Udall, Enviros Want Oil Shale Development Slowed Down

E=E Daily ^ | April 18, 2007 | Dan Berman

[SaxxonWoods]

Rep. Mark Udall (D-Colo.) and environmental groups are on the same page when it comes to curbing the Bureau of Land Management's ability to approve commercial oil shale leases next year: They want to revoke the authority. Udall is concerned the current push for oil shale development could mirror the sudden bust when Exxon pulled out of the Colony Shale Oil Project in 1982.

[SaxxonWoods]

According to the BLM there is 800 billion barrels of recoverable oil available in the oil shale formation.

[Edgerunner]

Let’s turn ‘em loose!

[popdonnelly]

How about no, Mark?

[Ole Okie]

Don’t know whether to believe the BLM on recoverable reserves.

But it’s certain that the envirowackos don’t want that beautiful shale disturbed. Wouldn’t be pristine afterwards.

[rellimpank]

—does the BLM tell you how many barrels equivalent energy you would have to expend to get it extracted?

[goldstategop]

Brain-dead liberals oppose an Alberta-style oil sands project in this country because among other things, they hate Big Oil!

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

[Eric in the Ozarks]

Mo Udall, Jimmah Cahtah’s Secretary of the Interior, gave us the federal surface mine law that wiped out an entire industry of small coal mines in the US. Mark is just another one like Uncle Mo.

[jas3]

Mo Udall, Jimmah Cahtah’s Secretary of the Interior, gave us the federal surface mine law that wiped out an entire industry of small coal mines in the US.

Can you expound on that comment please? I remember Jimmah's disasterous energy policies well, but not the surface mine law. What exactly did Udall do?

Thanks

jas3

[Virginia Ridgerunner]

Natural Resources Committee Chairman Nick Rahall (D-W.Va.) and other key Democrats have expressed concern BLM is focusing too much on energy exploration at the expense of conservation, recreation and wildlife.

These idiot 'Rats obviously haven't checked the increasing price of fuel lately. I'm really glad that they have their priorities in order...

[SaxxonWoods]

I don’t think that’s their dept, they just lease land to energy and cattle companies. The viability is an issue for the private sector.
Exxon has been doing some experiments on recovery, and I saw an article last year stating that the process looked profitable as long as oil was at or above $35 a barrel.

I don’t that process has an energy equivalency problem, but it uses a lot of water, which is always a problem in Colorado.

[SaxxonWoods]

“These idiot ‘Rats obviously haven’t checked the increasing price of fuel lately. I’m really glad that they have their priorities in order...”

Right, let’s pay Chavez, the Saudis and Iran instead.

I try to console myself by thinking at least it’s oil in the bank, but we need to explore the extraction process now and know the recovery costs and viability of eventual extraction.

[rellimpank]

—much as applaud Shell for their ongoing experiment, I spent considerable time nearly thirty years ago on engineering studies of oil shale and I can assure you that as a source of energy, we should be progressing with nuclear and coal resources as rapidly as possible—not oil shale—

[SaxxonWoods]

“...we should be progressing with nuclear and coal resources as rapidly as possible—not oil shale—”

I was hoping that people with knowledge of the subject would comment, thank you.

[thackney]

the sudden bust when Exxon pulled out of the Colony Shale Oil Project in 1982

That would be when the Federal Government pulled the plug on the subsidies of an uneconomic process because the political wind changed direction from supporting to viewing it as a waste of dollars. I suspect it will happen eventually with ethanol as well.

[LibLieSlayer]

dims need to be hunted until they are extinct! We don’t even need a bag limit!

LLS

[ModelBreaker]

Wouldn’t be pristine afterwards.

Or "priceless."

[uglybiker]

Gee. You’d think they’d be happy that we were removing toxic chemicals from the biosphere.

[Red Boots]

That would be when the Federal Government pulled the plug on the subsidies of an uneconomic process because the political wind changed direction from supporting to viewing it as a waste of dollars. I suspect it will happen eventually with ethanol as well

You are 100% right about the why, though around here, it's still Exxon's fault, 100 %.

THe environmentalists scream about it everyday, while insisting on the renewable energy subsidies that practically ensure it will happen again. It's nuts.

[SaxxonWoods]

“...political wind changed direction from supporting to viewing it as a waste of dollars. I suspect it will happen eventually with ethanol as well.”

Welcome to another knowledgable Freeper I hoped would show up. Yes, the backlash has begun on ethanol.

[Hiddigeigei]

Thirty years ago Ehrlich and Meadows showed we would run out of key minerals by 2000. The late and truly lamented H. T. Odum had models showing by 2000 or so it would take more energy to pump oil out of the ground than was in the oil. I don’t question your expertise or varacity, but wouldn’t be better to allow a pilot project to determine the advantages and disadvantages (water use included)? If it proves unfeasible, the oil companies will drop it.