DOCSLIB.ORG

TOMCO ENERGY PLC Westhouse Securities Limited

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
TOMCO ENERGY PLC Westhouse Securities Limited THIS DOCUMENT IS IMPORTANT AND REQUIRES YOUR IMMEDIATE ATTENTION. If you are in any doubt about the contents of this document, you should consult a person authorised under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 who specialises in advising on the acquisition of shares and other securities. If you have sold or transferred all your Ordinary Shares in TomCo Energy plc, you should send this document, together with the accompanying form of proxy, to the stockbroker, bank or other agent through whom the sale or transfer was effected, for transmission to the purchaser or transferee. This document is an admission document, which has been drawn up in accordance with the AIM Rules for Companies and has been issued in connection with the application for Admission. This document does not constitute a prospectus for the purposes of Part VI of the Financial Services and Markets Act and a copy of it has not been, and will not be, delivered to the Registrar of Companies in England and Wales. No offer of transferable securities to the public (for the purposes of section 102B of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000) is being made. Application will be made for the share capital to be admitted to trading on AIM. It is expected that Admission will take place on 21 July 2011. It is emphasised that no application has been made, or is being made, for the admission of the securities to the Official List of the UK Listing Authority or to trading on the London Stock Exchange’s market for listed securities. The Ordinary Shares are not dealt in on any regulated market and no application has been or is intended to be made for the Ordinary Shares to be admitted to trading on any such market. AIM is a market designed primarily for emerging or smaller companies to which a higher investment risk tends to be attached than to larger or more established companies. AIM securities are not admitted to the Official List of the United Kingdom Listing Authority. A prospective investor should be aware of the risks of investing in such companies and should make the decision to invest only after careful consideration and, if appropriate, consultation with an independent financial adviser. The AIM Rules are less demanding than those of the Official List. Each AIM company is required pursuant to the AIM Rules for Companies to have a nominated adviser. The nominated adviser is required to make a declaration to the London Stock Exchange on Admission in the form set out in Schedule 2 to the AIM Rules for Nominated Advisers. The London Stock Exchange has not itself examined or approved the contents of this document. TOMCO ENERGY PLC (incorporated in the Isle of Man and registered under the Companies Act 2006 with registered number 6969V) Admission to trading on AIM Nominated Adviser and Broker Westhouse Securities Limited Share capital immediately following Admission Ordinary Shares of 0.5p each Issued and fully paid Amount Number £6,554,479.77 1,310,895,954 THE WHOLE TEXT OF THIS DOCUMENT SHOULD BE READ AND IN PARTICULAR YOUR ATTENTION IS DRAWN TO THE SECTION ENTITLED “RISK FACTORS” SET OUT IN PART II OF THIS DOCUMENT. Westhouse Securities Limited, which is authorised and regulated in the United Kingdom by the Financial Services Authority, is acting as nominated adviser and broker to the Company in connection with the Admission. Its responsibilities as the Company’s nominated adviser under the AIM Rules for Nominated Advisers are owed solely to the London Stock Exchange and are not owed to the Company or to any Director or to any other person in respect of his decision to acquire shares in the Company in reliance on any part of this document (without limiting the statutory rights of any person to whom this document is issued). Westhouse Securities Limited will not be offering advice and will not otherwise be responsible to anyone other than the Company for providing the protections afforded to customers of Westhouse Securities Limited or for providing advice in relation to the contents of this document or any other matter. This document does not constitute an offer to sell or issue, or the solicitation of an offer to buy or subscribe for, Ordinary Shares to any person in any jurisdiction in which such an offer is unlawful. In particular, this document is not for distribution by any means including electronic transmission in or into the United States or in