[mercy]

What this report does not mention is the amount of hydro-carbons released into the atmosphere in the production of what sounds like a truly massive amount of energy to cook the rock. The enviros will attack this process I'm sure.

[narby]

What this report does not mention is the amount of hydro-carbons released into the atmosphere in the production of what sounds like a truly massive amount of energy to cook the rock.

The energy ratio is 3.5/1. We should use nuclear to provide the energy put into the rock. It's cleaner, abundant, and it can't fuel your car while gasoline can.

There's also plenty of wind energy up there too. I don't know if this process requires energy 24/7. But if it doesn't, power it from the wind on top of the shale via wind.

Wind energy is lousy at powering your house (because it quits), and you can't use it in your car either.

[Smokin' Joe]

The enviros will attack this process I'm sure.

That is a safe bet. They aren't prejudiced, they attack everything.

[scouse]

What this report does not mention is the amount of hydro-carbons released into the atmosphere in the production.

I imagine very few hydro-carbons will be released. It appears Shell has created a fractionating tower in situ, and by doing so will capture all the hydro-Cs as they rise.

[SAJ]

One would suppose that the intent is to put the heating element in the shafts well down below ground level, then cap the shaft. To do otherwise would be very wasteful of some of the lighter fractions and of the NG produced.

And, capping would reduce emissions to practically nil.

[Tymesup]

"The enviros will attack this process I'm sure."

At $3 a gallon, there aren't nearly as many enviros as there used to be.

An acquaintance just announced he is giving up all non-essential driving because of gas prices. There's no way he won't listen to cheap alternatives.