Sentences with phrase «if oil shale»

«If oil shale is to be viable on a commercial scale, we must take a common - sense approach that encourages research and development first.

«If oil shale energy does become commercially viable, it will be a huge new water drain,» says Dan Luecke, a Colorado - based hydrologist and Western water consultant.

Not exact matches

If the U.S. develops its oilsands and its oil shale resources in the western states, it will be great news for Canada's energy industry for several reasons, writes Erica Alini.

Analysts estimate that a sanction - free Iran could add another 1 million barrels per day of oil to global supply by 2016, providing a supply cushion if U.S. shale producers end up running out of financing.

U.S. shale oil producers have responded to the oil price collapse so quickly, and with such discipline, that they've shown they are able to turn production on and off as if with a light switch.

I was concerned in several conversations, with me undertaking most of the listening, about the prospect of a sharp oil price tag spike, if the Opec exporters» cartel, getting broken US shale producers by dragging prices down, starts off limiting source as soon as much more.

shale oil may be a bubble but countries like Libya Iraq Iran produce nothing compared to their potential / production capacity + there is always offshore exploration recently Morocco seems to be in the spot light not to mention the arctic sea / north pole especially Russia where a new Koweit is to be found and also south China sea Venezuela's tight oil if all the types of oil are included venezuela must be a heaven with a quarter of global oil reserves with +300 billion barrels more than 260 bbls of Saudi Arabia that can still produce more than 10/11 million barrel / day that it's procucing today.

«While oil could appreciate further if the U.S. withdraws from the 2015 Iran nuclear deal, gains are likely to remain limited by robust production from U.S. shale,» he wrote.

But that then merely throws a lifeline to U.S. shale, which could come back to life if oil prices move closer to, say, $ 60 per barrel.

The US oil industry has slowed down: but EOG Resources, the country's largest shale oil producer, has forecast a return to «double - digit» production growth if the US benchmark, West Texas Intermediate, rises to $ 65 per barrel or higher.

What if an America made energy - independent by the shale revolution decides that the US should no longer guarantee the safety of oil wells in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait?

Fracking is part of a nationwide boom in the production of natural gas, which is a ready replacement for home heating oil and could lessen dependence on foreign fossil fuels if vast underground shales could be hydraulically fractured.

If such developments were to occur elsewhere, either because of shale gas or the advent of a truly global natural gas market, then, according to our analysis, this could have a major impact on the use of different fuels — oil, gas, coal, renewables, and nuclear.»

That has been demonstrated, but if tar sands and shale oil are what's left, it may not give us much of a breather.

If, however, nothing turns up to replace shale, technologies fail to curb oil demand, and supply constraints finally bite, Hubbert may yet be proved broadly right.

If this happens, a combination of even more subsidies to the oil companies and technological breakthroughs could easily enable both tar sands and shale oil - and then we may be really in trouble.

If the Interior Department has its way, exploiting U.S. oil shale is going to become less financially burdensome for oil companies.

For example, if one models the cretaceous period, one should better be able to identify the regions where oil shale will have formed.

It's an initial sign that the oil and gas industry is waking up to the need for far more transparency if shale gas is to play a substantial role in America's energy mix any time soon.

With shale oil and more coal than anybody else that can be turned in to oil, it is not a matter of survival if we have the will to use what we already have.

A more likely scenario if we do nothing is that emissions will continue at a rapid pace as oil from sand and shale plus coal substantially replace oil and natural gas, with the consequence that we will have dug ourselves into a deeper hole in terms of having sufficient resources to reduce emissions sufficiently without major disruption to our society.

I haven't yet sorted out the peer reviewed literature on that, so I don't want to quote any numbers, but shale oil is another of those unconventional petroleum deposits that need to stay in the ground if we are to avoid hitting a trillion tonnes.

If the oil prices stay low and U.S. shale oil extraction becomes uneconomic, maybe oil workers can find a new career in clean energy...

