Skip to comments.
Shell's Ingenious Approach To Oil Shale Is Pretty Slick
Rocky Mountain News ^
| Saturday, September 3, 2005
| Linda Seebach
Posted on 09/03/2005 1:58:07 PM PDT by Mount Athos
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-60, 61-80, 81-100, 101-104 next last
To: Eagle Eye
I sure hope you are right, but don't expect them to go down with out an awful lot of crying, screaming, and in general having one hissy-fit after another. I've never seen people with such an intense hatred of America and capitalism in all my days. These environmentalists make me want to puke!
To: McGavin999
"We would be totally free of dependence on other countries for oil! That would be incredible."
That would mean quite a legacy for W if the Repubs were smart enough to push it.
62
posted on
09/03/2005 4:09:38 PM PDT
by
BadAndy
(Yes liberals, I DO question your patriotism.)
To: stboz
"I have worked in enviromental matters for thirty years. We passed the point of diminishing returns on environmental protection a long time ago."
Understand. Problem is getting congress and those running for POTUS to understand that.
63
posted on
09/03/2005 4:26:02 PM PDT
by
Marine_Uncle
(Honor must be earned)
To: Marine_Uncle
They don't give a sh*t. All they want is politcal power. I wouldn't piss on them if they were on fire.
64
posted on
09/03/2005 4:28:19 PM PDT
by
stboz
To: Mount Athos
Sounds too complex to be viable to me. Also, it did not give the ratio of energy used to heat vs the energy extracted.
65
posted on
09/03/2005 4:33:43 PM PDT
by
bert
(K.E. ; N.P . The wild winds of fortune will carry us onward)
To: GeorgiaDawg32
In case nobody noticed, the enviro-weenies are out of office, and pro-capitalist, pro-technology Republicans hold all branches of government. They can cry all they want to, but they no longer make laws.
66
posted on
09/03/2005 4:34:00 PM PDT
by
JasonC
To: stboz
"They don't give a sh*t. All they want is politcal power. I wouldn't piss on them if they were on fire."
And there lies the underlining problem. As for pissing on them if they where on fire. Smart move, they might emit truely noxious gases. Hang in there.
67
posted on
09/03/2005 4:35:54 PM PDT
by
Marine_Uncle
(Honor must be earned)
To: Brilliant
The real question is not the time, which is just starting up, but the capital investment required. But that goes into the price calculation, and the claim is the answer is $30. Which is a perfectly believeable figure. German synthetic gas from coal in WW II cost about $60. Naturally, when you can get oil out of the ground in Saudi Arabia for $3, it does not make sense to pay $30 for extraction, if the Saudis meet demand. But then, if they meet demand, the price shouldn't be $70 when the cost is $3. If they don't meet demand, you can cap prices by just putting enough of this online, and paying for supplimental shale oil whenever prices go above the cost.
68
posted on
09/03/2005 4:37:37 PM PDT
by
JasonC
To: Marine_Uncle
69
posted on
09/03/2005 4:38:04 PM PDT
by
stboz
To: Tanniker Smith
Sorry, the corn is spoken for. World food output will feed rising world population through 2060 readily enough, but without much "over" to spare. World energy consumption is half the scale of all photosynthesis at this point, only a tiny fraction of the latter being human controlled agriculture. Farmland adds the most value feeding people not cars, and there are going to be plenty of people to feed.
70
posted on
09/03/2005 4:41:35 PM PDT
by
JasonC
To: oceanagirl
All energy processing consumes vast amounts of energy. Doesn't matter in the least, as long as the balance is positive.
71
posted on
09/03/2005 4:44:47 PM PDT
by
JasonC
To: stboz
"Atlas needs to Shrug."
Might help losen up those sedimentary layers to drip more oil out. Ya. Men/Women of ability are hard to find in this fast talk world.
72
posted on
09/03/2005 4:45:17 PM PDT
by
Marine_Uncle
(Honor must be earned)
To: afraidfortherepublic
The problem is that it cost the Saudis $4 a barrel to get oil out of their deserts. The have a HUGE built in price advantage that shale will never overcome.
73
posted on
09/03/2005 4:47:04 PM PDT
by
ElTianti
To: Marine_Uncle
Not a problem. They can have political power if we get cheap energy, and if we don't they can run checkout at WalMart. They will get the message.
74
posted on
09/03/2005 4:48:34 PM PDT
by
JasonC
To: Eagle Eye
"I'm predicting that Katrina will deal a crippling blow to enviroweenies as well as 99% of anyti-military sentiment." BINGO!
The easily forseen (and thus avoidable) hard knock that always results every time the half-baked ideas of Marxist DemocRATS are allowed to be put into practice, is sadly what it always takes to wake up the wishy-washy "moderates".
75
posted on
09/03/2005 4:49:36 PM PDT
by
Matchett-PI
(Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind'. Albert Einstein)
To: Brian328i
Perhaps that's it. If SOME layer of shale will or can be forced to act as the ''bottom'' of the ''cauldron'', then the deal is sealed.
I think you're probably spot on or very close. I should have thought it through a bit more, evidently.
76
posted on
09/03/2005 4:53:23 PM PDT
by
SAJ
To: ElTianti
The problem is that it cost the Saudis $4 a barrel to get oil out of their deserts. The have a HUGE built in price advantage that shale will never overcome.Therein lies the problem. If it costs them $4/barrel to get out product that zero value to non-raghead, human, non-muslim primates because we won't do business with them.....I can dream can't I? We have no honor. ($1.99/gal? WHERE? TELL ME! PLEEEEASE!!!))
77
posted on
09/03/2005 4:53:29 PM PDT
by
stboz
To: Mount Athos
Isn't this Royal Dutch Shell?
They have got to be on our boycott list.
78
posted on
09/03/2005 4:53:29 PM PDT
by
Doe Eyes
To: BadAndy
Right you are. Another element in cost analysis is the savings in military costs. Without being dependent on foreign oil our entire foreign policy could change. We would not really need a military establishment at the level it now is. I'm pro-military but I would like to see them all home and defending only the U.S. and its' territories. The need to project power would be drastically reduced. The savings would probaably be on the order of 75%. Lots of bucks. Energy independence is, IMHO, a national security matter of the utmost urgency.
79
posted on
09/03/2005 4:53:51 PM PDT
by
11B40
(times change, people don't)
To: bert
80
posted on
09/03/2005 4:54:40 PM PDT
by
SAJ
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-60, 61-80, 81-100, 101-104 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson