Slashdot Mirror
Practical Method for Getting Oil from Oil Shale?
ConfigurationManager writes "An article in the Rocky Mountain News describes how Shell has demonstrated a practical way to extract oil from the shale deposits in Colorado. Since it describes those deposits as "the largest fossil fuel deposits in the world," that could be a very good thing for those of us who are currently paying anywhere from $3 on up for a gallon of regular unleaded."
The article referenced in this Slashdot story is a complete lie, in my opinion. It is certainly possible to do what the article says. However, the cost in energy is greater than the amount of the energy returned.
The situation was the same 50 years ago. There is a huge amount of oil in the shale, but no way has been found to extract the huge amounts of oil efficiently.
The article refers to the "Synfuels debacle". Here's an article about Synfuels called The Great Energy Scam that discusses how scammers take advantage of the lack of technical knowledge of the public. Here's another article: Harsh glare on synfuels hitting home.
In my opinion, this is just another attempt to start a new scam. I think the word farce is too weak. Here's a little about how it works: THE 2005 ENERGY BILL, Helping Corporations, Hurting Western Colorado.
--
Bush lied, many died.
exactly, great idea...
t m)
so you A-Hole will be better at running things than my A-Hole?
Clinton walked OUT on the Keyoto treaty, and he bombed/invaded Iraq and Afganistan (Additionaly Sierra Leone, Kuwait, Somalia, Bosnia, Macedonia, Haiti, Rwanda, Liberia, Central African Republicm, Rwanda, Zaire, Albania, Congo, Gabon, Cambodia, Guinea-Bissau, Kenya, Tanzania, Sudan, Kenya, Yugoslavia, Kosovo, and East Timor. All together 26 countries in 8 years, but don't take my word for it http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/crs/rl30172.h
They're all jerks. And not everthing evil that's happend to the US has happend since 2000.
Republicans aren't evil. Democrats are not out to save the world. So let's end the melodrama and realize that we are all small little actors (even the president) and we all just have to do our part and hope for the best.
oh... and ride bikes.
I would rather be ashes than dust!
Except it is not high fuel prices that cause recesions. For example U.K. fuel prices are much higher than those in the U.S. yet in terms of growth over the last five years the U.K. economy has easily outstripped the U.S. The reality is that economies structually adjust to high fuel prices. The problem is rapid hikes in the price.
That said I have no sympathy whatsoever for Americans and the cost of fuel. If the cars that Americans drove had the same average fuel consumption as those in Europe they would more than meet their Kyoto target tomorrow.
Low gas prices had contributed to these far prices. They wouldnt build retail parks so far away if people couldnt afford to drive there.
Similarly if people had thought of the cost of gas when they bought their house and got their jobs they might be in a better position now.
I know there is no easy solution but I am starting to think it would have been better all round if the US had taxed gas the same way europe does.
Bush and Blair ate my sig!
from $2.49 to $3.19 per gallon in less then 20 hours is what I personally saw happen here in Atlanta, and reports of even 50% increase in same time period, in the atlanta area.
This is not a refinery knock out issue. For part of the reason for reserves is to have a buffer in the event of even worse happening. A buffer that is to be replaced as soon as reasonably possible.
The oil industry runs off of speculation. The US frees up a country rich in oil and our oil prices go up..... What? What are they speculating?
A storm hits the US and some refineries go down, but there are plenty more refineries in the US.
Remember the oil shortage in the US in the 70's, where tankers were stuck in teh Gulf of Mexico with no place to dump their load because all other storage was topped out....
Bush probably only visited New Orleans to see how bad the refineries were and upon realizing its people that run them.... uh decided to get relief efforts going...
Hmmm, someone said we are buying oil from those who want to harm us with terrorism. That they are getting the money they need for such harming, from us.....
So really, all things considered.... oil prices going up can be for political and commercial gain, not public well being.
Currently I will be getting at retirement less then 75% of social security benefits due me (this directly from the social security office), and Bush wanted me and those in my income class to give up some of this to the low class... in essence removing the middle class by converting them to low class.. (those there are those you can take out of the getto, there are also those you cannot take the getto out of --- habitual drain on anything they can get their hands on..)
That Social Security additional screw job was shot down.... So Bush and company found another way and Kantrina.... a timely happenstance useful for an excuse.
But thats not enough....or is it? As all product prices have to account for distribution transportation costs..
I've heard China is being used for an excuse too.
Imagine that, a country as big as China apparently has no natural oil resources of its own... So as its growing it taking the increase in world oil production...
I understand In Iraq, a gallon of gas is 5 cents....
With a profit ratio that can be had from that with neighboring countries (no boat needed) any terrorist should be able to fund their needs... and with a vehicle small then the Bush claimed mobile WMD production trailers found in iraq (funny how I remember getting spam on this very vehicle -- someone wanting to sell mobil production trailers (chemical products) made and sold in the US....)
This is not about oil shortage or even refinery problems.
Its about political and semi-commercial manipulation of economies.
Care to explain how voting for Hillary is going to get us a sane/sensible foreign policy?
By the time she's able to run for President, she'll have been First Lady in the first administration to balance a budget since the 19th century, an eight-year senator with an amazing ability to adapt to the Senate, and someone who won twice in a landslide.
Plus, she won't have a personal vendetta against anyone in the world, won't be governed by neo-conservatives, and while she might be arrogant enough not to admit her mistakes, at least she'll be smart enough to make her own descisions.
4%-5% growth are easily eaten by the net value loss of the dollar.
At least you didn't get modded up for being 'Insightful'. The rest of your posting is laughable; this is the only part that is out and out moronic.
-russ
Don't piss off The Angry Economist