or to any resident of Canada, Australia, Republic of Ireland, Republic of South Africa or Japan, their possessions or territories or to any of their citizens, or to any corporation, partnership or such entity created or organised under their laws. Any such distribution contrary to the above could result in a violation of the laws of such countries. In addition, the Ordinary Shares have not been, and will not be, registered under the US Securities Act of 1933, as amended (Securities Act), or under any state securities laws and may only be offered or sold in offshore transactions as defined in and in accordance with Regulation S promulgated under the Securities Act. Acquirers of the Ordinary Shares may not offer to sell, pledge or otherwise transfer the Ordinary Shares in the United States, or to any U.S. Person as defined in Regulation S under the Securities Act, including resident corporations, or other entities organised under the laws of the United States, or non U.S. branches or agencies of such corporations unless such offer, sale, pledge or transfer is registered under the Securities Act, or an exemption from registration is available. The Company does not currently plan to register the Ordinary Share under the Securities Act. No person has been authorised to give any information or make any representations other than those contained in this document and, if given or made, such information or representations must not be relied upon as having been so authorised. Neither the delivery of this document nor any subscription made pursuant to it will, under any circumstances, create any implication that there has been any change in the affairs of the Company since the date of this document or that the information in it is correct at any time subsequent to its date. This document contains certain forward looking statements that involve risks and uncertainties. All statements other than statements of historical facts contained in this document, including statements regarding the Group’s future financial position, business strategy and plans, business model and approach and objectives of management for future operations, are forward-looking statements. Generally, the forward-looking statements in this document use words like “anticipate”, “believe”, “could”, “estimate”, “expect”, “future”, “intend”, “may”, “opportunity”, “plan”, “potential”, “project”, “seek”, “will” and similar terms. The Group’s actual results could differ materially from those anticipated in the forward looking statements as a result of many factors, including the risks faced by the Group which are described in Part II and elsewhere in this document. Investors are urged to read this entire document carefully before making an investment decision. The forward looking statements in this document are based on the beliefs and assumptions of the Directors and information only as of the date of this document, and the forward looking events discussed in this document might not occur. Therefore, investors should not place any reliance on any forward looking statements. Except as required by law, the Directors undertake no obligation to publicly update any forward looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future earnings, or otherwise. The Company and the Directors whose name appear on page 8 of this document, accept responsibility, individually and collectively, for the information contained in this document and compliance with the AIM rules. To the best of the knowledge and belief of the Company and the Directors (who have taken all reasonable care to ensure that such is the case), the information contained in this document is in accordance with the facts and does not omit anything likely to affect the import of such information. CONTENTS Page EXPECTED TIMETABLE OF PRINCIPAL EVENTS 3 ADMISSION STATISTICS 3 DEFINITIONS 4 DIRECTORS, SECRETARY AND ADVISERS 8 PART I INFORMATION ON THE GROUP 9 1. Introduction 9 2. History and Background 9 3. Strategy 10 4. Oil Shale Industry 11 5. The EcoShale™ In-Capsule Process 12 6. Information on the Oil Shale Leases 13 7. Directors 18 8. Consultancy Agreements 18 9. Trading Record 19 10. Current trading and prospects 19 11. Reasons for Admission 19 12. Corporate governance 19 13. Lock-in Arrangements 20 14. Dividend policy 20 15. The Takeover Code 20 16. Taxation 21 17. Admission, settlement, dealings and CREST 21 18. Further information 21 PART II RISK FACTORS 22 PART III UNAUDITED PROFORMA STATEMENT OF NET ASSETS OF THE GROUP 28 PART IV COMPETENT PERSON’S REPORT 29 PART V EXPERT OPINION 68 A. Report dated 10 September 2010 with an updated evaluation of Red Leaf’s Seep Ridge project as of 31 July 2010 68 B. Letter dated 1 June 2011 with an update on Red Leaf’s Seep Ridge project 68 PART VI ADDITIONAL INFORMATION 93 Appendix Annual reports for the years ended 30 September 2008, 30 September 2009 and 30 September 2010, and unaudited interim financial statement for the 6 months ended 31 March 2011 115 2 EXPECTED TIMETABLE OF PRINCIPAL EVENTS Publication of this document 15 July 2011 Investment Day 18 July 2011 Admission effective and dealings in Ordinary Shares on AIM commence 21 July 2011 ADMISSION
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Alberta Taciuk Process
    UMATAC Industrial Processes A company of Polysius THE ALBERTA TACIUK PROCESS For the Treatment and Recovery of Oil from: x OIL SANDS DEPOSITS x OIL SHALE DEPOSITS x HYDROCARBON CONTAMINATED MATERIALS x SPECIALTY THERMAL RECOVERY PROJECTS ATP Systems Developed and Distributed by: UMATAC Industrial Processes A company of Polysius Calgary, Alberta, Canada UMATAC Industrial Processes A company of Polysius AN INTRODUCTION TO UMATAC INDUSTRIAL PROCESSES AND THE ALBERTA TACIUK PROCESS (ATP) The Alberta Taciuk Process (ATP) is a unique, thermal processing technology applicable to numerous industrial uses for vaporizing and recovering organic constituents that exist in a large range of feed materials. This process was originally developed and exhaustively tested for applicability to treating Alberta oil sands, commencing in 1976. It was later refined for use in oil shales and contaminated wastes treatment options. The uses which have been proven to date include: Extraction and production of oil from oil sands. Extraction and production of oil from oil shales. Remediation of organic, hydrocarbon-bearing wastes or contaminated materials that may be present in soils, sludges and solid wastes. Remediation and recovery of used lubricating oils; and Partial upgrading of heavy oil to produce a pumpable distillate. Other applications that have been tested at small scale include separation of volatile metals, reduction of used rubber products and other solid wastes and reprocessing of off-specification or waste petrochemical products. The flexibility of the ATP for treating these various materials coupled with the ability to meet processing requirements within acceptable product and environmental standards offers potential users an economic and efficient process and equipment package to be considered for industrial uses in the fields of resource development and environmental remediation.
    [Show full text]
  • Distinctive Oil Shale Pyrolysis Behavior in Indirectly Heated Fixed Bed With
    RSC Advances PAPER View Article Online View Journal | View Issue Distinctive oil shale pyrolysis behavior in indirectly heated fixed bed with internals Cite this: RSC Adv.,2017,7, 21467 Lanxin Lin,ab Dengguo Lai,ab Zhen Shi,ab Zhennan Hanab and Guangwen Xu *ac Intrinsic characteristics of oil shale pyrolysis in a fixed bed reactor with internals have been investigated in this study. Mounting particularly designed internals in fixed bed reactor improved shale oil production to up to 90% yield by Fischer assay. Comparing particle characteristics at different radial positions of the reactors with and without internals demonstrated that, inside the particle bed with internals, the product flow was regulated to move from the high-temperature zone (outer) to low-temperature zone (center), which reduced the secondary reactions of released volatiles. Terminating oil shale pyrolysis at central particle bed temperatures of 150, 300, 450, and 550 C showed that the contents of vacuum gas oil and heavy oil in the shale oil produced had increased from 9.63 wt% to 53.29 wt%. The volatile contents of particles in the inner layer of the reactor slightly increased in the early stage of pyrolysis and, in turn, decomposed to form pyrolysis products as the temperature was raised. The adsorption or condensation of liquids on Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported Licence. the surface of particles gradually increased from the outer region to the central region of the reactor due to the regulated product flow direction and low temperatures in the central zone of the reactor causing heavy components to condense. Increasing the degree of pyrolysis was also found to decrease Received 25th February 2017 the alkene, aromatic, and cycloalkane contents in shale oil, but increased those of alkane and Accepted 3rd April 2017 heteroatomic compounds.
    [Show full text]
  • Evaluation of the Potential for Groundwater Transport of Mutagenic Compounds Released by Spent Oil Shale
    Utah State University DigitalCommons@USU Reports Utah Water Research Laboratory January 1983 Evaluation of the Potential for Groundwater Transport of Mutagenic Compounds Released by Spent Oil Shale Robert E. Hinchee V. Dean Adams Jeffrey G. Curtis Alberta J. Seierstad Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/water_rep Part of the Civil and Environmental Engineering Commons, and the Water Resource Management Commons Recommended Citation Hinchee, Robert E.; Adams, V. Dean; Curtis, Jeffrey G.; and Seierstad, Alberta J., "Evaluation of the Potential for Groundwater Transport of Mutagenic Compounds Released by Spent Oil Shale" (1983). Reports. Paper 414. https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/water_rep/414 This Report is brought to you for free and open access by the Utah Water Research Laboratory at DigitalCommons@USU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Reports by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@USU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Evaluation Of The Potential For Groundwater Transport Of Mutagenic Compounds Released By Spent Oil Shale Robert E. Hinchee V. Dean Adams Jeffery G. Curtis Alberta J. Seierstad Utah Water Research Laboratory WATER QUALITY SERIES Utah State University UWRL/Q-83/06 Logan, Utah 84322 July 1983 EVALUATION OF THE POTENTIAL FOR GROUNDWATER TRANSPORT OF MUTAGENIC COMPOUNDS RELEASED BY SPENT OIL SHALE by Robert E. Hinchee V. Dean Adams Jeffery G. Curtis Alberta J. Seierstad The research on which this report is based was financed in part by the U. S. Department of the Interior, as authorized by the Water Research and Development Act of 1978 (P.L. 95-467). Project No. B-210-UTAH, Contract No.
    [Show full text]
  • Assessment of Plans and Progress on US Bureau of Land Management Oil Shale RD&D Leases in the United States Peter M
    Assessment of Plans and Progress on US Bureau of Land Management Oil Shale RD&D Leases in the United States Peter M. Crawford, Christopher Dean, and Jeffrey Stone, INTEK, Inc. James C. Killen, US Department of Energy Purpose This paper describes the original plans, progress and accomplishments, and future plans for nine oil shale research, development and demonstration (RD&D) projects on six existing RD&D leases awarded in 2006 and 2007 by the United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to Shell, Chevron, EGL (now AMSO), and OSEC (now Enefit American, respectively); as well as three pending leases to Exxon, Natural Soda, and AuraSource, that were offered in 2010. The outcomes associated with these projects are expected to have global applicability. I. Background The United States is endowed with more than 6 trillion barrels of oil shale resources, of which between 800 billion and 1.4 trillion barrels of resources, primarily in Colorado, Wyoming, and Utah may be recoverable using known and emerging technologies. (Figure 11) These resources represent the largest and most concentrated oil shale resources in the world. More than 75 percent of these resources are located on Federal lands managed by the Department of the Interior. BLM is responsible for making land use decisions and managing exploration of energy and mineral resource on Federal lands. In 2003, rising oil prices and increasing concerns about the economic costs and security of oil imports gave rise to a BLM oil shale research, development and demonstration (RD&D) program on lands managed by BLM in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming.
    [Show full text]
  • A Review on Technologies for Oil Shale Surface Retort
    YIGENERAL PAN et al., AND PHYSICAL J.Chem.Soc.Pak.,Vol. 34, No.6, 2012 1331 A Review on Technologies for Oil Shale Surface Retort YI PAN*, XIAOMING ZHANG, SHOUHUI LIU, SHUANGCHUN YANG AND NAN REN Liaoning Shihua University, Liaoning Fushun 113001, China, [email protected]* (Received on 10th April 2012, accepted in revised form 3rd September 2012) Summary: In recent years, with the shortage of oil resources and the continuous increase in oil prices, oil shale has seized much more attention. Oil shale is a kind of important unconventional oil and gas resources. Oil shale resources are plentiful according to the proven reserves in places. And shale oil is far richer than crude oil in the world. Technology processing can be divided into two categories: surface retorting and in-situ technology. The process and equipment of surface retorting are more mature, and are still up to now, the main way to produce shale oil from oil shale. According to the variations of the particle size, the surface retorting technologies of oil shale can be notified and classified into two categories such as lump shale process and particulate shale process. The lump shale processes introduced in this article include the Fushun retorting technology, the Kiviter technology and the Petrosix technology; the particulate processes include the Gloter technology, the LR technology, the Tosco-II technology, the ATP (Alberta Taciuk Process) technology and the Enefit-280 technology. After the thorough comparison of these technologies, we can notice that, this article aim is to show off that : the particulate process that is environmentally friendly, with its low cost and high economic returns characteristics, will be the major development trend; Combined technologies of surface retorting technology and other oil producing technology should be developed; the comprehensive utilization of oil shale should be considered during the development of surface retorting technology, meanwhile the process should be harmless to the environment.
