• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Shale Boom to Turn U.S. Into World's Largest Oil Producer, Watchdog Says

This is not overly new at all. It was somewhere around 1990 when i heard about it for the first time. Technically there is a lot of oil locked up in shale rock. It is also costly to get and fracking is not the great idea some claim it to be. If the technology is improved it may be far more efficient, but it still seems to have problems. It pollutes local water tables with chemicals. It is destructive to the rock formations and may increase the likelihood of earthquakes. The water issue is obviously a problem for farming areas that rely on wells that could be polluted by the process. The eathquake thing would cause it to be problematic in areas with faults or potential underground magma flows. It's long term effects have not been studied very much. I just have a general mistrust of oil companies doing the safe and proper thing, for example BP who dumped millions of gallons of crude into the gulf because they disregarded safety, then forced people to help clean up the oil without safety equipment if they wanted recovery money, and then said bacteria ate up all the oil only to have it washing up on gulf shores after hurricane isaac this year. These are the people we are going to give license to explosively jam hazardous chemicals into rock that contains our drinking water?

I know no one is going to stop the quest for oil until we are all covered in black cancerous sores, but it might be nice if we stopped letting our greed get the better of us and did something like make sure it is safe and not let the modern oil dip****s anywhere near the process. Oh well, the impact in thirty or so years is really not my problem anyway. Enjoy your cancer kiddies it is the gift your loving caring greedy lazy fat ass parents are giving you. All because they don't want to pay extra to drive their 2 MPG hummer to the store to buy a coffee.

You are so ignorant of the facts that to try to correct you would be pointless. You havent bothered to even know rudimentery facts so the only point I am going to make is you are so uneducated to them as you make yourself look foolish at best. I would suggest actually going to wikipedia to at least get a rudimentry understanding of what you are talking about, because as of now, you have absolutely NO clue.
 
1.You left off/didn't even quote my reply which gutted yours in all it's absurd aspects.

2. Many things weren't "viable" 50 years ago because of Price and Technique.
People used to laugh at Canada's Oil sands 30 years ago.. now a thriving business.

There's NO question Shale Fracking IS viable economically and has ALREADY exploded in usage.
How Ridiculous to bring up 50 years ago (oil was $18) and say if it wasn't viable then it isn't now.

The fracking tecnique does open up new fields. It is used a lot more however in existing fields to further enhance production of holes that are already drilled, and in new holes in those fields.
 
Oil Shale and Shale Oil are emphatically not the same thing. The current boom in production stems from exploiting the vast amounts of Light Tight Oil (LTO) that is locked up in shale but can be released by hydraulic fracturing methods along with gas. Oil Shale is not really oil at all but Kerogen that must be extracted and then heated up to produce longer carbon chain molecules such as among other things crude oil, it may be possible to extract and utilize these resources one day bit it is not commercial yet.

That is good clarification on your part but I like to add further. The boom is about the oil shale and not shale oil.

There has been some confusion lately about the overall extent of U.S. oil reserves. Some claim that the U.S. has hundreds of billions or even trillions of barrels of oil waiting to be produced if the Obama Administration will simply stop blocking development. So, I thought it might be a good idea to elaborate somewhat on the issue.

Oil production has been increasing in the U.S., primarily driven by expanding production from the Bakken Shale Formation in North Dakota and the Eagle Ford Shale in Texas. The oil that is being produced from these shale formations is sometimes improperly referred to as shale oil. When politicians speak of hundreds of billions or trillions of barrels of U.S. oil, they are most likely talking about the oil shale in the Green River Formation in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. Some have assumed that since we are accessing the shale in North Dakota and Texas, the Green River Formation and its roughly 2 trillion barrels of oil resources will be developed next. But these are very different types of resources.

Setting the Record Straight on U.S. Oil Reserves | Robert Rapier | FINANCIAL SENSE
 
The fracking tecnique does open up new fields. It is used a lot more however in existing fields to further enhance production of holes that are already drilled, and in new holes in those fields.
Depends on how you define “a lot more”. :) It is better to just characterize it as something that is very common. Fracking has been used in wells, new and existing, for several decades. However new techniques and processes have been developed and refined that allow production in formations that just weren’t economically feasible before.