Those guys go around saying the oil just isn't there (and if you blather about biodisel or shale, they will tell you that it takes more energy to get that stuff than you get out of it.)

If our government were truly interested in reducing oil consumption and CO2, why is it that the Bureau of Land Managment is currently behind efforts to support oil shale R&D and that it is considered a resource that can be relied upon when conventional oil reserves are depleted?

3.3 trillion tons of shale is what exists in the United States and if that were converted into oil, it would be the equivalent of 2.5 — 3.5 trillion bbls of oil.

«The take - home message of our study is that if you do an integration of 20 years following the development of the gas, shale gas is worse than conventional gas and is, in fact, worse than coal and worse than oil,» Howarth said.

There could be as much as 2,600 trillion cubic feet (tcf) of natural gas available domestically.63 The U.S. currently uses approximately 22 tcf per year.64 If the shale deposits meet their potential, these finds will certainly help accelerate the retirement of coal power plants and reduce our dependence on foreign oil and our foreign exchange imbalance.

If you consider the total energy supplied to the human system, the biggest energy innovation of the last 20 years is probably the ability to economically recover unconventional petroleum sources like tar sands oil and shale gas.

If you dig through the EIA background reports, mor some of the stuff in OGJ, you can find equivalent analyses for every tight oil shale play in North America, except for the Monterey for reasons previously given.

So if the United States is buying the dirtiest stuff, it also surely will be going after oil in the deepest ocean, the Arctic, and shale deposits; and harvesting coal via mountaintop removal and long — wall mining.

Before I put up some past predictions, let me reiterate that I myself have said that if this low oil price persists for a prolonged period, some shale producers might go bankrupt.

Because the world faces a fossil fuel glut in the future — the torrents of new shale oil and gas that increasingly flood world markets could themselves be swamped by next - generation methane hydrate fuels — Canada's energy resources could depreciate if left to stagnate in the ground.

This, of course, has to be international because it is no good if Canada starts exporting its shale oil to China or Europe, or Australia keeps exporting coal to China.

Chevron and other giant energy companies are demanding a TTIP investment chapter that will allow them to sue governments if environmental or other regulations interfere with their expected future profits by, for example, restricting oil and gas drilling, imposing pollution and oil spill controls or constraining the use of hydraulic fracking techniques to extract natural gas and oil from shale formations.

And if you look at the water, climate change and depletion issues associated with both oil shale and coal production, you'll see that these energy resources do not provide an ounce of energy security... but just prolong the inevitable, while destroying even more of our natural capital.

This means it could be coal, oil shale, tar sands, nukes or renewables, and if you want to move into fantasy land, fusion.

Oil Shale Development a Climate Change + Water Disaster In case you hadn't heard, developing oil shale is just as bad (if not worse in some ways) from an environmental perspective as tar sanOil Shale Development a Climate Change + Water Disaster In case you hadn't heard, developing oil shale is just as bad (if not worse in some ways) from an environmental perspective as tar sanoil shale is just as bad (if not worse in some ways) from an environmental perspective as tar sands.

So if the United States is buying the dirtiest stuff, it also surely will be going after oil in the deepest ocean, the Arctic, and shale deposits; and harvesting coal via mountaintop removal and long - wall mining.

To my knowledge +1000 ppm is achievable if we're driven to extract the currently uneconomically viable hydrocarbon deposits such as tar sands and shale oil.

We need our government to level with the public that alternatives to conventional petroleum, including unconventional resources such as oil sands and oil shale (if it can ever produced economically in the US), all cost more.

Oil and Gas: «anything that you have read... is wrong by a factor of 10 if not 100» «I do expect that we have natural gas from shale that will last us 1000 years.»

If you just want aggregated news about the shale oil industry, it seems you could find easier ways to get it.

If OPEC is unable to continue their tactics and with US shale producing 7 million barrels a day, thus flooding with oversupply, oil could plunge to $ 30 a barrel.