Oil and Water

The notion of producing synthetic oil from the kerogen locked in shale deposits in Colorado and Wyoming has great allure for those looking for a magic bullet to 'end our dependence on foreign oil.' However, there are risks and costs to such production, something the Canadians are learning with their own tar sands operation in Alberta. In Colorado, the green groups are asking questions about the use of water in a shale operation. Now is the time to ask, before production gets underway.

What many folks don't realize is that part of the expense of getting the oil out of the shale entails protecting existing water supplies even as water is used in the process. The risk of contamination is real and Shell is working on a technological solution to protect the aquifers. This is just one more example of why folks should not buy the hype about the trillions of barrels of oil in the shale. The final analysis is not in yet, and Shell committed to a decision in 2010. What will we do if they decide it's too costly to pursue?

ETA:

And of course after I put up this post along comes this article describing the process including graphics. It also describes other pilot projects to get oil out of the shale.

Note this line carefully:

In the high desert near Rifle, Colo., Shell engineers are burying hundreds of steel rods 2,000 feet underground that will heat the shale to 700 degrees Fahrenheit, a temperature at which Teflon melts.

The heat will be applied for the next four years to convert the hydrocarbons from dead plants and plankton, once part of a prehistoric lake, into high-quality crude that is equal parts jet fuel, diesel and naphtha, the main ingredient in gasoline.

It's going to take a while, assuming they are successful, before significant production occurs.