A decade ago this was coal bed methane, for example, where the NG is being extracted from seams of coal. More recently NG from shale, such as the Marcellus Shale formation that extends through large portions of coal country in the Appalachians. Now this shale oil is the next big hit coming up. All of these “unconventional” wells (and frankly, even a serious number of traditional “conventional” holes for some time now) they would never be drilled and put into production without fracking.
 
Last edited:
Just to be clear, shale oil and oil shale are emphatically NOT the same thing. Oil shale which you are talking about refers to the kerogen that is locked up in shale rock which if extracted can then be heated up to release crude oil among other things. Whereas shale oil is a byproduct of exploiting hydrofracking methods in shale deposits which releases light tight oil (LTO) that already exists in the shale but could not previously be accessed.

In other words...

Oil Shale=Kerogen in rock that can be heated up to produce oil.

Shale Oil=Oil that is already present in shale and which innovative extraction methods like hydrofracking can release.
*two thumbs up*

This is a huge, important distinction. Oil shale has some serious production issues yet to overcome, not the least of which is water requirements.
 
Depends on how you define “a lot more”. :) It is better to just characterize it as something that is very common. Fracking has been used in wells, new and existing, for several decades. However new techniques and processes have been developed and refined that allow production in formations that just weren’t economically feasible before.

A decade ago this was coal bed methane, for example, where the NG is being extracted from seams of coal. More recently NG from shale, such as the Marcellus Shale formation that extends through large portions of coal country in the Appalachians. Now this shale oil is the next big hit coming up. All of these “unconventional” wells (and frankly, even a serious number of traditional “conventional” holes for some time now) they would never be drilled and put into production without fracking.

West Virginia and Pennsylvania were experiancing increased drilling activity awhile back. A lot of the holes out here that had already been drilled are or were in the process of being worked over till recently. Hopefully it will pick back.
 
West Virginia and Pennsylvania were experiancing increased drilling activity awhile back. A lot of the holes out here that had already been drilled are or were in the process of being worked over till recently. Hopefully it will pick back.
The NG is there, the drilling will continue. If more holes weren’t going to be drilled my wife wouldn’t be wasting time on working out the regulations for it. ;)

The low prices of NG are keeping it relatively slow, but those low NG are also what are shutting down the coal mines. Coal industry folks like to kick and fuss about it being the EPA that is doing that but really at the core market forces, current and projected because of the NG reserves that are down there, are what are killing coal. So as power generation and such converts over to NG the prices are expected to stabilize. One thing about NG, it is a bitch to store sizable quantities of it. It isn’t very easy to stockpile.
 
That my friends is the trick. I am in the oil industry you would think at the prices we are seeing per barrel that we would be pumping like mad. Not so much everything has pretty much shut down because of the election and hasnt picked up. I am hoping it picks up in the new year. We will see. My customers have to deal with the like of California and the EPA. That is not pleasent or cheap. I sincerly dont know whats going to happen.

I just saw a trailer yesterday for some movie with Matt Damon which is all about the "horror" of fracking. It'll be put into the popular culture that it's all BAD BAD BAD BAD and will kill all of us, and it'll stay locked up tight.
 
I just saw a trailer yesterday for some movie with Matt Damon which is all about the "horror" of fracking. It'll be put into the popular culture that it's all BAD BAD BAD BAD and will kill all of us, and it'll stay locked up tight.

He sounds just like Tererun, both of which have no clue what they are talking about. Your right though we are starting to see it tightening up out here in California. They backed way off on the drilling in my area. They as far as my understanding still have a drilling program for next year but as to the extent of it has as of yet remained to be seen. Ironically the oil just seeps out of the ground naturally out here in some places and has since before people showed up. Go figure.:shrug:
 
I just saw a trailer yesterday for some movie with Matt Damon which is all about the "horror" of fracking. It'll be put into the popular culture that it's all BAD BAD BAD BAD and will kill all of us, and it'll stay locked up tight.
The only actors that’ll ‘kill’ fracking is bad actors in the industry that aren’t kept in line, that are let run amuck. Too many of those, greedy SOBs short cutting and cowboys doing sloppy work, is what’ll screw it up.

Just like drilling in the Gulf.
 
