1 posted on
04/21/2005 2:56:46 AM PDT by
RWR8189
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-22 next last
To: RWR8189
GO FOR IT!! USE THAT OIL! I certainly don't want to be dependant on other countries when we have so much oil to tap in here.....the resource is here, let's use it!
2 posted on
04/21/2005 3:05:24 AM PDT by
FeeinTennessee
(Political correctness: dragging us into a pit and making us weak)
To: RWR8189
Very interesting news. What is Congress waiting for? Drill!
3 posted on
04/21/2005 3:07:42 AM PDT by
M. Espinola
(Freedom is never free)
To: RWR8189
You know Rush brought this up a month or so ago...the reason it hasn't been tapped up until now is that it is not cost effective to recover Oil Shale and Tar Sands until the price of oil is over $30 a barrel....now with $50 a barrel prices, things "SHOULD" move forward....but who knows what will finally trigger action on this...perhaps Orrin Hatch pushing it might get the ball rolling?
4 posted on
04/21/2005 3:11:24 AM PDT by
Vaquero
("an armed society is a polite society "( Robert Heinlien).)
To: RWR8189
"Why has Canada moved forward in leaps and bounds, while the United States has yet to take even a baby step in this direction?I think he knows the answer to that question.
5 posted on
04/21/2005 3:13:54 AM PDT by
beyond the sea
(Advanced Directive -- don't step on my blue suede shoes.)
To: RWR8189
I have a gunny sack of this tar sand. It is very fine sand, like from a seashore. The amalgum is only slightly more juicy than road asphalt. A reverse solvent wash cleans it out of the sand quite easily and leaves a heavy tar.
To: RWR8189
Utah sits on huge oil reserve.....called the Public Lands and Parks of the U.S.A. in all states
/U.N.
7 posted on
04/21/2005 3:17:09 AM PDT by
maestro
To: RWR8189
This is an opportunity for the USA to stick it to radical Islam.
9 posted on
04/21/2005 3:28:41 AM PDT by
marvlus
To: RWR8189
"Who would have guessed that in just Colorado and Utah, there is more recoverable oil than in the Middle East?" FWIW, I think we should deplete the oil reserves from the Middle East before we tap into our stash.
12 posted on
04/21/2005 3:41:17 AM PDT by
Drew68
To: RWR8189
Oil shale is a tad difficult to work with. There's a river of it about 10 miles wide extending from the Michigan border to the Ohio in Indiana.
It's also highly radioactive. (This is the stuff they used to make the now banned "black boards" out of).
That particular deposit could supply all our energy needs for many centuries.
13 posted on
04/21/2005 3:48:50 AM PDT by
muawiyah
To: RWR8189
19 posted on
04/21/2005 4:08:50 AM PDT by
dennisw
("Sursum corda")
To: RWR8189
I hope it's nowhere near Arches or Bryce canyon or any of the other nat'l parks.
25 posted on
04/21/2005 4:58:56 AM PDT by
Huck
(One day the lion will lay down with the lamb; Until that day comes, I want America to be the lion.)
To: RWR8189
The article fails to mention that technology to extract that sort of oil makes its more expensive than oil from the middle east. Canada's shale oil is normally 10 dollars more expensive than the market value.
To: RWR8189
Apples and oranges. The Alberta oil sands costs around $13 to produce a barrel of synthetic crude oil whereas it will probably cost three times as much per barrel if using oil shale as the stock.
A better move would be to exponentially increase investment and development of the Alberta oil sands and just utilize or expand existing transcontinental pipelines into US hub markets.
To: RWR8189
This is twenty year old news. Every time oil prices go up, they start talking about shale oil. My advice, don't hold your breath.
The word "shortage" doesn't appear anywhere in the Kingdom dictionary.
36 posted on
04/21/2005 5:35:53 AM PDT by
HisKingdomWillAbolishSinDeath
(Proverbs 10:30 The righteous shall never be removed: but the wicked shall not inhabit the earth.)
To: RWR8189
"Who would have guessed that in just Colorado and Utah, there is more recoverable oil than in the Middle East?" Hatch said. As I recall, I made this very guess (not specific to Colorado/Utah though) just a couple of weeks ago!
46 posted on
04/21/2005 6:10:27 AM PDT by
thoughtomator
(Need quote from supporter)
To: RWR8189
If they were commercially viable, they wouldn't need Congressional action to get developed. Oil Shale and Tar Sands are not the same thing. At 50.00/barrel some tar sands are profitable, not all, no shale oil is.
Some tar sands in Canada are now marginally profitable.
All the major energy companies have had pilot plants to develop more economical recovery techniques running and experimenting for over 50 years.
If you don't mind paying around $100.00/barrel equivilent prices, then we have enough shale oil, tar sands natural gas, coal and tretiarily recoverable petroleum, to supply all our energy needs for the next 400 years.
So9
To: onedoug
To: RWR8189
Unless I'm confused again, in rough numbers this is about 100 years worth of oil at the US rate of use.
83 posted on
04/23/2005 10:05:41 PM PDT by
SunkenCiv
(FR profiled updated Monday, April 11, 2005. Fewer graphics, faster loading.)
To: RWR8189
Keep importing until the Middle East runs dry, then start exporting and bring all our money home, plus some.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-22 next last
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson