Reddit.com user limukala posted a great compilation of oil shale facts in response to someone making the usual argument that bitumen is the answer to Peak Oil. He (or she?) gave me permission to republish the comments here.
You need to read beyond one wikipedia article apparently. The eroei for conventional oil is only 5:1 in the most technically challenging deep sea platforms. Pumping oil out of say, middle eastern sand provides an EROEI closer to 30:1, and some fields in their heydays had EROEI of 200:1. There was one study conducted by shell that concluded a 3:1 EROEI, but it was highly contested and other studies have found much lower or even negative EROEIs.
Even the shell study which you are obviously referencing wasn't nearly so optimistic about shale oil production as you seem to be. According to an interview of Steve Mut, CEO of their unconventional resources unit: "In response to questions, Steve guesstimated that oil shale production would still be pretty negligible by 2015, but might, if things go really well, get to 5 mbpd by 2030."
5 mbpd is jack squat, especially if demand growth continues, which is absolutely necessary to avoid catastrophic worldwide economic collapse, as our economic system is predicated on constant, exponential growth.
Observers who don't have direct financial stake in the apparent viability of shale oil are less optimistic still. According to geologist Walter Youngquist:
"The average citizen . . . is led to believe that the United States really has no oil supply problem when oil shales hold "recoverable oil" equal to "more than 64 percent of the world's total proven crude oil reserves." Presumably the United States could tap into this great oil reserve at any time. This is not true at all. All attempts to get this "oil" out of shale have failed economically. Furthermore, the "oil" (and, it is not oil as is crude oil, but this is not stated) may be recoverable but the net energy recovered may not equal the energy used to recover it. If oil is "recovered" but at a net energy loss, the operation is a failure. "
Next time try reading more than one wikipedia article. Also, to quote a man who worked extensively attempting to develop commercial shale oil production:
"If you heat this shale to 700 degrees F you will turn this organic carbon (kerogen) into the nastiest, stinkiest, gooiest, pile of oil-like crap that you can imagine. Then if you send it through the gnarliest oil refinery on the planet you can make this s* into transportation fuel. In the mean time you have created all kinds of nasty byproducts, have polluted the air and groundwater of wherever you have extracted it."
Sounds like a great plan to me.
There's more though:
"The rock expands in size upon heating, meaning you can't put it back in the ground, and it is carcinogenic. Two metric tons of rock are required to obtain a barrel of synthetic crude. Try to imagine the hole a 33,400,000,000,000 tonne excavation would make. Hello, China. Try to imagine the mountain of waste rock (carcinogenic) because the rock expands, kind of like popcorn, when it is heated to remove the kerogen, so more has to go back than is removed. Hello, Icarus. Try to imagine the poisons produced by the processing of all that shale if it is done above ground, or all the dead fish if it is done in situ."
Last but not least:
"Three barrels of water are needed per barrel of oil produced, and it is not clear how current users of that water might be persuaded to surrender its use for oil shale."
Especially considering that our shale oil is all located in the arid west, which is already have severe water shortage problems. If we have to start shipping in 15 million barrels per day of water from the coasts, that would send the EROEI even further down the toilet.
Essentially that shell study was a widely optimistic and in some cases blatantly fudged piece of political maneuvering.
http://dieoff.org/page132.htm http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2005/09/oil_shale_retor.html
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Magnoliacom
Furl