Problem with things like fracking is any ecological damage doesn't end where your land does. If you pollute the water table, and there's farms that share the water table with your mining site, things will go worse for them.

The imminent domain issue is overblown. The process for proving need has changed dramatically since the 60's. Reagan was the last President to try a wholesale charge at it (so much for liberal conspiracy) and met with only limited success.

Fracking in shale is stupid. Like spud says that methodology will result in law suits beyond your wildest dreams under various environmental and health laws dealing with user rights outside the active areas. A more functional and less expensive way is superheat and forced recovery. Shale is fairly porous as rocks go and this method as I understand it gives more bang for the buck. The pluses far outway the minuses when compared to fracking which is designed for more dense rock formations.
 
Chuck, you're off on the public protections role. BP didn't resist one thing in regards to money that was reasonable. They knew they screwed up, they opened the check book to take care of it. And for the most part, partnered with the rest of the responders (Fed, State and local), did a pretty damned good job.

Also, I have worked with BP for many years compared to american companies they are one of the most pro active oil companies out there. Now my work was mostly with small refineries and stations but I seriously doubt BP has one set of rules for one petroleum group and another set for the other.

Chuck you have to remember BP bought out alot of Standard Oil because they were going under with all the law suites over wide spread contamination in the US. Amoco is the one who has the poorest safety and envrionmental record of any oil company in the USA including Exxon and thats saying something.
 
Nothing to be euphoric about. Oil shale requires heavy investment and if the price of oil drops the cost of producing will ezcced the price they could obtain for the oil.

Very good point. Fracking is hugely expensive when compared to return on investment, but there are other means to extract some of the oil
 
If oil shale was viable USA would have exploited it some 50 years ago and till today it's not viable.





http://ec.europa.eu/environment/integration/research/newsalert/pdf/276na3.pdf

It was not economically viable even 20 years ago. Once gas prices increased to the point that the big oil companies thought it would work they went at it, but that was not too long ago either.

I really doubt this will catch on.

Also, for those GW deniers. If there is still so much oil (free) out there why are the oil companines even considering this extreme measure. Sorry oil independance is not answer if your premise is accurate about the amount of free flowing oil under the earth.
 
Fracking in shale is stupid. Like spud says that methodology will result in law suits beyond your wildest dreams under various environmental and health laws dealing with user rights outside the active areas. A more functional and less expensive way is superheat and forced recovery. Shale is fairly porous as rocks go and this method as I understand it gives more bang for the buck. The pluses far outway the minuses when compared to fracking which is designed for more dense rock formations.
You understand incorrectly.

First, read Sherman123’s explanation of Oil Shale vs Shale Oil. ..

Next, geology 101. Shale has high porosity but low permeability. This means lots of space between the particles (can run as high as %30 IIRC) in the rock but those spaces are not linked by channels, so whatever is in the pores does not readily flow out and through the shale. This is in contrast to, say, sandstone that also has high porosity but also has high permeability.

That is why the fracking is required, for either of those. Unless the oil shale is near enough to the surface to strip-mine ala portions of the Canadian Tar Sands, where upon you could alternatively crush it in grinders.
 
Last edited:
I just saw a trailer yesterday for some movie with Matt Damon which is all about the "horror" of fracking. It'll be put into the popular culture that it's all BAD BAD BAD BAD and will kill all of us, and it'll stay locked up tight.
OK, I just watched the trailer. I cringe how it could be handled as the movie plays out but damn, I want to watch it now. I have never worked as a sandman but I have had a similar job in the oilfield, I have faced personal questions like that. I am curious about how the not-Matt Damon guy is handled, too, with that asshattery showmanship of lighting that model farm on fire.
 
Last edited:
Damn browser auto-correct :3oops: and now the EDIT window is closed.

While it is factually true I have never worked as a sandman, what I intended that post to state is that I have never worked as a landman.
 
Also, I have worked with BP for many years compared to american companies they are one of the most pro active oil companies out there. Now my work was mostly with small refineries and stations but I seriously doubt BP has one set of rules for one petroleum group and another set for the other.