    [Show full text]
  • EMD Oil Shale Committee
    EMD Oil Shale Committee 2016 EMD Oil Shale Committee Final Report Alan K. Burnham (Chair), Stanford University May 18, 2016 Vice-Chairs: Dr. Mariela Araujo (Vice-Chair: Industry), Shell International Exploration and Production Dr. Lauren Birgenheier (Vice-Chair: University), University of Utah Dr. Justin E. Birdwell (Vice-Chair: Government), U.S. Geological Survey Advisory Group: Dr. Jeremy Boak, Oklahoma Geological Survey, University of Oklahoma Mr. Ronald C. Johnson, U.S. Geological Survey Special Consultants to the Committee: Robert Kleinberg, Schlumberger-Doll Research Steven Kerr, Millcreek Mining Group Jaanus Purga, Viru Keemia Grupp (VKG) Rikki Hrenko-Browning, Enefit American Oil Indrek Aarna, Eesti Energia Steven Odut, Thyssenkrupp Gary Aho, Sage Geotech Pierre Allix, Total S.A. John Parsons, QER Pty Ltd Gerald Daub, Daub & Associates, Inc. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Progress on oil shale continued around the world, although many projects have been cancelled recently due to low oil prices. New production capacity was in full force in Estonia and China, and plans for production moved forward in Jordan and Utah, although at a slower pace than expected a few years ago. Some companies are re-optimizing their processes and projects to adapt to the current economic situation. The current status is still in flux, and it is too early to know whether we are seeing a repeat of the 1980s or a shorter-term correction. Oil shale continues to be mined and retorted or burned in power plants in Estonia, China and Brazil. Production rose significantly in 2015, but future expansion is uncertain. In Estonia, Viru Keemia Grupp brought a second Petroter plant on line in Q3 of 2014 and a third unit in the Q3 of 2015, 1 bringing their total installed capacity to ~14,000 BOPD (barrels of oil per day).
    [Show full text]
  • EMD Oil Shale Committee
    EMD Oil Shale Committee EMD Oil Shale Committee Annual Report – 2014 Alan Burnham, Chair November 17, 2014 Vice-Chairs: Dr. Lauren Birgenheier (Vice-Chair – University) University of Utah Mr. Ronald C. Johnson (Vice-Chair – Government) U.S. Geological Survey Dr. Mariela Araujo (Vice-Chair – Industry) Shell International Exploration and Production Highlights Progress on oil shale continued in both the United States and around the world, but with a greater sense of urgency in countries with lesser quantities of conventional energy sources. New production capacity was brought on line in Estonia and China, and plans for production this decade moved forward in Jordan. In the U.S., the Utah Division of Water Quality issued a groundwater permit to Red Leaf Resources, which now has the go-ahead to establish a small-scale commercial production system based on the EcoShale process as a joint venture with Total. A challenge by environmental groups was settled by allowing access to groundwater monitoring data. TomCo also applied for permits to establish a commercial operation using the EcoShale process 15 miles from the Red Leaf operation. Enefit made progress getting permits development of its private lands in Utah and successfully resolved a potential environmental roadblock by working with local officials to create a conservation plan for a potentially rare plant. For the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Research, Development, and Demonstration (RD&D) leases, Enefit USA and American Shale Oil LLC continued efforts to demonstrate their oil shale processes, with the goal of conversion to a commercial lease. Natural Soda Holdings Inc. and ExxonMobil received approval of their Plans of Development for the second round of RD&D Leases.
