't the problem. Almost anyone can do it by applying heat to a piece of oil shale. But because it takes a ton of rock to produce just a single barrel of oil, the cost to mine shale and then heat the oil has historically exceeded possible revenues.
When crude oil dropped to as low as $9 a barrel in the early 1980s, the envisioned oil shale bonanza fizzled. And just three years ago, it still wasn't feasible when crude oil was trading for $30-$40 a barrel, but $50 a barrel oil loomed on the horizon, restoring hope once again. Now that crude oil has broken the $130 per barrel mark, a new boom near Vernal could materialize--if prices remain high.
Following decades of research, one method by a Utah entrepreneur dumps crushed oil shale into a retort, which heats it to 1,000 degrees F. The oil is essentially vaporized and can then be condensed and recovered.
Exxon, Chevron, Shell and others have their own favorite methods -- but each must operate at a cost below the price of conventional crude oil to be economically feasible. And this must be accomplished without leaving huge mounds of crushed shale behind, and without destroying Western lands or polluting the area's water supplies.
As in years past, the prospects of fabulous wealth that could be unleashed continue to tantalize those who still believe in the promise of oil shale. There is no question that extracting oil from shale or tar sands can be done. As always, the battle is, "Can it be done cheaply enough? Will the price of oil remain high long enough to justify investing billions of dollars?"
Even rapid oil shale development won't help motorists this year, or the next. But if
now isn't the right time for oil shale to begin making good on its promise, it's hard to think of one that could be better.
Post a Comment
