Posted on 07/28/2008 3:47:48 PM PDT by Para-Ord.45
Democrats control Congress, so Americans ought to be asking about their plan to lower gas prices. Let's hope their plan doesn't rest on solar, wind and geothermal, because planes, trains and automobiles don't run on electricity. They run on oil — mostly foreign oil — 97 percent of the time. Let's also hope the Democrats' plan doesn't rest on ethanol to break our dependence on foreign oil, because it can't. More on that later.
Americans ship about $700 billion annually to foreign oil traffickers, and Democrats respond by shutting down America's own energy supplies. Now at the mercy of foreign governments smart enough to produce their own energy, we are selling away our nation's place in the world and funding our aggressive competitors — and even our enemies. Colorado, Wyoming and Utah have more oil in oil shale than OPEC. Everyone seems to know that by now, but here are six things you probably did not know about oil shale.
(Excerpt) Read more at deseretnews.com ...
” 1. Oil shale has a smaller carbon footprint than ethanol. When calculating the carbon emissions of the entire oil-shale process, without the use of carbon-capture technology, its total carbon footprint is about 7 percent larger than gasoline. But a peer-reviewed article in the February issue of Science calculates the entire carbon footprint of ethanol to be 93 percent larger than gasoline. The article reports that even the switchgrass footprint is 50 percent larger than gasoline.
2. Oil shale uses less water than ethanol and no more than gasoline. Increased ethanol production will require more irrigation. A September 2007 article in Southwest Hydrology states that irrigated corn requires more than 780 barrels of water for each barrel of ethanol. The Department of Energy reports that oil shale, for the entire process, including land restoration, requires three barrels of water for every barrel of shale oil, about the same as gasoline.
3. Oil shale uses much less land than either ethanol or gasoline. One acre of corn produces 10 barrels of ethanol. One acre in the oil patch produces about 10,000 barrels of oil. One acre of oil shale produces between 100,000 and 1 million-plus barrels of shale oil! (No, that’s not a typo.) In carbon emissions, water use and wildlife habitat, oil shale is a better answer than ethanol. And when it comes to transportation fuels, ethanol is the only alternative of any real significance.
4. Oil shale has been commercially produced in Brazil for 30 years and in Estonia for 80 years. Technology is not a barrier.
5. Oil shale failed in 1982 due to the price dropping to $10 a barrel, not because of technology or scarcity of water. A lot has changed since then. Time Magazine’s Man of the Year in 1982 was the Computer. Today, we have better technology, better environmental regulations, and OPEC can no longer flood the oil market.
6. Current law gives each governor, before any commercial leases are granted, the right to set the pace of oil-shale development. But Rep. Mark Udall, D-Colo., has put a moratorium on commercial leasing regulations, effectively taking away that right for Utah’s governor. The action produces no additional rights for Colorado but destroys Utah’s right to move forward.”
Right! I have wondered for years why this is not done!
When it comes to oil drilling/shale/whatever, are there any long term environmental issues with what remains? We have been inundated with articles out here in Colorado about the environmental impacts of abandoned gold/silver/etc mines and I have wondered if that is to stir public sentiment against the oil shale extraction. Anyone have any input?
As much as I agree with states rights, I don’t think we can leave offshore drilling and oil shale to the individual states. Some of the most productive areas may drop out and just let the rest of the states carry the burden.
The Price issue not withstanding, we need to resolve the energy independence issue and the balance of payments. We cannot go on issue bonds to purchase oil.
We need a national energy policy..not state energy policies.
bump
Must be coupled with new refineries!
There are constantly three to four ships waiting ($20,000 per day) to unload at the WA refinery.
The refineries are also bottleneck.
True - but do not hold your breath waiting for an answer, because the Democrat party takes its 'marching orders' from extremist environmentalists. They literally DO NOT CARE what you think - Earth First! disagrees with you, and the Democrat party obeys Earth First!, NOT you.
Let's hope their plan doesn't rest on solar, wind and geothermal...
It does, because the Democrat party is controlled by radical, earth-worshipping enviro-nazis.
... because planes, trains and automobiles don't run on electricity.
The Democrat party and the radical environmentalists are not concerned with facts. Period. Suck it up, or take your complaints elsewhere...
Pass this on to asshat Senator Salazar in Colorado...
Has the Supreme Court ruled on whether energy production falls under interstate commerce?
Search out Fort McMurray, Alberta, the heartland of the Athabasca Oil Sands, and Suncor
The find is probably as great as Saudis oil and it is on stream.
Politicians who get in the way of oil-shale, I think you have to recognize that they are serving Opec’s interests. They may dress themselves in green plumage, but its Opec that they serve.
Absolutely.
Also, how much will it cost, per barrel, to extract and process this?
There are constantly three to four ships waiting ($20,000 per day) to unload at the WA refinery.
The refineries are also bottleneck.
I agree.
All these silly, tacky "DRILL!!! DRILL!!! DRILL!!!" mantras indicate the mentality of the posters who seem to think that we just drive up to an oil well and pump 15 gallons of refined 94 octane into our cars.
Furthermore, they seem to think that oil is the only energy source used in this country.
.
Then don't irrigate. If the corn won't grow without adding water, it wasn't meant to grow there. Try some other feedstock.
So far we don't burn coal in our cars. But thats a mistake. As you point out, we have plenty of coal, and coal-to-diesel is mature technology, which is to say its old technology.
There is no reason we shouldn't be building half dozen coal-to-diesel plants right now.
And the second way we can burn coal in our cars is to push electric cars, and to build up our electric grid to service them. Good electrics are still pretty high, but there are some good ones out there now and the prices should start coming down over the next few years.
We are the Saudi Arabia of coal and oil shale, and there is no reason we shouldn't be cutting the Saudis at least out of our picture. We get a million and a half bpd from Saudi, and it wouldn't be that hard to replace. We just have to want to do it, and then do it.
I don’t understand how the moratorium put in place by Colorado’s governor affects leasing, or oil shale operations, in Utah.
June 27, 2007, Rep. Mark Udall (D-CO) offered an amendment (H.Amdt. 448) to the Interior Appropriations bill to prohibit funds in the bill from being used to prepare or publish final regulations regarding a commercial leasing program for oil shale resources on public lands or to conduct an oil shale lease sale. 88% of Democrats voted for the amendment, while 93% of Republicans voted against it.
June 27, 2007, the House passed the Interior Appropriations bill (H.R. 2643) introduced by Rep. Norman Dicks (D-WA), which included a provision to prohibit the use of funds to prepare or publish final regulations regarding a commercial leasing program for oil shale and tar sands resources on public lands or to conduct an oil shale lease sale pursuant to the Energy Policy Act of 2005. 98% of Democrats voted for the bill, while 76% of Republicans voted against it.
Ø On August 4, 2007, the House passed a bill (H.R. 3221) that includes a prohibition on surface occupancy for oil or gas exploration or development purposes in each lease for certain federal lands on the Roan Plateau in Colorado. 96% of Democrats voted for the bill, while 86% of Republicans voted against it.
Ø On December 18, 2007, the House passed a bill (H.R. 6), now current law, that prohibits federal agencies from procuring fuels made from unconventional petroleum sources, aimed at stopping the Defense Department’s plan to procure fuels derived from Canadian oil sands.
BINGO!!!
Ditto for coal-to-liquids, which is economical at less than $50 per barrel. And remember, the United States are the 'Saudi Arabia of coal.'
Technology is not a barrier - the Democrats are the ONLY barrier...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.