    [Show full text]
  • Case Study of Shale Oil Production Si So Li Chian A
    CASE STUDY OF SHALE OIL PRODUCTION SI SO LI CHIAN A project report submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the award of Bachelor of Engineering (Hons.) Petrochemical Engineering Faculty of Engineering and Green technology Universiti Tunku Abdul Rahman April 2016 ii DECLARATION I hereby declare that this project report is based on my original work except for citations and quotations which have been duly acknowledged. I also declare that it has not been previously and concurrently submitted for any other degree or award at UTAR or other institutions. Signature : Name : Si So Li Chian ID No. : 11AGB04580 Date : iii APPROVAL FOR SUBMISSION I certify that this project report entitled “CASE STUDY OF SHALE OIL PRODUCTION” was prepared by SI SO LI CHIAN has met the required standard for submission in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the award of Bachelor of Engineering (Hons.) Petrochemical at Universiti Tunku Abdul Rahman. Approved by, Signature : Supervisor : Ir. Dr. Low Chong Yu Date : iv The copyright of this report belongs to the author under the terms of the copyright Act 1987 as qualified by Intellectual Property Policy of Universiti Tunku Abdul Rahman. Due acknowledgement shall always be made of the use of any material contained in, or derived from, this report. © 2016, Si So Li Chian. All right reserved. v ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank everyone who had contributed to the successful completion of this project. I would like to express my gratitude to my research supervisor, Ir. Dr. Low Chong Yu for his invaluable advice, guidance, his enormous patience and time for leading me throughout the development of the research.
    [Show full text]
  • Environmental Impact Assessment on Oil Shale Extraction in Central Jordan
    Environmental Impact Assessment on Oil Shale Extraction in Central Jordan Faculty of Geosciences, Geoengineering and Mining Of the Technische Universität Bergakademie Freiberg is Approved this Ph.D. THESIS to attain the academic degree of degree of Doctor rerum naturalium Dr. rer. nat Submitted by Ahmed Abdalla Gharaibeh (Msc.) born on the Aug.13.1971 in Huwwara - Jordan Reviewers: Prof. Dr. habil. Broder J. Merkel. Prof. Dr.-Ing. Mohd. M. Amro. Dr. Ayoup Ghrair. Freiberg, 12.06.2017 Acknowledgment I would like to express my deepest thanks and gratitude to my supervisor; Prof. Dr. habil Broder Merkel (Vice-Rector for Strategy Development TU Bergakademie Freiberg), and, to the co-supervisor Dr. Ayoup Ghrair (Senior Research Scientist at the Royal Scientific Society/Jordan) for their kindness, invaluable guidance, support, fruitful suggestions and their independence oriented supervision, and they taught me not only the scientific research but also the ethics of being a professional scientist. Special thanks are due to Prof. Dr.-Ing. Moh'd M. Amro director of Institute of Drilling and Fluid mining, Prof. Dr. Olaf Elicki Head of department of palaeontology, TU Bergakademie Freiberg, Dr.-Ing. Ahmad Al-Zoubi, and Dr. Ibrahim Al Taj, for their kindness and faithful assistance. Many thanks are due to Dr. Nicolai-Alexeji Kummer for assistance with practical and theoretical advice in the laboratory and for the analysis. Special thanks go to friends and colleagues from Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources (Amman) for their constructive discussions and support during the office and field work, and for their help in drafting some of the figures used in this work: Geol.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 2 – Professor Siirde
    DG INTERNAL POLICIES OF THE UNION Policy Department Economic and Scientific Policy A study on the EU oil shale industry - viewed in the light of the Estonian experience Study (IP/A/ITRE/FWC/2005-60/SC4) IP/A/ITRE/ST/2006-10 DRAFT version This study was requested by the European Parliament's committee on Industry, Research and Energy (ITRE) Only published in English. Authors: Dr Juraj Francu, Dr Barbra Harvie, Dr Ben Laenen, Materials Department Professor Andres Siirde, Professor Mihkel Veiderma, Administrator: Camilla Bursi Policy Department Economy and Science DG Internal Policies European Parliament Rue Wiertz 60 - ATR 00L008 B-1047 Brussels Tel: +32-2-2832233 Fax: +32-2-2846929 E-mail: [email protected] Manuscript completed in March 2007. The opinions expressed in