Chuck you have to remember BP bought out alot of Standard Oil because they were going under with all the law suites over wide spread contamination in the US. Amoco is the one who has the poorest safety and envrionmental record of any oil company in the USA including Exxon and thats saying something.
http://touch.latimes.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-73324057/
 
The NG is there, the drilling will continue. If more holes weren’t going to be drilled my wife wouldn’t be wasting time on working out the regulations for it. ;)

The low prices of NG are keeping it relatively slow, but those low NG are also what are shutting down the coal mines. Coal industry folks like to kick and fuss about it being the EPA that is doing that but really at the core market forces, current and projected because of the NG reserves that are down there, are what are killing coal. So as power generation and such converts over to NG the prices are expected to stabilize. One thing about NG, it is a bitch to store sizable quantities of it. It isn’t very easy to stockpile.

In this area, SWNY, it is very common to store it in played out NG fields. Storage wells. This is done with huge compressor stations. It's been done for decades. As a matter of fact, for many years we used gas in the winters that was pumped here from Texas during off-heating months and pumped into these old played out wells. Texas gas is odorless, so a chemical has to be added to smell it.
 
My view on "frecking" the Marcellus shale for Natural Gas is an observation of what has happened nearby. The process drills straight down vertically near the Marcellus shale that is approximately 5000 feet below the surface. The steerable drill bit makes a long radius turn and then drills horizontally for as long as a mile in the producing formation that can vary in thickness and then this Marcellus shale is fracked. This opens up and loosens the shale in this formation. This all happens one mile underground and nobody can say where the fracking travels to exactly. If a seam becomes permeable to an acquifer (underground water table), then contamination of that acquifer can occur and mixed methane gases, fracking chemicals, and drilling muds may contaminate that acquifer. At this point and 90% of the time the drillers deny having caused the problem and it is a mile underground. Occasionally, they will accept responsibility, but they know it is difficult to prove that they caused the problem and they can afford legal hardball. Regulations need to be established in all watersheds within miles of drilling, with baseline water reference testing for a benchmark to compare after drilling and fracking water contaminants. The drilling companies claim the driling muds and fracking fluids are proprietary and will not list the chemicals involved to be tested for in baseline references. That is pretty much the problem. Without these regulations and a baseline "it is hard to fight Big Money."
 
My view on "frecking" the Marcellus shale for Natural Gas is an observation of what has happened nearby. The process drills straight down vertically near the Marcellus shale that is approximately 5000 feet below the surface. The steerable drill bit makes a long radius turn and then drills horizontally for as long as a mile in the producing formation that can vary in thickness and then this Marcellus shale is fracked. This opens up and loosens the shale in this formation. This all happens one mile underground and nobody can say where the fracking travels to exactly. If a seam becomes permeable to an acquifer (underground water table), then contamination of that acquifer can occur and mixed methane gases, fracking chemicals, and drilling muds may contaminate that acquifer. At this point and 90% of the time the drillers deny having caused the problem and it is a mile underground. Occasionally, they will accept responsibility, but they know it is difficult to prove that they caused the problem and they can afford legal hardball. Regulations need to be established in all watersheds within miles of drilling, with baseline water reference testing for a benchmark to compare after drilling and fracking water contaminants. The drilling companies claim the driling muds and fracking fluids are proprietary and will not list the chemicals involved to be tested for in baseline references. That is pretty much the problem. Without these regulations and a baseline "it is hard to fight Big Money."

Obtaining the baseline is a minimum that should occur.
 
Nothing to be euphoric about. Oil shale requires heavy investment and if the price of oil drops the cost of producing will ezcced the price they could obtain for the oil.

Is that the case? You're trying to make a negative out of a mere possibility. The break point use to be about $70/barrel, and it is well above that.
 
Is that the case? You're trying to make a negative out of a mere possibility. The break point use to be about $70/barrel, and it is well above that.

I am just looking at all angles. In essence I bet they did a cost-benefit analysis to conclude on the viability.
 
If it is regulated because fracking is truly untenable.. so be it.
But that isn't the case now.

GAS PRICES FACT: Domestic Oil Production Has Soared Under President Obama | ThinkProgress

Here in NY we haven't allowed fracking yet, despite the boom in PA next door, as the Gov/Govt is concerned about the NYC watershed.
There may be some areas like that where it is more problematic, but overall, probably not. To be seen.

France has outlawed Fracking.


Vermont Outlaws Fracking
 
Back
Top Bottom