Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Big Dog's Boom Boom Room -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Peter van Steennis who wrote (48578)	9/7/2005 4:03:38 PM
From: Taikun	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 206184

That Shell process is similar to PBG.TO's THAI process. THAI has been proven in the lab but the pilot isn't up and running yet. If it works, THAI will revolutionize oil sands extraction, which currently uses NG to produce steam. Oil sands' consumption of NG and water is already adding to op costs. THAI will use less water and burn OOIP in the SAGD process. Recoverable barrels is also expected to increase form 60% in conventional SAGD to 80-90% petrobank.com petrobank.com

To: Peter van Steennis who wrote (48578)	9/7/2005 5:10:55 PM
From: Elroy Jetson	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 206184

The problem with Oil Shale is a lack of available water where oil shale deposits are located. Water is used: as a hydrogen donor to process the heavier oil from the shale; can be used to steam the rock for in-situ processing; or can be needed for transporting mined shale. The other problem with oil shale is that it puffs up like popcorn when you cook it. This leads to uplift problems when in-situ processing is used, and a disposal problem when above ground processing is used. When Chevron closed their Debeque Colorado facility, they leased their water rights to the city of Las Vegas. This water lease is so profitable, it makes the economics of re-opening the shale project even more doubtful. Shell's project is slightly up-river and they face the same limited water supply. We looked at the costs of building a pipeline to carry water from Texas, or from a desalination plant in Texas. We discovered an odd fact. If you were financially willing to build the water pipeline, it was actually cheaper to build a larger pipeline along side to carry the mined and broken shale oil in a water slurry back to Texas and process it there. In Texas its not a problem disposing of Shale Puffs and the shale processing can be added to an existing refinery saving a couple of billion dollars. So if the price of oil ever justifies building a three foot diameter pipeline next to a three inch pipeline from Texas to Colorado, oil companies will do so. Without significant amounts of water Shell can strip out the light portions of the Shale Oil, leaving 85% or more of the oil in the shale. Their total production will be very small and it will be very costly. .