this document do not necessarily represent the official position of the European Parliament. Reproduction and translation for non-commercial purposes are authorised provided the source is acknowledged and the publisher is given prior notice and receives a copy. E-mail: [email protected]. Draft version Contents Page Foreword iii Summary iv 1 Oil shale resources 1 1.1 Introduction 1 1.2 Reserves 2 1.3 Resources 2 1.4 Strategic significance 2 1.5 Global and European resources 3 2 The technology of processing oil shale 7 2.1 Introduction 7 2.2 Mining 7 2.3 Thermal processing of oil shale 8 2.4 Oil shale retorting techniques 9 2.5 Future trends 11 3 The past and future development of oil shales 13 3.1 Introduction 13 3.2 USA 13 3.3 Estonia 15 3.4 Scotland
    [Show full text]
  • Western Oil Shale: Past, Present and • the Jump in Oil Prices Over the Past Several Years Future and Concurrent Rise in the Price of Gasoline Have Alan E
    Utah Economic and Business Review Bureau of Economic and Business Research January/February 2006 University of Utah Volume 66 Numbers 1 & 2 Highlights Western Oil Shale: Past, Present and • The jump in oil prices over the past several years Future and concurrent rise in the price of gasoline have Alan E. Isaacson, Research Analyst refocused attention on oil shale resources in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. Past exploration has indicated that oil shale deposits in these three states Introduction contain 1.5 trillion barrels of oil, compared to an estimated worldwide resource of conventional crude The recent price of crude oil and gasoline has focused attention oil of 2.3 trillion barrels. The majority of these reserves (85 percent) are in Colorado, followed by on energy sources other than crude oil and consequently, oil Utah (10 percent) and Wyoming (5 percent). shale has returned to the public’s attention as potential source • The federal government is encouraging research and development aimed towards producing oil from oil of fuel. Since the beginning of 2000, crude oil has jumped shale. Section 369 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 from less than $30 per barrel to a price currently hovering provides for “Research, Development, and Demonstration” leases of federal land with oil shale around $70 per barrel (Figure 1). Unlike the oil price shocks of deposits and eventual commercial leases should there be sufficient interest. Four companies are the 1970s and 1980s, the price of oil is being driven by currently involved in the Research, Development, increased demand, primarily in Asia, rather than supply and Demonstration program.
    [Show full text]
  • SHALE OIL: POTENTIAL ECONOMIES of LARGE-SCALE PRODUCTION, PRELIMINARY PHASE By
    SHALE OIL: POTENTIAL ECONOMIES OF LARGE-SCALE PRODUCTION, PRELIMINARY PHASE by Malcolm A. Weiss1 Ben C. Ball2 Robert J. Barbera3 Energy Laboratory Report No. MIT-EL 79-012WP Revised: June 1979 1. Deputy Director MIT Energy Laboratory 2. Adjunct Professor of Management and Engineering MIT Energy Laboratory 3. Research Engineer/Lecturer MIT Department of Civil Engineering i ABSTRACT Producing shale oil on a large scale is one of the possible alternatives for reducing dependence of the United States on imported petroleum. Industry is not producing shale oil on a commercial scale now because costs are too high even though industry dissatisfaction is most frequently expressed about "non-economic" barriers: innumerable permits, changing environmental regulations, lease limitations, water rights conflicts, legal challenges, and so on. The overall purpose of this study is to estimate whether improved technology might significantly reduce unit costs for production of shale oil in a planned large-scale industry as contrasted to the case usually contemplated: a small industry evolving slowly on a project-by-project basis. In this preliminary phase of the study, we collected published data on the costs of present shale oil technology and adjusted them to common conditions; these data were assembled to help identify the best targets for cost reduction through improved large-scale technology They show that the total cost of producing upgraded shale oil (i.e. shale oil accpetable as a feed to a petroleum refinery) by surface retorting ranges from about $18 to $28/barrel in late '78 dollars with a 20% chance that the costs would be lower than and 20% higher than that range.
    [Show full text]